# Talk:Keturah

I just finished doing a major rewrite of this article, and I've nominated it to be considered for Good Article status.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Keturah/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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. BenLinus1214talk 23:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Comments

For the wife/concubine citations, what version is this? What does it say in other versions? Also, you really need a wife/concubine etymology and translation section. This will help in making the article more comprehensive.
At the end of the first paragraph, why is there an external link to Genesis 25:1-6 and a citation to Genesis 25:1-4?
How is the "origins" section appropriately titled? It's basically just appearances in various religious texts. Please elaborate on Keturah's various appearances instead of just hiding them in the references. In fact, I find the quotes inside of references a bit of a bizarre practice. Why not transfer them into readable prose or quote them instead of making your reader search for elaboration?
In the "descendants" section, please transfer the hidden quotes into readable prose or in-text quotes. Also, the John Gill and Bahá'í Faith things should also be expanded.
Is there any more commentary on Keturah than just whether or not she is the same person as Hagar?
@Richwales: My main problem with this article is that it needs a lot of expansion in order to address the main aspects of the topic. If you need more research time, just tell me and I will fail it for now and you can renominate in the future. For now, I am putting it on hold. BenLinus1214talk 00:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.  I'd like to work on the article for a few days and see if I can improve it to your satisfaction.  As for length, there just doesn't seem to be a huge amount of material about Keturah; she is mentioned in only two places in the Bible, and the rabbinic commentaries all seem to have dwelt on the question of whether she was or was not same person as Hagar — and if she was Hagar, on the significance of her having repented of her unspecified transgressions and having remained celibate until returning to Abraham.  But I'll try to flesh out the text with some more detail.  I'll contact you in the next couple of days.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I've done some work on the article.  Answers to your points above:
I've changed the Biblical citations to use English translations from the 1917 Jewish Publication Society of America version.  I also added a new section ("Relationship of Keturah to Abraham"), in which I give the Hebrew words translated as "wife" and "concubine", along with cites to these words in Strong's Concordance.
The stuff at the end of the first paragraph was another editor's well-intentioned but superfluous recent addition, which I have removed.
I've renamed the "Origins" section to "Sources of information".  I also listed several Jewish commentaries which discuss Keturah (and which are discussed at greater length in the "Keturah and Hagar" section).
I removed most of the quoted texts from the citations.  I've learned from past experiences to include such quotes as a rule, to forestall controversy, but I'll concede in this case that most of them were not truly essential, and/or that the material in question could be successfully incorporated into the article body.
In the "Descendants" section, I added the grandsons' names to the article body (and removed them from quotes in citations).  I moved some material from the John Gill (via Olaudah Equiano) and John Able citation quotes and worked this into the body of the article; I'm really not sure how much more can be added here.
As I said a bit earlier, there really doesn't seem to be very much about Keturah, and the Keturah-vs.-Hagar controversy dominates the commentaries on the two Biblical passages that mention Keturah.
I'm going to bed now.  Let me know what you think about the article now, and then I can work on it some more.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@Richwales: Actually, I like it a lot more now. It's basically as comprehensive as it can be at this point. You can certainly work on it some more if you would like, but I feel quite comfortable passing now, as I believe that it meets the criteria, despite its length. For an article on a very minor Biblical person, it's very good. Neutrality checks out, citations are appropriate, no OR, well-written, etc. Pass. :) BenLinus1214talk 16:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150123062217/https://encrypted.google.com/books?id=WnhSbFFEq0cC&q=keturah to https://encrypted.google.com/books?id=WnhSbFFEq0cC&q=keturah
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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)

@Dartslilly: I think I disagree. P. 10[2] discussed the lack of extra-biblical evidence for anyone before Omir and mentions Abraham. I don't see a need to mention Keturah specifically. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: The removed content stated: "One school of thought among some scholars has been to dispute the historical veracity of biblical accounts" - the source says "no clear extrabiblical evidence" - is the absence of evidence, evidence of absence? I don't think so. It's still not about Keturah, however, who is not an ancestor of Israel. The context is inferred from book's title Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. Dartslilly (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Of course absence of evidence is evidence of absence depending on the context. There are a lot of times in archaeology where you can be certain, other times pretty certain, that something wasn't at a particular site. I'm just making a point with that, not trying to use it here. Pages 10 and 41-42 are clearly disputing the existence of Abraham and surely no Abraham means no Keturah?
Our article on Abraham says "The Abraham story cannot be definitively related to any specific time, and it is widely agreed that the patriarchal age, along with the exodus and the period of the judges, is a late literary construct that does not relate to any period in actual history.{{sfn|McNutt|1999|pp=41–42}} A common hypothesis among scholars is that it was composed in the early Persian period (late 6th century BCE) as a result of tensions between Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and traced their right to the land through their "father Abraham", and the returning exiles who based their counter-claim on Moses and the Exodus tradition.{{sfn|Ska|2006|pp=227–228, 260}}" There's a bit more like that but you get the drift. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe a brief discussion could be beneficial based on the only book I was able to find discussing Keturah's historicity carried the strong implication that Keturah was an ancestor of Heracles. Dartslilly (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The Heracles angle alone would be a reason to not discuss it, ignoring the potential issues of WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL.  Try sticking to professionally-published mainstream-academic sources, such as books from university presses by professors in relevant fields.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)