Talk:Sarah

message: We need to shorten the length of the top section.  Right now we have to scroll an entire page before you reach the TOC.--Max  Talk [ (add)] • Contribs •  05:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The top is too long 

message: Can you cite your sources for the last half of this article on the two facts? Seriously, I wish to know these websites and proof that you did not make them up or anything like that. By the way, I have discovered by four reliable websites that "Sarah" is a Hebrew name that is translated as noble or princess. I have proof and I will update this page as soon as I revive the URL again.    Fishdert 14:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Shari'a contains the letter 'Ayin. It has nothing to do with the Hebrew root S-R.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing sources? 

message: One thing you find throughout the wordsmithing of the Pentateuch is parable and allegory. Because this is the book of the law you have to be looking for that relationship. There are over 1 million such on the net. Rktect 13:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you have to cite sources for everything? Vice regent 20:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: My personal opinion on that is that if a Biblical verse is given (ie Gen 3:11), then no, common sense should dictate that, whether the reader agrees with the point being made therein or not, they should still spot the wordplay.  If, however, a reason is given for the wordplay, then the reason must be cited, as that is an opinion (same as any other book) TimothyJacobson (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it necessary to cite sources for the presence of Biblical allegory and wordplay 

message: The first sentance in this section says that 'Abraham' is 'Ibrahim' in the Islamic tradition and then continually refers to the 'Abraham' instead of 'Ibrahim' within the context of the Islamic tradition. This seems wrong, but I do not know enough about the Islamic tradition to say that the change needs to take place.207.69.137.8 15:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Ibrahim' is the Arabic term for Abraham; both words refer to the same person. Since this is the English wikipedia, the word Abraham is preferred, though Ibrahim is mentioned once just to clarify.VR talk 07:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam 

message: What does half-sister mean? I thought Abraham pretended Sarah was his sister. 
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Sarah.html
unsigned comment added by 72.82.3.225 (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case the above was a genuine question, see Half-sister#Half_sibling -TimothyJacobson (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Abraham claimed she was his sister in Genesis 12:13 and again in Genesis 20:2 (because it worked so well the first time...), making it sound like a deception. After King Abimelech had taken her, Abraham says 'And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.', but this it to King Abimelech, so it's unclear whether this is true, or a deception. Apart from what Abraham says, the Bible doesn't say that Sarah is his sister. I, personally, think that Abraham is lying.--Jcvamp (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

text: He was; Rebecca was his cousin, and cousins included among the term "sister" at the time. We may notice that he goes yet farther away, though.--2001:A61:2088:7401:DC50:FB24:B4DD:9256 (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half-sister? 

message: I have cut this section completely.  It was unsourced, comprised of two lines and, I am pretty sure, was referring to a different Sarah TimothyJacobson (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity 

message: Regarding "Speculations on Hindu connections" in Abraham article, maybe it should be worth mentioning that Abraham's wife was Sara and Brahma's wife was Saraswati. Shouldn't Saraswati speculation for Sara find place on this page naturally?
77.46.185.53 (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as per our policies on original research and synthesis. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturally. But, I never intended to propose something original. The very same Notes links 19 and 20 for Abraham can be used for Saraswati too. I just thought "somebody" will do the homework; I am not good in making articles. The link http://www.viewzone.com/abraham.html even says that identity of Abraham and Sara with Brahma and Saraiswati was first pointed out by the "Jesuit missionaries.(Vol. I; p. 387.)" So making the "Hindu connections" entry only for Abraham and not for Saraswati is only half the job done and seems awkward. 77.46.195.88 (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding "Speculations on Hindu connections" section ? 

message: This article is very confusing... is Sarah alledgedly Abraham's WIFE or NIECE? Kateaclysmic (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have I missed a passage in the Bible discussing genetic diseases? Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Don't worry about the signing, you've figured it out now. I've never heard of this idea about genetic diseases - at least I don't think I have, does it link into Creationism in some way? But I think it's irrelevant here anyway. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wife or niece? 

