Talk:Abraham

redirection of "patriarch" word

We need to change the patriarch's directing to Patriarchs (Bible) from entering part to "In Judaism" part, because the term patriarch what is used there is a biblical term, and so quran doesn't accepts bible as true, we need to be naturalized in this part, because this page is general, not judaism and christianity only, because of that now I'm changing it Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Please be mindful of the advice at WP:EW. In general, it’s best to discuss before reverting. We normally ask editors to self-revert in situations like this.

The Quran is a WP:PRIMARY source. We cannot use it to prove what the view of Islam is. We look to scholarly WP:SECONDARY sources that discuss what the Quran means, and then report what those secondary sources say.

If there are scholarly sources that dispute the use of “patriarch” in an Islamic context or say it’s offensive or improper, it would be helpful for us to see those sources so that we can include them in the article.

At a passing glance, this informational website leads me to think that the term is generally not offensive or improper in an Islamic context. Mikewem (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

that's what I said too, writing "patriarch" and make it redirecting to Patriarchs (Bible) won't be neutral in a general page, because of that, my last change is will be better :) Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Is the only issue the link? Would it work to restore the previous wording but just remove the link on the word “patriarch” in the first sentence? Or do you want it to not say patriarch at all in the sentence with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?

Is “common spiritual father” better than “patriarch” in that spot? Mikewem (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem yeah only issue was link Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

icon

I think that icon will be better for infobox Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Why? The current is a noted work of art, looks ok, and any depiction of Abraham we'd consider will be pretty much a man with beard. With so many alts in colour, I don't see why we should use black and white. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

because the art is about casting out Hajar and Ismail, but in Islam we respect them and we believer Ibrahim doesn't do that as casting out, he just moved them, because of the topic of art it's not looks nice at all Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah. Well, it's an understandable pov, but it wasn't clear at all per your OP. I don't think your current choice will be accepted, if you insert it you'll likely get reverted. But there are many alts at Category:Abraham in art and its subcategories, perhaps you can find something you're willing to suggest there. Perhaps stick to works by artists with WP-articles, just a suggestion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Sacrifice of Isaac-Caravaggio (Uffizi) (cropped).jpg isn't too bad IMO, and there's no Hagar in it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it's too wild for an infobox, because it's about sacrifing Ishaq not looks like good for an infobox and an extra in Islam we believing sacrified son was Ishmael/Ismail not Ishaq/Isaac

for describing why I recommended to add picture from Promptuarim Iconum Insigniorum because all of the Abraham/Ibrahım's ancestors' infobox' icon is from Promptuarim Iconum Insignorum, you can see it from Shem, Selah, Eber, Peleg Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

They do, but WP:OTHERCONTENT isn't a strong argument. Neither is "not per Islam", but that doesn't mean that the current WP:LEADIMAGE is the only choice. Either you'll find an alt you and other editors will agree on, or if you're lucky, someone else will. Otherwise, the leadimage remains. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

maybe can this? that's colorful and neutral Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

According to Saint Paul the Apostle Orthodox Monastery in Wisconsin , it's not from 2003 like Commons says, but mid 16th century by Theophanes the Cretan, located at Stavronikita. Not glaringly worse IMO, I wont revert you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I updated Commons, btw. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

thanks you, I'm updated the image Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that "saint" is a deal-breaker here. A large majority of what we have to chose from in these cases are from a culturally Christian background/context, so a Christian pov will be there anyway. That said, if there is a "Jewish" alt somewhere, that could be worth looking at. I came across File:Musée Unterlinden - chapiteau de l'église abbatiale d'Alspach - les Justes dans le sein d'Abraham (XIIe siècle).jpg which I find interesting since it's really old. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Davut, is the use of the word “patriarch” in this file acceptable? Mikewem (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem I don't uploaded or named the File, I don't care File name Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I oppose basically everything about the rationale to change the image.

But namely: we already have the WP:POVFORK article Abraham in Islam. It doesn’t seem correct that both sides of the content fork should center the Islamic perspective. A solution might be either to combine the articles or to rename this one “Abraham (Book of Genesis)”

Also, we give a decent summary of the Islamic perspective at Ishmael in Islam#Ishmael and Hagar taken to Mecca by Abraham and Hagar in Islam#Narrative. The Quran says that Abraham left Ishmael and Hagar in the desert of Mecca on purpose with barely any water. Genesis says that Abraham left Ishmael and Hagar in the desert of Bethlehem on purpose with barely any water. Is it wholly unacceptable to describe them both as acts of casting off? Mikewem (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The Greek icon can hardly be said to center on the Islamic perspective. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The rationale to not use the superior, longstanding picture (and also to disallow anything dealing with the sacrifice of Isaac, the most commonly known story about Abraham (Genesis)) does center the Islamic perspective.

I’m open to the idea that it’s possible to improve the main image, but in my view, it’s not an improvement unless it has a rationale that is based in scholarship, identifiable facts, and NPOV. Mikewem (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:UNCHALLENGED is also a weak argument, and I don't think it's obvious from the WP-pov that Guercino is superior to Theophanes the Cretan. I find both them, Caravaggio and Rembrandt acceptable, and I'm sure there are others. I put a WP:APPNOTE at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Davut Özgür Süküti, if you haven't looked at WP:DR, you might find something that interests you there. Then again, the element you're objecting to about the lead image doesn't even show in the lead image, so maybe it's not worth the effort. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Fwiw, guidance from WP:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the typeof image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic."

