Jump to content

Talk:Abraham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 51.39.141.125 (talk) at 13:21, 11 July 2022 (→Prophets MUST not pictured). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

RfC on infobox type

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus against infobox character, even Tgeorgescu who made the change recognizes this. It's true that consensus in a local RfC wouldn't trump site-wide policy but I don't see evidence that there is such a site-wide policy dictating otherwise. There isn't a clear consensus as to what infobox should be used in this case, but that wasn't really the question asked, and a number of participants didn't really care what the infobox is called, as much as how it presents to readers. Looks like a new infobox for biblical/mythical/legendary characters that has all relevant fields and doesn't have any "in-universe information" banners could get some support if one is created, though of course we won't know for sure until it is created. The current generic infobox seems like it will do until then. --GRuban (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox type has recently been changed to "Infobox character", with Tgeorgescu reasoning that this is the right infobox to use for fictional characters, such as biblical patriarchs. The effect of the change is that some fields are hidden from view, a change in layout and that a banner saying "In-universe information" appears. The undersigned argues that the infobox should be chosen pragmatically, that the hidden fields are relevant and that the "in-universe information"-banner is slightly jarring outside the context of modern fiction.

A similar change has recently been made for other biblical characters: here, here, here, here, here and here. St.nerol (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hint: It was already reported to WP:FTN. Local RfC cannot trump site-wide policy. That means, you're welcome to discuss the issue, but you're not welcome to dodge the application of WP:RNPOV. You're welcome to discuss if preposterous stuff like born c. 2150 BCE died c. 1975 BCE in an age wherein life expectancy at birth was 26 years complies with WP:NPOV, but you're not welcome to dodge the application of WP:NPOV. And you're welcome to discuss why Abraham gets dated to the 22nd-20th century BCE, as William F. Albright stated, instead of the dating advanced by Benjamin Mazar (11th century BCE). Besides WP:RS/AC has been fulfilled that Abraham cannot be considered historical. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for the closer A consensus begins to take shape that infobox character and infobox person are both inappropriate. So, maybe I was wrong changing infobox into infobox character, but infobox person should not be used either for such articles. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "infobox character" since the "in universe" text implies the account is fictional and is thus a violation of WP:NPOV. We should not be taking a position one way or the other. (And indeed as the OP mentions, the template is really designed for modern fiction.) I wonder if we could create a separate template, like Template:infobox biblical character? StAnselm (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further on this, I note that the Agastya article uses Template:Infobox religious biography. StAnselm (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And "not historical" is not the same as "fictional". Some would take the position is that no historical evidence exists or is likely to be found and so we may (or even should) be agnostic as to his existence. As it stands, the article says nothing about "existence", except its inclusion in Category:People whose existence is disputed. StAnselm (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, for me it is exegetical acrobatics to say that a historical person who cannot be shown to be historical isn't a fictional character. There are millions of people who died and left absolutely no trace, but we don't write their biographies. Mutatis mutandis and following a thought of Richard Dawkins, people like me don't have problems with claims like God exists, they have problems with claims like God was born of a virgin, who was herself born of a virgin.
agnostic as to his existence is a valid conclusion in deductive logic, it is not a valid conclusion in epistemology.
All cats are dogs. Are dogs are blue animals. Therefore, all cats are blue animals. is a valid reasoning in deductive logic. But it tells us nothing about the real world. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm: Thanks for pointing out that ahistorical is not the same as fictional. There is another case of infobox character at Isaac which seems to have been there for a longer time. Should a similar discussion be started on the talk page there? ––St.nerol (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just wait until this discussion is finished - it looks like we might be getting a workable solution. StAnselm (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Even if, by some slight chance, this character could be, at some point in the future, traced to someone who really lived, it is highly likely that the narrative changes from that real person to the account in the Hebrew myths have garbled him beyond recognition. Infobox person is right out, for the reasons explained by tgeorgescu. Infobox character is plausible, but maybe we should have several types of infoboxes for legendary and mythological characters, including one for people for whom there is actual meagre historical evidence (not this guy). There is an infobox mythical character, but it is a redirect to infobox character. We could use that one as a compromise, but it would have no practical consequence. Infoboxes do not even tell you what type of infobox they are, until you edit the article and see the name of template used. So, unlike categories, this is only a content question insofar as in which fields the infobox character differs from infobox person. The specific infobox person fields, birth date, birth place, death date, works, and so on, are clearly inapplicable to Abraham unless one randomly picks one of the fantasy dates theologians have invented or puts in a range. But in the last case, that would still add a fantasy element.
