Talk:Hagar

Hagar(In Arabic litrature)

There is a misconception in this text. In the heading "Hagar in Islamic traditions"...the text narrates...Hagar bought an Egyptian wife for Ishmael and Arabs are their descendants....

First: I am not sure that Ishmael married an Egyptian woman. May be he had done that but there is no reference to that in Arabic literature...probably he may have married more than one wife; some of them were from the Arabic tribes that settled in the place including Jorham.

second (and I am sure of that): Arabs existed long before Ishmael...they originated mainly from the old kingdom of Sheba (the lands of present day Yemen and Oman) and other older nations who had a kingdom called "Ad"...their tribes used to navigate surrounding lands in nomadic activities and it was the tribe of "Jorham" that first located and settled around Hagar and her son. Ishmael as "the son of Abraham" was from Canaan, however through mixed breed with Arab tribes he established a new breed called "The Arabized Arabs" who are different than those of the called "The Arabian Arabs".

ACCORDING TO THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT, WHICH PROPHET MOHAMMED MAY HAVE HAD KNOWLEDGE OF MERELY BECAUSE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES MAY HAVE WANDERED OR SETTLED IN HIS AREA AND HE MAY HAVE HEARD THEIR STORIES OF THE PATRIARCHS, HAGAR DID SELECT AN EGYPTIAN WIFE FOR HER SON ISHMAEL, ISHMAEL'S EGYPTIAN WIFE IS VERY ACCURATE:

GENESIS: 20 + 21 "And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an aarcher. And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a awife out of the land of Egypt."

According to this Biblical Text (non-Quranic) - Ishmael indeed received an Egyptian Wife at the hand of his mother Hagar - after Sarah, Abraham's wife threw them out into the desert they somehow acquired a home and Ishmael grew up to be an Archer by profession.

Inhumane Treatment

" Later struggles may have projected the (pre-exilic) troubles with the Arab nomads to the time of Abraham and his sons. Ammon, Esau, Moab, and Canaan are just few examples when later issues gave birth to supposedly old stories."

This statement assumes that the older stories are not what they claim to be. You might claim for example that the Crusades were an old story created to explain today's tensions. I think the text merits acknowledgement of that is true except where it is proven untrue.

Biblical Scriptures list Hagar and Ishmael

Gen. 16: 1, 3-4, 8, 15-16 1 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. 3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. 4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. 8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. 15 And Hagar abare Abram a son: and Abram called his son’s name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael. 16 And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram. Gen. 21: 9, 14, 17 9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. 14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba. 17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the aangel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. Gen. 25: 12 12 Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s handmaid, bare unto Abraham: Gen. 25: 9, 12-13, 16-17 9 And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of bMachpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre; 12 Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s handmaid, cbare unto Abraham: 13 And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebajoth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam, 16 These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations. 17 And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, an hundred and thirty and seven years: and he gave up the ghost and died; and was gathered unto his people. Gen. 17: 18, 20, 23, 25-26 18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. 23 And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and acircumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. 25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 26 In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. GENESIS: 20 And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer. 21 And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a awife out of the land of Egypt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.76.57 (talk • contribs)

Sarah:Jealousy or Kindness?

Id really appreciate it if someone can change some things in the Islamic article and state that the reason why Hagar and Ishmael were taken away was because God ordered that to Abraham for certain reasons it had nothing to do with Sarah because the Quran portrays Sarah as a good wife who believed in Abraham and was rewarded with a promise that she shall live to give birth and also live to see her grandchild.Obviously god doesn't give such a reward to a wife that asks her husband to throw his other wife into a place where mankind cant live so can someone please remove any mention that Sarah had hatred towards Hagar in the Islamic section of this article,Thank you

011.071 YUSUFALI: And his wife was standing (there), and she laughed: But we gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob.

011.072 YUSUFALI: She said: "Alas for me! shall I bear a child, seeing I am an old woman, and my husband here is an old man? That would indeed be a wonderful thing!"

011.073 YUSUFALI: They said: "Dost thou wonder at Allah's decree? The grace of Allah and His blessings on you, o ye people of the house! for He is indeed worthy of all praise, full of all glory!"