Brittanica uses File:Molnár Ábrahám kiköltözése 1850.jpg, though my personal preference is older depictions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is that the narratives of all religious traditions agree that Abraham went from Ur to Canaan. I would think that makes the subject of this painting acceptably NPOV, and I would think Brittanica used it because Brittanica considers this depiction to be acceptably NPOV. Mikewem (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Abraham's Journey from Ur to Canaan, 1850. By József Molnár (1821–1899). Oil painting on canvas.

Sounds reasonable to me, I wont oppose this one as leadimage either. Can be cropped if we want a close-up on the beard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I’m very open to the possibility that the current image is not acceptably NPOV, but I haven’t seen a compelling argument for that yet.

That being said, for a topic like this, I think it’s very prudent to defer to Brittanica and to align with their editorial judgment. And I think that the journey from Ur is likely a more broadly-recognized illustration of Abraham as a topic than this one specific event from the Hagar episode. Mikewem (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The artist seems less interesting, but like I said, I won't oppose it. The most Iconic Abraham-moment is possibly the sacrifice of [take your pick]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree that the most iconic is the sacrifice of [insert name here]. I guess Abraham in Islam gets to use that event as its lead image, but the main page doesn’t. Mikewem (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's Abraham for Everybody. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I think I most support renaming this page to “Abraham (Book of Genesis)” and using Rembrandt for the lead.

The Angel Hinders the Offering of Isaac, by Rembrandt, 1635 (Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg)

Mikewem (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get support for a re-naming, this is how en-WP deals with the Bible-giants. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree there will be no support for a renaming and that the only solution is the status quo massive WP:POVFORK vio. Mikewem (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem but that page is for general traditions about abraham, not only for biblical abraham Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

It does say

This article is about the biblical figure. For the name, see Abraham (name).

at the top of the page. Mikewem (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

but not just about the biblical figure Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The Abraham of this article is always a biblical figure. Even when talked about in Islam, he's a biblical figure. That's where Muslims found him, from a historians perspective anyway, anything can happen in theology. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

If the quranic figure is the biblical figure, then I don’t understand why we have a separate article for the quranic figure. Mikewem (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:SPINOFF. Context matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is bloated by the Abraham cycle section (exclusively covers the Genesis narrative). Maybe it would make sense to spin that section off into its own article in the same way the the Abraham cycle in the Quran was spun off into its own article? That way we avoid the appearance of endorsing any one narrative? Mikewem (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

"The artist seems less interesting" I am not familiar with József Molnár's background, but Wikipedia seems to group him with the painters of Romantic art. A rather popular style to depict nationalist and mystical topics, but there was less of an emphasis on dramatic scenes in comparison to the Baroque painting from previous centuries. Dimadick (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

but in Islam, we believe it's not casting out, because we believe Abraham just moved them not casting out Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Please Make Note of Urfa (modern-day Turkey) As More Likely Site of "Ur-Kasdim."

Analysis in hindsight indicates (with significant scholarly support) that "-Kasdim" was an overcorrection by a later redactor. The city Ur the Torah refers to (also known as Urshu circa 2000 BCE) is Urfa, slightly north of Haran.

Other context that makes Urfa a much more likely candidate for the site of Abraham's birthplace intended by the Torah narrative than the southern Mesopotamian city is discussed at this link. https://www.thetorah.com/article/ur-kasdim-where-is-abrahams-birthplace Urfa (Sanliurfa) is long heralded by regional locals as the site. Other study of Hebrew DNA, history, language, script & mythology also supports the conclusion of ancestors from the area of Ararat migrating southward to Canaan. Urfa is also the best fit for the described setting compared to other speculated alternatives such as Urkesh.

You will observe it is roughly the location of the guess on the map already included on the page.

It would be appropriate to note Urfa as an identified potential alternative so readership is aware of the uncertain nature of the popular "southern Iraq" conception. ~2026-41126-47 (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what "Hebrew DNA" has to do with a mythical character like Abraham. He is not a historical figure. Anyway, the idea that Urfa/Edessa was the birthplace of Abraham is covered in its own section in the city's article: "According to some Jewish and Muslim traditions, Urfa is Ur Kasdim, the hometown of Abraham, the grandfather of Jacob. This identification was disputed by Leonard Woolley, the excavator of the Sumerian city of Ur in 1927 and scholars remain divided on the issue. Urfa is also one of several cities that have traditions associated with Job." Dimadick (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

It has to do with his role as the Hebrews' predecessor and patriarch of course. The Abraham article already cites Iraqi Ur conclusively, this is why I request the addition of context informing readers that it is in dispute. ~2026-41126-47 (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

No form of the word “Iraq” appears in this article. There is one single mention in the article body, and a link to Ur of the Chaldees, where readers can learn about the posited locations of this city of myth, including Urfa.