message: :I'm sorry, but this is really getting ludicrous. Now Wikipedia is claiming that the Hebrew word 'Sarah' is based on the same root as the Arabic 'Shariah', supposedly from a Semitic root 'law'. This is false. The Hebrew word "Sarah" means princess and is derived from a root meaning "to rule" or "to set in order" (see Gesenius). The Arabic word "shari'ah" meaning "the revealed law," is derived from shar' "revelation" and contains the guttural letter "Ayin", which is altogether lacking in "Sarah".
:http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sharia
:http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Sarah
:I think it is time for Wikipedia to seriously start contracting experts to write its articles and develop some kind of peer-review process if it is interested in any kind of respectability. It is simply unacceptable that such a high-profile site should be so profusely littered with the most elementary mistakes. 
:—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another spurious Wikipedia etymology 

message: Entering "sarah" in the wikipedia search bar sends me here - wouldn't it make more sense for it to send you to the page for sarah as a given name with it linking to here? It seems a little religiously biased that entering a common given name should send you to a biblical character before giving you a choice of articles called or related to the name. Hanii (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wouldn't it make more sense? 

message: I really do not know why is there a claim that states Hagar is Sara's slave in the Quran that is not mentioned at all nor in Islamic Traditions which leaves to the conclusion that this statement was taken from the bible and shouldn't be kept in a Islamic section Highdeeboy (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: no it does not say in the article that she is a slave, she was the handmaiden. you should read up on the hadiths. hagar was an egyptian princess who was given by her father (the king) to be a handmaiden of sarah, later sarah asked hagar to marry abraham.
What's the difference? A handmaiden would be a slave.86.151.0.212 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Hagar:Slave or Handmaiden?

message: The article claims Sarah as this and that "in the Hebrew Bible and the Quran",
without making mention of her role in the Christian Bible/religion. This
is a particular oversight, because the text clearly draws on sources not
present in the overlap between the Christian and Hebrew Bibles.
I grant that her role in Christianity is comparatively small; however, it is
not so small that discounting her is allowable.
(I purposely do not alter this myself, because disentangling what is present
in the Christian bible from what is present in the Jewish may require considerable knowledge of the texts.)
188.100.194.28 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So we need some non-Biblical sources commenting on this. You could try finding those. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking a Christian perspective 

message: This article inter-weaves material from the Bible and from other sources in its account of the life of Sarah.
I think that most people who are interested in this topic would prefer that the main account on the life of Sarah be given solely based on the Bible, and then maybe there could be other sections in which information from non-Biblical sources are given.
Basically, the whole article needs to be scrapped, and completely re-written.
I'm certainly not up to the task, but I really hope that someone else reading this is.
--75.66.122.223 (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop blanking text you don't approve of. The article should be more than the biblical story. Yes, I've reverted statements such as " In one passage she and Issac are used to symbolize God's new covenant through the grace of Jesus Christ.Galations 4: 21-31" because the statement about the symbolism has no source. You've added similar statements with no sources, just your interpretation of biblical passages. That's what we call original research, see WP:OR. Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion between Biblical sources and Non-Biblical sources  

message: We've got difficult to understand cites in parenthesis, 'ib', etc. We also have as statements of fact at least one claim that should actually be attributed, ie to Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer. I don't know enough about this to fix it. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation mess 

message: The brief description regarding her tomb is listed under the Islam category. I think it should be moved and discussed separately, as her burial is not exclusive to Islamic teaching. It is part of both Judaism and Christianity as well, and should be treated as such. Could someone please tell me how to make this minor rearrangement without the edit being reverted? --69.128.204.110 (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section About the Tomb 

message: : While both Jytdog and I find the birth and death dates in your last version of the infobox to be ill-suited to the page, a third point of view would be useful on this this version of the infobox. tahc chat 18:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then why can't we simply use the :Template:Infobox saint instead of the :Template:Infobox person or even the :Template:Infobox character because Sarah is venerated or honoured in Judaism, Christianity and Islam as a prophet and matriarch. Hushskyliner chat 07:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarah is not called a saint in Judaism or Islam. A great much of Christianity also does not call her a saint, per se, so it would seem to cause more problems than it solves. tahc chat 15:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: The box

message: If no one wishes to volunteer for the task (ideally at least a biblical scholar, which I am not), I’m extremely likely to come back here soon and straighten this article up. As of this date, the overall syntax and style (at least) bear little resemblance to anything encyclopedic. This is fair warning/invitation to all scholars and copy editors. Sugarbat (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sloppy writing