Looking at similar cases:
I guess the few experts on mythology here have too much work anyway, but this looks like something that should have clear rules implemented. And the Hebrew mythology should be treated like the others. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, the chance that King Arthur was historical is a million times greater than the family of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob being historical. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose infobox character. It's clear from the infobox parameters that it wasn't designed to be used in this context. It's for fictional characters. I don't believe that Abraham existed, but I don't think it's appropriate to call him a fictional character. As Hob Gadling says, infobox person would also be inappropriate, but that's not what this article uses. It uses a custom infobox designed to display all the relevant information in a neutral way, which is fine. Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you say that born c. 2150 BCE died c. 1975 BCE would be neutral? Just speaking of scholars from the 20th century who accepted Abraham's historicity, that information is not neutral.
Even restricting our input to luminaries of biblical archaeology who accepted Abraham's historicity, he lived from c. 2150 BCE to c. 1975 BCE seems highly contrived. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'd remove the birth and death dates as speculation, but those dates are still displayed in infobox character, so that's beside the point. What infobox character does suppress is the Hebrew rendering of Abraham's name, the reason for his importance, and several important features of the narrative such as the names of his wife and concubines. I don't see how readers are served by removing this information. What I meant by "neutral" is that the present infobox doesn't assert that Abraham was a real person, but nor does it deliberately offend a significant section of the world's population with an "In-universe information" header. Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
a significant section of the world's population are Hindu. Does that apply to Shakuntala, too? Why claim that the Hebrew mythology has to be treated as the real thing, even in respect to those who don't believe in it, while the Hindu mythology gets treated as superstition? tgeorgescu (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good example. The infobox at Shakuntala uses the parameter info-hdr= to prevent the phrase "in-universe information" from displaying. If it's possible to make infobox character look pretty much the same as the current infobox in this article, I've no objection to using it. It's the output I'm concerned about, rather than the technical detail of which infobox we use. Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree completely - it's the output and in particular the "in universe" bit. If that could be suppressed, we would be good to go. But it seems there's no reason to change the infobox type anyway.StAnselm (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with what Dan from A.P. and StAnselm said here. I don't even understand why it is necessary to change the infobox type and mess up how it displays to begin with, and causing all this ruckus.--FeralOink (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Do we have nothing like a "legendary figure" info, and box? It seems like there's a whole swath of people who have been treated more as historical than as mythical, yet whose historical status is in doubt. (Or for whom it's difficult to say how many characteristics an actual historical figure would have to match in order to qualify as the historical so-and-so.) XOR'easter (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with User:StAnselm that Abraham is not fictional, but he isn't a historical character either. As a result the categories in either infobox don't apply - nowhere in the text is he described as Abram ben Terah, the dates 2150-1975 BCE are arbitrary, he is not the founder of Judaism (according to Genesis 1:1 God is the founder of Judaism), and so on. I agree with XOR'easter, a new infobox type is needed, perhaps "Old Testament characters". That would allow us to avoid the synthetic character of the current box and include accurate information on dates, which are AM and tell something about the theological character of the text. Achar Sva (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and support alternative I agree with the comments by User:StAnselm and User:Achar Sva. The fiction template does not make sense here. It is pretty weird to treat historical agnosticism or historical nuetrality with mythicism. Especially since there is no evidence in the sources or traditions that people like Abraham were ever viewed as mythical or pure fiction in the vein of Harry Potter. The same goes for people like Pythagoras - who has an extremely poor record too. Most of the time, when uncertainty emerges it rarely leads to mythicism in research in the ancient world. Most of history is forever lost and only obscurities remain for much of it.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is it possible for us to create a new type of infobox, one that can be used for biblical characters? It would include such info as the book they're found in, dates (use AM for the Torah), family as given in the text (don't go synthesizing), places of birth and death if provided in text - maybe we could discuss what should be included. Achar Sva (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support for using "Infobox character". I would honestly much prefer it if we had a separate infobox for mythical and legendary characters. Since we don't, I find it more reasonable to place Abraham among the likes of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Bugs Bunny rather than even for a moment considering that Jewish mythology has any particular claim to historicity. We already have misguided readers and editors who suggest that guys like Adam, Noah, Moses, and even Daniel (biblical figure) may have existed. The last think we should do is give in to their delusions. And the dates given for Abraham's life seem to have nothing to do with historical records, just biblical archaeologists and their fairy tales. Dimadick (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: But after all, large portions of the Hebrew Bible is historical or contains historical characters. How do you know where to draw the line, exactly? Is everything that has been verified history and everything that has not been or cannot be absolute fiction? –St.nerol (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not surprised that it contains historical characters. We have sources pointing out that the Book of Daniel seems to be a 2nd-century BCE historical novel, and historical fiction tends to use historical characters. The problem is that we have creation myths and origin myths in the Book of Genesis, Josiah's propaganda tales in the Book of Joshua, fictionalized historical figures in the Books of Kings (several of its characters are attested in archaeological sources), and yet we get people who take everything at face value. The Book of Exodus mostly depicts mythical characters, but the locations mentioned seem to be real. I recently had to explain to an editor that searching for evidence for Moses' existence is pointless, but Pi-Ramesses was a real city. Apparently many people seem unfamiliar with the concept of myths using real settings. Dimadick (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose us using infobox character for Old Testament people.(Summoned by bot) As StAnselm says very succinctly, "not historical" is not the same as "fictional" or more precisely, "partly unknown as to what extent historical or mythical" is not the same as "wholly fictional". There is a sliding scale in the Old Testament, and in some ancient history, as to what is probably wholly historical, but with mythical elements attached, through to wholly mythical, with every concievable intermediate stage. Lumping all together as 'fictional character' seems motivated more by the wish to "make a point", than with pragmatic considerations of rendering info. A new userbox type could be the answer, but the proper place to establish the extent of 'historicity', is within the text itself, which will vary, but does not appear to be always clearly done at present, but using an infobox designed for the wholly and explicitly fictional does not seem to be the answer. Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose infobox character. I find it very interesting (as well as baffling) that Tgeorgescu's initial rationale behind this change was to point to WP:RNPOV, because I would have to say that using a fictional character infobox for a religious figure is actually a perfect example of not adhering to a neutral point of view. Wikipedia articles about religious figures are meant to talk about how those people are viewed within the religions that believe in them, without making any definitive statements about whether those religious beliefs happen to be correct or not. To say that Abraham and other Old Testament prophets are fictional characters is to explicitly say that those who believe they are real people are incorrect, which is an NPOV violation. There is also the secondary issue that the character infobox lacks the parameters to include numerous pieces of information that are in the current infobox, but the NPOV issue is my primary reason for this opposition. --Zander251 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose the use of infobox character for religious figures per User:Zander251. Using the infobox for fictional characters on articles like this is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Articles about figures from religions in which millions, or even billions of people believe in should have their own infobox, specifically for religious figures. Rexh17 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It cannot be that what Wikipedia writes depends on what "millions, or even billions" of people believe. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and the beliefs of a mob are not reliable. Reliable sources say Abraham is not historical, and that is the end of it. We should not call him fictional, because myth is slightly different, but leaving it open that he may be real when the consensus among experts is different would be against the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, I can read his words and I know Achar Sva is usually right about Bible scholarship, but I don't understand the difference between unhistorical and mythical. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak OpposeI saw the proposers change when he originally attempted it, but I refrained from commenting because I have very little experience with mainstream biblical scholarship. I would be okay with creating an infobox for etiological myths. However, using the character infobox doesn't sit well with me because many of these biblical stories that mainstream scholars do not believe in have at least a little historical basis, according to William G. Dever, and my limited research. However, St. Anselm makes a better case. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Good luck with this: "It cannot be that what Wikipedia writes depends on what "millions, or even billions" of people believe. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and the beliefs of a mob are not reliable. Reliable sources say Abraham is not historical, and that is the end of it. We should not call him fictional, because myth is slightly different, but leaving it open that he may be real when the consensus among experts is different would be against the rules." Allah is NOT a cartoon character like Donald Duck nor is Abraham nor are the Hindu deities. Wikipedia is going to get a fatwa if you head in this direction. Not from me, but it is obvious to me how ill conceived your current line of thinking is.--FeralOink (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @FeralOink: If you think that Hob is seeking to introduce brand new policy, read this:

    Thank you for your views. Wikipedia has a strong bias in favor of academic sources for history. That is how it should be. If archaeology says Beersheba was founded 6000 years ago and the bible says it was founded 4000 years ago, archaeology wins. Zerotalk 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

    If you want to use the bible as a reliable source of history, present your case at WP:RSN. You won't succeed; it's been tried before. A better use of your time would be to read WP:RS to see how lack of bias is not the same as treating all sources equally. Zerotalk 14:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

    You've been answered, read the answers again please. If we want to write what the Bible says about Jesus, for instance, the Bible is a reliable source -- for what it says. That is not using it as a source for any historical Jesus, if there was one, it is using the Bible as a source for what the Bible says, just as we would use Vanity Fair or Lord of the Rings as a source for what they say. What could be more reliable as a source for what a book says than the book itself? dougweller (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

    Meaning: Wikipedia has already rejected the Bible, Koran, Vedas, etc. as WP:RS for history and archaeology, by precept and example, and this has been consistent since Wikipedia began. See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE for details. Just don't blame me for creating this long-standing policy. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You even quote me saying, We should not call him fictional, because myth is slightly different, and then you argue Allah is NOT a cartoon character like Donald Duck nor is Abraham nor are the Hindu deities as if I had said the exact opposite. Have you no shame? And do you think everybody here is so stupid not to notice this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's enough, Hob Gadling. You said I should feel shame for my comment on this Wikipedia talk page, and suggest that I think "everybody here is stupid"? Since when did you become the morality police or a clergyman, to autocratically make denouncements of shame upon other editors? You need to read this, No personal attacks. In 11 years of editing, including editing on highly contentious articles about Donald Trump and Gain of Function research pertaining to COVID-19, I have never encountered such unwarranted attacks and misattributions of my good faith contributions. I urge you to contribute while remaining calm and refraining from gratuitous insults. I don't feel like Wikilawyering but WP:TENDENTIOUS and a host of other WP:x for x = 1 to infinity could be applied here. Furthermore, I never said that I want to use the bible as a reliable source of history. Let me reiterate that: I do not want to use the bible as a reliable source of history. Rather, I said this, and I reiterate it: "Allah is NOT a cartoon character like Donald Duck nor is Abraham nor are the Hindu deities." I don't know what they are exactly, other than Donald Duck. He IS a cartoon character! Wikipedia does not consider its diverse readers of many faiths (or none at all) to be "ignoramuses" by default. There are many middle grounds, as others have suggested here, besides infobox character and "in-universe information" for religious figures. I concur with users Mx Granger, Johnbod, and StarryGrandma.--FeralOink (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It was DimadIck that mentioned Donald Duck, but you could have corrected me, yet didn't. Also, I commented relatively calmly, and y'all unleashed a torrent of quote refs etc. By the way, dougweller is a nice, reasonable man and you shouldn't quote him in ways that aren't applicable to the current situation. I never said that I want to use the bible or any other religious text or tract as a reliable source for anything in Wikipedia. Rather, I object to gratuitously insulting people of faith by belittling their deities.--FeralOink (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FeralOink: You are really very confused. You had said, Good luck with this: [lengthy quote of what I said] Allah is NOT a cartoon character like Donald Duck nor is Abraham. That wording clearly suggests that you were refuting my quote by pointing Abraham is "NOT a cartoon character". But THAT SENTENCE ACTUALLY AGREED WITH WHAT I SAID.
That contradiction is what I pointed out when I wrote, You even quote me saying. But again, you read only half of what I wrote, and did not even attempt to understand what I said and why I said it. Instead, you got all dramatic again and repeated yourself and talked about this and that, nothing of which addressed the actual point, namely that your previous contribution did not make sense and that you had pretended to refute what I said when you actually agreed with me. I don't think I will respond to your next flap of excitement when you focus on small irrelevant parts of this response and repeat yourself again, it would just distract from the subject.
Do not ping me, I have a watchlist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop insulting me. I am not "really very confused". You clearly refuse to abide by this: No personal attacks. I have not made a single disparaging comment about you, yet you won't stop attacking me. Appropriate behavior would be to explain why you believe I misunderstood you, which is what you kindly did, then leave well enough alone. Instead, you continue to ridicule me, and even SHOUT at me. Try to be more rational and less emotional please?--FeralOink (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose infobox character. Of course we should not say "In-universe information" for a religious figure. Arguments about historicity aside, it just looks ridiculous. If Template:Infobox person and Template:Infobox religious biography are not acceptable, then maybe we need a new infobox template. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose infobox character It just doesn't work as well, as the discussion above shows, & may be here for POV reasons. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and support alternative. When the infobox was changed to use the generic {{infobox}} rather than {{infobox character}}, that change was also reverted as violating site-wide policy. See Special:Diff/1058507826. It seems that the use of infobox character is being used to impose a POV on the article. The issue is not whether Abraham is a historical person. In the absence of reliable sources that conclude that ancestral and religious figures like Abraham play the same role in human history and culture as fictional characters do, there is no reason to impose a fictional classification on Abraham. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra comment: reliable sources Till now nobody mentioned any WP:RS. I will begin by citing https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6687181/ which shows that telling if Mickey Mouse is a god is a serious problem in anthropology. Previous work: https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/Zeus%20Problem.pdf . It is a real problem in archaeology and Bible scholarship, see Maiden, Brett E. (2020). "On Artifacts and Agency". Cognitive Science and Ancient Israelite Religion: New Perspectives on Texts, Artifacts, and Culture. Society for Old Testament Study Monographs. Cambridge University Press. p. 206. ISBN 978-1-108-85925-7. You see, I have produced three WP:RS, my opponents have produced none. They have shown opinion (doxa), I have shown knowledge (episteme). So, whatever they might think about it, the Zeus problem, aka the Mickey Mouse problem is here to stay. It has been reliably published, it has been discussed in more than these three sources, there is no way to undo it. And, yup, sometimes the very existence of the problem is more relevant than its solutions. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain the relevance? I don't have access to the third source, but the first and second don't appear to claim that "secular/fictional counterintuitive agents" and "believable/worshipped counterintuitive agents" are the same thing, only that determining why some counterintuitive agents are in the first category and others are in the second is difficult, with the first source proposing a method by which this can be done, and the second arguing that context biases are also relevant. To me, it seems that these papers support the opposite of your position; the fact that they are trying to define and explain why these categories of counterintuitive agents are different supports the notion that they are different. BilledMammal (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Mickey Mouse problem refers to the difficulty in predicting which supernatural agents are capable of eliciting belief and religious devotion." Mickey M does not elicit belief and devotion. God does. So does (or did) Justin Bieber. I'm not sure where this is taking me...Achar Sva (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I understand now, thank you. However, I disagree with your interpretation, as the sources don't appear to be claiming that it is hard to tell the difference between secular/fictional counterintuitive agents and believable/worshipped counterintuitive agents, only that it is hard to explain the difference at the content bias level. They also seem to all agree that at the context bias level this level of difficulty does not seem to exist. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request To Review Location Of Terah's Death

