Talk:Keturah

message: 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)
thread_title:  Major rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Keturah as Hagar 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Easton's Bible Dictionary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources of Information 

message: 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 
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified