Talk:Isaac

GA Reassessment

Isaac

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This 2007 Good Article has some sourcing problems (unsourced statements, possibly questionable sources) and an unclear citation style. Additionally, there may be some prose problems, such as MOS:PUFFERY. Spinixster (chat!) 09:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

My first observation is that the infobox is a disaster zone. There also appears to be far too much purely religious primary source material, while much of the other sourcing is exceptionally dated. The burial place section references a single mid-19th century work, which the etymology section is from the first decade of the 20th century. I could go on. As mentioned by the nominator, not an impressive sourcing picture. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Iskandar323 but would add that there are a few Citation Needed tags or Citations missing completely. The content also fails the criterion to be "broad", as it does not even mention the dispute if Isaac or Ismael was supposed to be sacrificed in Islamic tradition. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Delist lacking citations, and there should be more use of reliable, independent, secondary sources. I can't comment on whether it fails the broardness criterion. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2024 (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.

Origin of Isaac

@VenusFeuerFalle: you have claimed that Isaac does not originate in the Hebrew Bible otherwise known as the Old Testament. If you have a source suggesting otherwise, please post it here so we can discuss before deleting that from the article. This is a bold claim and needs discussion first. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Greetings,

As far as I recall, it was more or less about the phrasing, than the statement itself. As per common knowledge, the Torah/Hebrew Bible/Old Testament is not a pre-historical document, but a collection of Canaanite myths to unite the different tribes across the Mesopotamian region. Accordingly, the story cannot be traced back to the Old Testament, simply because when the stories within Genesis (which is also a fusion of different stories, hence multiple creation stories) have been written, there was no Torah/Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. At least from where I am from, it is part of the public education to learn a historical and critical approach to sacred scriptures. Maybe this is not universal. This would require me to actually find a source.

But then, there is enough sourced material on the corresponding main-articles. According to Book of Genesis even Bible scholars do not believe the Book to be historical. Therefore, it seems to be common knowledge that the Torah is, like every other religions scripture (New Testament, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, etc.), only a collection of pre-existing myths. Accordingly, the story of Abraham has not the origins in the Torah, but the Torah has its origins in polytheistic/animistic myths. Hope this helps

with kind regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)