77.69.195.30 (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This is your own personal interpretation, nothing more. None of your quotations support what you claim. They are simply expressions of piety. You are simply rewriting the text without providing evidence beyond assertion. Paul B (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the source. It's clear that Firestone summarises Ibn Abbas's version of the story, attested in many collections. She writes, "the episode begins because Sarah's jealousy of Hagar following the birth of Ishmael causes conflict and strife between the two women." (p.7) Paul B (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who do u think you are teaching me my beliefs and my religion but I think your just Jealous or Narrow Minded when it comes to my belief so if u want sources ... here you get them .. you don't insult people by talking to them in such a matter sir you reason with them ..thank you

014.037

"O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring to dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Thy Sacred House; in order, O our Lord, that they may establish regular Prayer: so fill the hearts of some among men with love towards them, and feed them with fruits: so that they may give thanks.

this verse in the Holy Quran shows Abraham talking to god and telling him that he has left Ishmael his seed in the desert because of his command .. there is no Sarah in here what so ever Id like you to show me a good source because Ibn Abbas or any of those scholars who lived a long time ago were Philosophers who spoke with no proof or resource who was Ibn Abbas was he the Messenger of god? was he a prophet? I JUST SHOWED YOU the word of god no offense but I think my source is 10 times more reliable than the opinion of a Philosopher that has no source

can you show me where in the Hadiths does it say there was Hatred between Sarah and Hagar can you show me where in the Quran does it say there was hatred between Sarah and Hagar

you are making up your own interpretation by using the opinion of a man who used his own interpretation with no proof ... here is another proof that proves the Kindness of Sarah and patience

011.070 YUSUFALI: But when he saw their hands went not towards the (meal), he felt some mistrust of them, and conceived a fear of them. They said: "Fear not: We have been sent against the people of Lut."

011.071 YUSUFALI: And his wife was standing (there), and she laughed: But we gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob.

011.072 YUSUFALI: She said: "Alas for me! shall I bear a child, seeing I am an old woman, and my husband here is an old man? That would indeed be a wonderful thing!"

God Gave Sarah Isaac and after him Jacob ,God promised Sarah that she shall live to see her grandson Jacob ..I don't think god would give such a reward to a women who was Jealous of Hagar and kicked her out with her innocent child

011.073 YUSUFALI: They said: "Dost thou wonder at Allah's decree? The grace of Allah and His blessings on you, o ye people of the house! for He is indeed worthy of all praise, full of all glory!"

God doesn't bless women who hate and have Jealousy clearly this is common sense

I don't think your source is as reliable or even near mine, My source's important and Iam saying the Word of god .. No where in the Quran does it say Sarah hated Hagar and no where in the Hadiths does it say Sarah hated Hagar ,,, Iam assuming a smart gentleman like yourself knows the entire story in the Hadiths ... and there is clearly no mention that Sarah hated Hagar in the hadiths so where did u get this from?

so the conclusion is that you are supporting an Philosophy written by some human being writer who had no divine contact or knew Mohammed and u reject the holy book of Islam and the Hadiths of Islam .. ......I think the article should be edited immediately and I Gave u Quranic proof and common sense proof that My Point is correct and Sarah was a blessed women who was praised by god and the migration of Hagar had nothing to do with Sarah if it did then please show me ... but all there is to show is the bible or some random philosophy of some unknown random human BEING who had no proof for his argument ...?

Thank you 77.69.195.30 (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You are simply repeating the same passages again, and you are insisting that your interprtation must be accepted, even though none of your quotations in fact say that there was no jealousy or conflict. Your dissmissal of Ibn Abbas in favour of your own opinion hardly seems appropriate to me, but that's beside the point. We have clear source in Firestone and she quotes the relevant Hadith passages in her footnotes as follows: "12 full narratives can be found in al-Azraqi I, 22f., and I, 279-80; al-Buk- hari IV, 372-375, and IV, 379-380; al-Tabari, History, I, 279-281, and I, 282-283; al-Tabari, Commentary XIII, 229, and XIII, 230-231; Ibn Kathir, Commentary I, 176, and I, 177, and Qisas al-anbiya' I, 223-224, and I, 227-228. Two incomplete narratives are located in Ibn Hanbal I, 253, and I, 347-8. Five fragments containing a few of the motifs can be found in Ibn Sa'd I, 50; Ibn Hanbal, I, 360, and V, 121; and al-Azraqi, I, 22, and T, 279." Paul B (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine but Please do Make sure that the migration of Hagar was something made from god not Sarah nor did Sarah Influence God to make that choice