The infobox says that Ur is in Mesopotamia. Is your position that ancient southeast Turkey is not Mesopotamia? Mikewem (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair but the map in the Abraham cycle shows Babylonian Ur with a solid black line. I guess a graphic edit, removing the line (and perhaps citing that as just one proposed location with an added dot for Sanliurfa) would resolve the issue.. 😇 ~2026-41126-47 (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I’m going to politely invite you to click on the image so it zooms in, then read the map and the map key very carefully.

Here’s a repost of the image:

Abraham's journey to Canaan according to the Book of Genesis.

Mikewem (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Solid red line with "Traditional" route which is not in the book. The false implication is there's a consensus around Babylonian Ur. ~2026-41126-47 (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

This has other sources besides the text of Genesis. And as a scholarly encyclopedia, we have a general distaste for relying solely on biblical text. In order to continue this discussion, please supply a reliable, scholarly source that says that the prevailing view among classical and modern scholars is that Ur of the Chaldees is Urfa. Mikewem (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The image purports to display the route from the "city of myth" in the biblical text. I did not claim Urfa is the prevailing view, but that it has significant scholarly support (particularly because it matches the biblical text much better) thus meriting it as a posited location in the Ur of the Chaldees article as you mentioned. That article already includes several sources under the Upper Mesopotamia subsection which comprises half the Location section; here is an additional I don't think is included yet ~2026-41126-47 (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

That’s an opinion column.. See WP:NEWSOPED

Interestingly, the column links to a blog entry at thetorah.com, which says The most common identification of Ur-Kasdim is with the great city of Ur in southern Mesopotamia and Sir Leonard Woolley (1880‒1960) was the one who established it as standard doctrine.

To continue this discussion, please provide a quote from a reliable source that says that there is an established tradition of significant scholarly support for Urfa. Mikewem (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

https://balkanchina.com/en/blog/mu-de-di-dao-lan-2/ur-of-the-chaldeans-12 From this article, one of "the two main candidates" "a natural and direct line" "has been put forward for centuries as an alternative candidate" though a "minority dissent" view.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/iraq/article/abs/ur-of-the-chaldees-a-problem-of-identification/B3FF8C0DE4AAB5D1C117F051921FD2B6 "A Problem of Identification" "Rawlinson in 1850 first provided assyriological evidence to cast doubt upon the traditional and commonly accepted identification of the city with the site of Urfa"

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5258&context=byusq "Latter-day Saint scholars who have approached this question have pointed out that a northern Syrian-Turkish location for Ur appears more favorable for the Book of Abraham than a southern Mesopotamian location."

https://1000kitap.com/kitap/biblical-turkey-a-guide-to-the-jewish-and-christian-sites-of-asia-minor--108221?sayfa=2 "The consensus of an earlier generation was that the Anatolian Ur was Abraham's Ur.[]This northern Ur is identified with the modern Turkish city of Şanlıurfa" [quote from the book]

Roughly in line with the existing Ur of the Chaldees Wikipedia article. I don't expect to locate stronger additional references. ~2026-41126-47 (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Mother

In the infobox, Abraham's mother is listed as Amathlai, but this is not described anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. As her page states, it's a Talmudic tradition (and it actually lists 2 other traditions of her name). The Talmud is obviously a Jewish text. I wonder if it would be more clear if the infobox said something like: Amathlai, according to Jewish tradition. After all, Abraham is also a Christian and Muslim figure, and implying that she's on the same level of "canonicity" as Terah (who is actually explicitly named in the text of the HB) just feels confusing. Thoughts? Ngarrtjapiri (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It’s unsourced, it doesn’t appear in the body, and there are multiple traditional names. That’s an easy delete, thanks for catching this Mikewem (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

"is not described anywhere in the Hebrew Bible" Who cares? Abraham is a fairy tale character with appearances in the mythological texts of several religions since at least the Hellenistic era. The Biblical texts have no more right to "canonicity" than any other depiction of a mythical figure. The articles on the Sirens, who are no more or less historical than Abraham, has an entire template of parents for them mentioned in surviving literary sources. We could handle old Abe in the same way. Dimadick (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Because putting it there with no clarification, right next to Terah (who is explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and I do think it matters that this is certainly the earliest known and most well-established depiction of Abraham) is in my opinion just confusing and unclear (for instance, someone casually browsing the article might assume that Amathlai is from one of the obscure genealogies in the Book of Chronicles). I don't mind Amathlai being mentioned in the infobox, I just think it should be explicitly stated that her name is a later Talmudic tradition.Ngarrtjapiri (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

If she doesn’t appear in the article, then I oppose the name appearing in the infobox.

My approach to infoboxes in general is that if it requires any kind of note or clarification or qualification or nuance, then, generally, it’s probably not infobox material. Mikewem (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I erred. She was there all along, just with an ipa spelling. The sentence in the article now reads:

Hanan bar Rava taught in Abba Arikha's name that Abraham's mother was named Amatlai bat Karnevo.

I don’t think that’s concrete enough to include in the infobox. Mikewem (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll agree with that. Ngarrtjapiri (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2026 (UTC)