In the Origins and calling section, the following text is confusing:

Terah, the ninth in descent from Noah, is the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Haran is the father of Lot, who is Abram's nephew; the entire family live in Ur of the Chaldees. Haran dies in his native city, Ur of the Chaldees. Abram marries Sarah (Sarai), who is barren, and on the death of Terah, Abram, Sarai, and Lot depart for Canaan, but settle in a place named Haran, where Terah died at the age of 205.

This seems to say that Terah is in Ur, dies in Ur, and then dies again in Haran. Unless Terah actually does die twice, I think the wording could be improved. I don't know enough about the topic to edit it myself. RisingMaverick (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably supposed to read "on the death of Haran", but that would be redundant anyway since Haran's death has already been mentioned. I'll fix it. Dan from A.P. (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who was aberham in

Be for God spoke to him 2001:5B0:43E0:B849:21F5:92F6:CBBB:30FC (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silly question. Abraham is a fictional character, not a human being. The Book of Genesis is a mythology book, full of folklore. Abraham is no more a historical figure than Paul Bunyan and Little Red Riding Hood. Dimadick (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean his name. It was Abram. Also, the article writes like his existed and that is the consensus. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the bible

It's important that Wikipedia entries not ape the language of the bible by using words like “afflicted” & “dwelled”, quoting the KJV's antiquated syntax, & using “know” in the winking biblical sense. Use plain English.

Prophets MUST not be pictured

please it must be that there is any picture for the Prophets So it is essential to remove Prophet Abraham picture PBUH 51.39.141.125 (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abraham&oldid=1097569570"