This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq 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.
This article 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Bahá'í Faith on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Closing this, as it's been nearly two months. By evaluating the quantity and quality of comments, Option 2 (which is the status quo) has the consensus here.
By my rough reckoning, about four editors support Option 1; about nine editors support Option 2; about five editors support Option 3, and about three editors support Option 4 (no infobox). The numbers, of course, are only part of determining consensus; a few votes had no supporting rationale or a very weak rationale, and I've weighed these appropriately.
As to Option 1, I find that there was consensus that the birth/death dates (even if marked as "circa") are problematic because there are no sources/firm evidence as to these, and they should therefore be excluded.
As to Option 3, I find that there was consensus against using the "Torah, Bible, Quran character language" because (1) the Torah is part of the Hebrew Bible and (2) even if these label was used, many editors favored biblical figure (a term used elsewhere) rather than character, and there were no strong arguments made for the latter. In any case, this is academic because there was no consensus to use this line was at all, particularly in light of the mention of the mention of Abrahamic religions. Additional strong arguments made by editors against specific text in Option 3 were: (3) the use of the word "Affiliation," which is confusing and misleading; and (4) the inapt use of the word "aliases" to describe other names by which the figure is known,
There was consensus to mention Abraham's connections to the three world religions. I find this to be satisfied by the "Influenced: Abrahamic religions" field.
There was not much discussion specifically on the "resting place" and the birth-place/death-place fields. Given this, I won't find consensus to disturb the status quo. If someone wants to continue discussion as to these fields, they are welcome to. As Alephb noted, there is some argument that since the infobox is literary-looking in appearance, listing of these fields wouldn't necessarily endorse the historicity of the cave burial.
There was also not much discussion as to the necessity of an infobox at all. If someone wanted to discuss the issue further, and possibly take this to an more focused Option 2 vs. no infobox "runoff" RfC, then that could be considered. Neutralitytalk 04:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Please say which option you prefer for the Infobox on this article. Jytdog (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
option 3 makes it clear that Abraham is a character in three major religious texts; does not present content as factual that is legendary (as is discussed in the body of the article). This is btw the "epic character" infobox which is the most appropriate infobox for a figure like Abraham where we have no extrabiblical information to nail down facts about them -- we should also use it for similar figures in the abrahamic traditions (adam, eve, cain, abel, etc etc). and if there is no consensus, then option 4. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
option 3 as most compliant with core content policy (specifically, WP:V). Makes it clear that this is a major figure in three world religions and does not attempt to introduce unverifiable and possibly-disputed personal history details. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 19:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Option 3. While information about "influenced religions" would be relevant, I see how it could be hard to include in an infobox about a legendary character. --NoGhost (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
option 2: Option 3 is the worst choice of the three and bad in pointless ways. (1) The Torah is a subset of the Bible. "Torah, Bible, and Quran" is like saying "Granny Smith, Apple, and Pear. It implies that the Torah is not part of the Bible (or that a Granny Smith is not an apple). It should say (a) "figure of the Bible and Quran" or (b) "figure of the Talmud, Bible, and Quran" or (c) nothing. (2) Abraham never joined any particlular Abrahamic religion (at least in that he never join any under the current names for them) and thus did not choose to join all Abrahamic religions. While many would know what is meant, the term is "affiliation" missleading and unnessary. tahcchat 21:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
No vote Unless the options state exactly which infoboxes are being utilized, any one can create an infobox. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Option 1, which has the most details, and also mentions which religions he influenced in a general way. But which infobox is this using? That must be specified. I propose to restart this Rfc with more details, not just screenshots. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Option 2 seems like the best of the three choices to me. The dates in Option 1 are a problem, and Option 3 saying that he's "affiliated" with entities that wouldn't exist until centuries later seems like a very awkward and confusing way of stating the connection between Abraham and Christianity and Islam. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Option 3 is better than the other two because it doesn't insert unsourced claims about birth and death dates, and about where Abraham is buried. That doesn't mean it's perfect. In particular, "Torah, Bible, Quran" strikes me as an odd list. I'd suggest "Bible, Quran," because the word "Torah" in this sense generally refers to a subsection of the Hebrew Bible. Whichever of the three is chosen, there's likely some tweaking that could be done. In particular, I could see the cave of Machpela reference being added to "Option 3" (since it's more of a literary-looking box and wouldn't seem to necessarily endorse historicity of the cave burial). Alephb (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Option 2 is the best of these, but still imperfect. StAnselm (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Option 1- the proximate dates there better follow the WP:BIO and MOS:BIO, and matching the precedent of close comparisons Moses and Ishmael for format and for handling of legendary figures, and portraying the period involved. There is some vafriation on that for other ancient figures, as comparing Atys and Home to Sargon or Pharoh Namer -- as well as variations of handling that each has multiple names. I do like the link to Torah, Bible, and Quran of option 3 (but into chronological order) as well, somewhat less needed than dates for a summary though as it seems kind of obvious. Markbassett (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Option #2 is the best option. Given the beauty of the painting by Rembrandt, you don’t want anything to detract from this feature. Option #2 is better for aesthetic reasons as it is uncluttered and more pleasing to the eye. Option #1 is a bit cluttered looking due to the addition of the dates. In addition, the dates are better introduced in the body of the article where you can provide further elaboration.An added bonus is the article will be easier to maintain. People will not look at the bare date given below the picture and work themselves into fighting mood even before they read the article. This could potentially reduce edit warring. Dean Esmay (talk)
No infobox. Summoned by bot. Given the lack of verifiable information available I think we can dispense with an infobox. Coretheapple (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Note: see my further comment below in the "discussion" section. Coretheapple (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Option 1 As it has the most information, we are an encyclopedia after all, re: comment above regarding date ranges, and religious affiliations. scope_creep (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Option 3 - Mentioning the word character would be a good practice. Disclaimer: The template epic charater was designed by me. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo(talk·contribs·count) 10:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Option 2, if option 1 violates policy.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Option 1, the reason being that religious figures should be 'respected' as real persons according to the faith surrounding them. With greater details, it looks more professional for the page.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Even if Wikipedia changed its reliability policies to accomodate "respecting" religious figures as real persons (and it won't), the dates (in this case) would still be a problem. There's no reliable source placing Abraham's birth at 1800 BCE or his death at 1600 BCE. Depending on which religious tradition one follows, you'll get different dates. For example, when I use the 4000-year (4164 to 164 BC) chronology that many scholars favor as being the Bible's implicit chronology, I get about 2200 BCE as Abraham's birth date.Alephb (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
None Specialized infobox should only mention Abraham (also 'Abram') is the claimed father of all the Abrahamic religions There is no obvious need for anything more. Of the choices, 3 is closest, but "aliases" is a teeny bit absurd. Really. There are zero accurate birth and death records for him, as far as I can tell, and such information in the body of an article need not be in an infobox. Collect (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
This is RfC is not clear. The end result is not the only problem. Wiki code is also relevant. Readers are not the only audience, editors also can see a POV if one template is chosen over another. A picture of the end result is not enough to base a decision.
This a bandage when surgery is required, as it does not solve the problem of two infoboxes in one article. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I get what you are saying about the 2nd infobox way down below, but that is not the dispute that drove this. It is the main infobox at the top. We can deal with the 2nd one later. There is no problem with the "code". Any one of them are standard infoboxes. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree about all of what you said. Short of using Infobox person, I cannot see how the choice in infobox is not POV.
Please click around List of major biblical figures especially Seth, Jacob, Rachel, and Moses. What you are trying to do is a very localized solution when what is needed is a major overhaul to make all these articles consistent. Infobox saint is used in over a dozen articles about biblical-only figures, and that is only the once I found. BCE dates are contained in many many articles with no historical data. This is untenable.
This change can only be defended with WP:OWN. Because, it is completely logical for someone to come from David or Moses or Abimelech (Judges) for whom there is also almost no historical evidence, and add dates. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
One can start big and aim to address all of them, or start small. This is starting small and is fine. Please just !vote or move on. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I thought the whole problem was that we couldn't list the birth place if it was ahistorical. But with the "epic character"/"biblical character" infobox that problem is removed - so there doesn't seem to be any reason why birth place and death place can't be included. (Dates might be a separate issue.) StAnselm (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The epic infobox doesn't have parameters for places nor for dates, and rightly so, since for epic-type people we cannot determine places and dates as facts Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Option 3 is worst choice:
(1) The Torah is a subset of the Bible. "Torah, Bible, and Quran" is like saying "Granny Smith, Apple, and Pear. It implies that the Torah is not part of the Bible (or that a Granny Smith is not an apple). It should say either (a) "figure of the Bible and Quran" or (b) "figure of the Bible, Talmud, and Quran" or (c) nothing. (NB-- the Talmud is not part of Bible, and is "a central text of Rabbinic Judaism" but it has very very few stories on Abraham that are not already part of the Torah. I have ever heard only one, and this article, for example, has none of them. "Bible, Talmud..." or "Talmud, Bible..." may seem more fair to Judaism that just "Bible..." but (IMHO) it is not really needed.)
(2) Abraham never joined any particlular Abrahamic religion. (His faith used none of the current names for them and none of the current formats for them) and thus did not choose to join all Abrahamic religions. While many may know what is meant, the term "affiliation" is missleading and unnessary. A more sensible affiliation would be "Bronze AgeCanaan", etc. tahcchat 21:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that option 3 is not useful. All of them treat Abraham as a real person, when he wasn't - if the heading is "Biblical Character" that works for Abraham, but not for, say Nebuchadnezzar, who was. I don't know how to overcome that.PiCo (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
User:PiCo for somebody who is a historical figure of course option 3 this wouldn't be used for them. Why you would you even think about doing that? Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
You'll have trouble deciding who is and who is not historical. Better to have a format that's inclusive. How about "biblical figure"?PiCo (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I also had proposed "figure of the Bible..." instead of "character..." because it works for both historical and legendary figures. (And between "figure of the Bible..." and "Biblical figure" I also like "Biblical figure" better.) It often unclear what the current oppinon is on who is consider "considered historical, but posiblly legendary", who is "considered legendary, but posiblly historical", and so forth. Even if did have a consistent test-- and we don't-- the views can often change over time. tahcchat 16:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
It is just unscholarly and horrible to offer dates and places for birth and death for somebody legendary, where we have no good evidence for those claims. Abraham's infobox should not look like somebody in the historical era. Argh. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Option 1 As it has the most information, we are an encyclopedia after all, re: comment above regarding date ranges, and religious affiliations. scope_creep (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
My problem with all of these options is that indeed he is a legendary figure but is treated in all the infoboxes as if he was a real historical figure. I !voted "no infobox" on that basis. If there is an infobox on legendary figures from history by all means use it, however. Certainly the current one now in the article is absurd. Coretheapple (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
[[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple] - well, what seems related Ishamael uses Infobox saint, and Moses uses Infobox person. Wider looking at antiquities Hercules or Gilgamesh and Sargon there's use of Infobox deity and Infobox monarch ... Mostly I'm just thinking for put in the era involved, even if it's broad like 'ca. 2nd millenium BC'. Which base infobox is used seems more meh as long as it can convey the information. Markbassett (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
There was a similar discussion at the Moses article (this thread), where I also suggested the possibility to replace dates with links to more information in the article (example), which may also be an option if an infobox with birth/death dates is ultimately used... —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 19:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
!votes like this are exactly why options 3 or 4 are most appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
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.
A new section was just added claiming as fact beliefs apparently borrowed from pseudepigraphic works such as Testament of Abraham and Apocalypse of Abraham. We could certainly have a section on the subject, but it would need to be reworked, possibly even moved to another section about pseudepigraphic books... —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 07:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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.
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.
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:
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)