Mecca was meant to be the city that Ishmael will live in and leave his seed grow there so this had nothing to do with Sarah it was because god ordered Abraham that and I showed you the verse earlier

Another thing is you can instead say that Sarah didn't want to see Hagar because she knew that she'll get her female Jealousy because the Quran portrays Sarah as a patient good woman and in Islam the wives of prophets cant be rude and have hatred over such things so I suppose you should add a sentence saying that the migration was FROM GOD and Sarah had female Jealousy that's ALL no HATRED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT KIND TOWARDS HAGAR 88.201.1.220 (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A Daughter of Pharoah

The wikipedia article on Pharoah's daughter (married to King Solomon) includes a discussion of academic scholarship among egyptologists questioning that a pharoah would ever allow his daughter to marry out of the Egyptian Royal house. It seems to me that readers of this article, Hagar, would benefit from a parallel discussion here, or at least a reference to that other wikipedia entry. 24.185.8.28 (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Baruch

Well, I doubt that anyone would think it remotely likely that a pharaoh would give his daughter to become the enslaved maidservant of a Hebrew nomad's wife, but that aspect of the story is not even in the bible. It's essentially just myth. Paul B (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"that aspect of the story is not even in the bible" Paul - That aspect of the account is exactly what IS in the bible. My curiosity is what is the current scholarship and bibliography among Egyptologists, archaeologists, and biblical scholars of that aspect of the issue. Know anyone who fits the bill? 24.185.8.28 (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Baruch

Well perhaps you can tell me where in the Bible it says that Hagar was the daughter of the pharaoh. I can't find it in my copy. Paul B (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You're correct - The earliest citation I know of for that is the Aramaic translation of Genesis 16:1 ascribed (probably wrongly) to Yonatan ben Uziel. The central point of my query and this discussion thread still stands. I'd like to get any current scholarship or bibliography, or discussion from Egyptologists, archaeologists, or biblical scholars of those modern academic aspects of the issue, if only to flesh out and add to the wikipedia article those perspectives. My thought is that having those perspectives reflected in this article would make it more complete and informative, and would make this article's content / structure more uniform with other articles of biblical history. Know anyone who fits the bill? Thank you for your response.24.185.8.28 (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Baruch

Well I think there is a difference between this story and that of Solomon. The bible does specifically say that he married pharaoh's daughter and it seems plausible that a king's daughter would marry another king. So in that case it is reasonable to look at what scholars would say about the likelihood of that story. But it is so wildly improbable that the pharaoh would give his daughter to be a slave that I doubt that scholars of Egyptian culture would even bother to refute it. Paul B (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The word "slave" and "handmaiden" aren't the same.

While of a lesser status, the attendant of a Queen (Abraham was a King), would typically be of a royal family. It was common that a foreign princess would be a handmaiden of any Queen.

Also, Egyptian royal famililies were larger than just a few children. P

Further, Hagar would later be able to arrange a marriage for Ishmael from Egypt's royal family.

The stigmatization of her as some sort of "scullery maid" and a common slave is most likely slander created by Sarah, Issac and the tribe after her and Ishmael were exiled... to obscure their shame. Christopher Theodore (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hagar (Bible) → Hagar — Primary meaning of the word "Hagar" is this Hagar. Of course, the destination would have to be moved to Hagar (disambiguation). Srnec (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

When I perform a search for Hagar on Google, the top result is this article. On the top page there is also a Women of the Bible, Jewish Encyclopedia and Bible Study link related to Hagar (this one). At the bottom I get a list of "Searches related to hagar", which I presume is a list of searches others are making. The list looks like this:

• hagar bible
• sammy hagar
• hager
• hagar qim
• eldad hagar
• hagar the horrible
• meaning name hagar
• biblical hagar

—Srnec (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose, no clear evidence of primary topic. Powers ^T 15:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, in the light of no response to my request below to provide evidence (clear or otherwise) of a primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • According to our own page view statistics (which I encourage you to check for yourself), this page gets roughly twice as many hits per day on average as Hägar the Horrible. Srnec (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah! Some evidence, thank you. Twice the page hits on its own is not enough to establish a primary topic IMO, so if that's the best evidence, no change of vote. I'll take your word for the stats... but if you really want people to check, it's good to provide a wikilink. Andrewa (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I suspect this is another case of a misunderstanding about the meaning of primary topic, which is arguably a misnomer. The key factor is how often the Biblical topic which does get a few thousand views per month (surprisingly high to me) is sought when users are entering the homograph "hagar" in the Search box, relative to the other topics to which it may refer, including Sammy Hagar which regularly gets tens of thousands of monthly page views and a few other persons with surname "Hagar", Hagar the Horrible and other uses. While this Hagar gets more traffic than I would have expected, I see no reason to believe that it or any other use of the homograph meets primary topic criteria. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know why we should consider other persons with the surname Hagar as homographs. Why does it matter how many people want to read an article about Sammy Hagar? Would anybody really be shocked to find out that typing "hagar" in the search box does not bring them to Sammy's article? I think the case of David is comparable to this one. Even though David is a far more well-known figure than Hagar (in Christendom), it is also a far more common name. If Wikipedia understands that David unqualified refers to the Biblical king, then I think we can say that Hagar unqualified refers to this woman, not to the cartoon Viking (as our page view statistics attest) and not to anybody surnamed Hagar or to any minor place named Hagar (which is naturally disambiguated by a country or region). Srnec (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you. The persons are not homographs. The term "hagar" is a homograph, because it may refer to one of several topics, and the surname as well as any person with that surname are among those topics to which "hagar" may refer.

      As I understand primary topic determination, while reducing "shock" is one of the goals, the main goal is to get the most people who search with "hagar" to the article they are seeking as quickly as possible. After all, a primary topic is the topic among those to which a homograph may refer which is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters [that] homograph in the Search box." Because people entering "hagar" in the search box are likely to be seeking persons with surname "Hagar", like Sammy Hagar, is why we should consider how likely those persons are to be the sought topic when someone enters "hagar". Does that make sense?

      Let me put it this way. If there was a contest to see who could get the most readers searching with "hagar" to their desired target with the lowest average number of clicks, how would you arrange these articles? If you put the dab page at "Hagar" then you're guaranteed an average of 1 click (because everyone entering "hagar" gets to the dab page right away and is 1 click away from their destination. If you put the Biblical figure at Hagar then those seeking that topic arrive with 0 clicks, but everyone else is 2 clicks away (1 to get to Hagar (disambiguation) from Hagar, and another to get to their destination. Now assume 10 readers enter "hagar" and half are looking for the biblical figure while others are looking for something else. The average is also 1 ((5 * 0 + 5 * 2)/ 10). But if less than half are seeking that topic then the average clicks required to get to the desired article is more than 1. So unless the topic is sought by at least half of those entering "hagar", readers are better served, on average, by putting the dab page at Hagar. That's known as a situation in which there is no primary topic, which is apparently what we have for "hagar". That's why Powers and others are saying there is no evidence of there being a primary topic here. But if you believe that more than half of those entering "hagar" are seeking this topic, then you should argue that, by sharing the reasons you think that, usually explained in terms of ghits, page view stats, etc.. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

      • I got it. I'm just not convinced that the Wikipedia page actually reflects our conventions. That's why I mentioned David. I would argue—and this is all I was getting at by saying that persons surnamed Hagar are not in the same category as persons only named Hagar—that nobody can reasonably expect to arrive a given individuals article by typing only their surname in the search box unless that person is the primary topic for that name alone. So anybody searching for Sammy by typing in "hagar" cannot really be inconvenienced by ending up here and having to click a link to a dab page, because their search wasn't a good one to begin with. Typing "obama", one could reasonably expect to get to the current U.S. president's article, but typing "david", one could not reasonably expect to wind up at David Lloyd George. So what's the harm in forcing people with unreasonable expectations to make two clicks? Or so I would argue. (Googling hagar + abraham gets more results than "sammy hagar", I find.) Srnec (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I've no idea who Sammy Hagar is, but it seems pretty obvious to me that Hagar is at the very least a good candidate for primary topic status, being a significant figure in three major religions. Deb (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Vital article and most later occurrences of the name are derivative. I don't know why we should even consider Sammy Hagar (do his fans tend to forget his first name?). Cavila (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the comicstrip character is clearly more closely associated in common usage than the biblical figure with "Hagar". 65.94.44.124 (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, Like most people I have no idea who the Hagar of the bible is, but am familiar with Hagar the Horrible. Seriously, the move would make it harder to ensure that incoming links were correct. DuncanHill (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Sadly, I don't think it's at all obvious that this is the primary meaning any more. At a guess I'd back Hagar the Horrible if anything. My sad experience is that in Australia most primary school students don't know who Noah is, let alone Hagar. So I'd need some evidence that the OT Hagar is still well known worldwide. It may be; Maybe Islam and Judaism are doing better. Andrewa (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That's not sad; it's encouraging that fewer people are being fed mythology in the primary school years. Powers ^T 15:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • No, it's sad. It's a form of illiteracy not to know who Noah is. 216.8.171.180 (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Agree. Again, my experience is that the mythology is stronger than ever, and what is missing is the knowledge on which an informed decision should be based. It's on both sides, at all ages; The Creation Science debate, for example, is typically held on both sides to be based on inconsistencies between Origin of Species and the Bible. So at a minimum one would expect the proponents of both sides to have read both texts. I have yet to meet one who has, on either side. Andrewa (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Origin of Species is hardly the be-all and end-all of evolution texts, and it doesn't even begin to address the many other fields that Creation Science claims to (such as abiogenesis, geologic history, astrophysics). The creation science "debate", rather, goes to the very heart of what science is; one need not have read the Bible to know that "God did it" is not a scientific explanation. Powers ^T 21:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Agree with both your points, but I think they miss the main issues completely. Origin is still a jolly good read: Approachable to the layperson; Awesome in the modesty of the conclusions it draws from a wealth of data; The foundation paper in the field; Still a standard reference. It's hard to think of anything that approaches it in any other branch of science. It's also widely misquoted. Both sides would benefit greatly from reading it! As for "God did it" not being a scientific explanation, that depends on the context surely (;-> but the Bible clearly says that it's not a very helpful explanation. Andrewa (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Noah, maybe, but Hagar? Powers ^T 21:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Do you even know of Hagar's significance in Islam? Srnec (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Sure, but it should be of no consequence whatsoever to elementary students. For older students, one could make an argument that she ought to be mentioned in a unit on the mythology of Islam, but most non-Muslim students don't get into that level of detail even at the secondary school level. Powers ^T 00:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
            • Hagar is a very important plot element in the story that culminates in the incarnation, actually. Probably more important than Noah, just not quite so newsworthy. Andrewa (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Abram and Hagar: married?

I have undone Jasonasosa's edits, so I'd better give an explanation. The changing of this images does not seem to me to do anything to improve the article. A medallion depicting the generic head of a woman is not as effective as the previous image which summed up the story. The moving of the expulsion image seems to miss the point that it was used in the context of the Christian section to illustrate the particular Christian meaning of Hagar as an image of exile. The rest of the edits seem designed to remove all suggestion that Hagar was Abraham's wife rather than just his sexual partner. And yet the Bible clearly states that this was the case. It is also important to Islamic tradition that she was a full wife. Within Jewish tradition the nature of her 'wife' status is debated, but I can see no justification for the complete suppression of this information. Paul B (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Forget the images, rather than undoing absolutely all of my editing... couldn't you edit my edit to include those points thats you've just stated above? You would contribute much more to this article by adding and modifying my edit rather than taking the whole thing away.

Also, if you had read the Hagar#Hagar in Islamic traditions, you will see that nothing was surpressed about Abraham having a "wife" to bear Ishmael. I can't say the name... because her name is not mentioned in the Qu'ran. Also, could you please show me that scripture that says that Hagar was Abraham's wife... I must have missed that scripture, sorry. - Jasonasosa (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to read it. I wrote most of it. Yes, I should not have undone all your edits. I did so prior to checking details and because I did not want false information to stand and also because some of it was rather badly written. The edits did contain useful information, but also contained factual errors. It does not matter what is literally stated in the Qu'ran. What matters is the Qu'ran combined with the Hadith and Islamic tradition. If you knew anything about that you would be aware that descent from Hagar is central to it. Her particular wifely status is also important to debates about the relative priority of Ishmael and Isaac (in Islamic tradition Ishmael is the one who is nearly sacrificed). If you don't know where it says she is his wife you haven't read the Bible, which I would think should a precondition for editing the relevant section. It's Genesis chapter 16 verse 3. Paul B (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You, nor I, want factual errors in this article. First, please indicate what I put in this article that was a factual error. Second, just as you have stated, "It does not matter what is literally stated in the Qu'ran"... is how I understood Genesis in light of Abram's "official" relationship with Hagar... especially since he must have "divorced" her when he exiled her? or did Sarah divorce them when she told Abraham to get rid of her? Anyway... Its neither here nor there, because it is a debate that should be sourced, not solely from Genesis. I apologize if I put anything in this article that was not factual so lets identify what those things are. Also, I have not added or subtracted anything from the Islamic tradition section, nor do I intend to, as I do not know anything of their ways or scholarly input. I will NOT present any information in this article in the view of Islam. My edits of Hagar's life is solely based from what it says in Genesis with the omission of the "espousing" relationship, which really should be in a separate section in itself, to offer scholarly views of that. Jasonasosa (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing about divorce. I think you are projecting modern ideas onto the historical context. There is nothing in the Biblical narrative that I know of to suggest that "divorce" was a meaningful concept at the period. There is an argument that there are degrees of wifehood. Sometimes she is referred to as a "concubine", but this is really a problematic term; rather there was a notion of of "lesser wife". The Hebrew word used is ‘iššâ in Genesis 16, which is the normal word for 'wife', but "pilegeš" is later used, which means something like concubine. The narrative is clear that she is still Sarah's servant even when married to Abraham. So she is apparently both a bond-servant and a wife. I think we have to get away from modern ideas here, but we could add discussion of that from reliable sources. Paul B (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Breaking a marriage contract is NOT solely a modern concept. Even the supposed author of Abraham's life in Genesis, if you agree it to be Moses, was well aware of the concept of Divorce even referring to a "Certificate of Divorce" in Deuteronomy - Chapter 24:1. Now of course, the way a marriage or divorce is conducted is obviously going to be different in ancient times versus modern times, there is no question about that. But the concept of breaking a marriage vow is absolutely not a modern concept solely thought up in the modern era! It doesn’t matter if you slap on the word “divorce” or not, breaking a marriage vow in God’s eyes is breaking a marriage vow, just as serious as two marrying. And if the Israelites weren’t doing it, there would be no reason for Moses to bring it up and his generation, if I'm not mistaken, was several centuries decendant of Abraham. Jasonasosa (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No-one said it is a modern concept. Of course I do mnot think the Torah was written by Moses, but that's beside the point. The events described in Genesis occurred before the legal code defined in Deuteronomy. That's the whole point. That code was handed down centuries later. This also explains why incest (Lot and his daughters) and Abraham's apparent prostituting of his wife are not condemned. We are talking about a cultural context pre-existing the creation of the Mosaic code. You really need to read more. Paul B (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that. And I'm saying that a difference of several centuries isn't a hill of squat. Especially since the author wrote Abraham's life and the Mosaic law (whom I believe is the same individual), a person who understands the context of divorce. I do agree with you that neither Abram nor Lot were held accountable for their actions because they were not under those laws... But that doesn't mean that absolves Abram from breaking a marital contract...if he did indeed marry Hagar... which I absolutely do not believe was a formal or even informal arrangement... despite what it literally says by the author of Genesis and Duet. Jasonasosa (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So you disagree with what the Bible says? Fine, but that's not how we should edit a section about what it says in Genesis. In any case, there is nothing in the Bible about Abraham divorcing her. It just says he sent her away. Paul B (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that in the Baha'i Faith, the Bab is descended from Hagar while Baha'u'llah is descended from Keturah. This suggests that Hagar and Keturah were different persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:154:C201:4D90:7D7B:72B8:44E4:E74D (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hagar and Ishmael Images

To date, I have not found one accurate image of Hagar and Ishmael. Not one picture depicts her as coming from Egyptian heritage, and not one picture of Ishmael depicts him as a 14 year old teenaged boy during their exile from Abraham's settlement! In almost every picture, Hagar looks a white englishwoman, and Ishmael is either depicted as a baby or at most 10 years old! Jasonasosa (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

And your point is? Moreschi (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know why you use a bust which is, just a generic classical face, for the main image. There's nothing "English" about most images, the artists just used models from their own community. It was only in the 19th century that painters tried to recreate accurate ethnicity, in line with the 'scientific' attitudes of the era. For Renaissance artists these stories were universal truths. Ethnography of race was not relevant. If you want attempts at ethnic authenticity I suggest you look at images painted after 1850. Paul B (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Arabs versus Muslims

In the introduction, regarding the wordage of the descendants of Ishmael in Islamic tradition, I have indicated the word use of Muslims rather than Arabs as follows:

In Freedman, Meyers & Beck. Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible (ISBN 0802824005, ISBN 9780802824004), 2000, p.9 specifically states: “Muslims trace their [ancestry] through his son Ishmael”

In Jan Retsö, The Arabs in antiquity: their history from the Assyrians to the Umayyads, Routledge, 2003, p.338 specifically states: “We find the Arabs in Transjordan identified as descendants of Ismael, but no similar indication concerning the Arabs east of Egypt.”

The term Arab spans many subgroups that are not all identified with Ishmael as clearly indicated in user:Paul Barlow's citation. In my citation from Eerdmans Dictionary it specifically says "Muslims".

In retort to Paul's comment, The only thing that matters is what is properly referenced… not what you think. Ignorance occurs when an editor thinks. Jasonasosa (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It is frankly ridiculous to claim that "Muslims" descend from Hagar, since Islam is a religion that spread by conversion. Do you believe that Muslims in Pakistan and Indonesia were descended from Hagar? There are numerous sources that state that the Arabs are supposed to descend from Hagar and Ishmael. This claim dates at least as far back as Josephus and is found in many Judaic sources prior to the very creation of Islam. Indeed that's where Mohammed presumably got the idea from in the first place (at least that what scholars would say who are not believing Muslims). Ignorance does not occur when an editor thinks. That's absurd. Thinking is required all the time: to understand sources and to differentiate between fringe and mainstream views, or even to properly interpret sources. That's central to the editing process. This article is now full of garbled statements which I will probably have to leave to the weekend to correct due to lack of time. Please try reading some books, not just replicating in a confused manner the first thing you come across. As for the comment about Arabs, yes, it's true that the Ishmaelites were associated most strongly with specific groups that are under the current label "Arabs", but that does not alter the fact that Arabs are supposed descendents, not "Muslims", and they were identified as such by Jewish writers before there ever even were any Muslims. Erdmanns says that Muslims regard Ismael as their ancestor. That's true to the extent that Muslims regard Ismael as the ancestor of the Arabic peoples who became the first Muslim community, but it's sloppily formulated for the reasons given above. We shouldn't reproduce confusion, especially since the idea predates Islam, a fact that can be established from numerous scholarly sources. Paul B (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely uncontroversial that the descendants of Ishmael are supposed to be the Arabs, according to Jewish tradition (Josephus seems to have propagated this idea to start with, although according to [1] Apollonius Molon seems to have come up with it (assuming I've got the right Molon, but I don't see how it can be anyone else)). Since the theory predates the existence of any Muslims, I'm not sure what Jasonasosa is getting at. Moreschi (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an old translation of Antiquities of the Jews: search for Cadmas for the relevant paragraphs. Josephus is clearly stating that Ishmael's descendants are to be identified with contemporary Arabs. This review at Bryn Mawr says the same thing, and gives several other examples of Judaeo-Christian writers making this claim. There seems to be no evidence these writers distinguished between one type of Arab and another, and for another, there is no reason not to mention Ishmael and his supposed posterity here, as that is about half the reason this article exists in the first place. Moreschi (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

My points are these:

1. My dispute really is about saying that ALL Arabs are descendant of Ishmael. It is incorrect to just say... "the Arabs are descendant of Ishmael" because that is not true. You have to be specific.
2. The reference in Eerdmans using the term 'Muslims' is in a POV context that really should just be tucked away under Islamic Traditions. So I recant pushing for this term at least in the intro.
3. Speaking of the intro...this article is about Hagar, not Ishmael... so we really need to be over there with this topic. I appologize for even posting Arabs vrs Muslims over HERE...
4. Josephus is a POV... his word is NOT law. You could get a good reference from him and others and state it the way he or they says it... dont be like Paul and just say "Arabs" then quote Jan Retso who doesn't even say that.

All I have to say is... word it and reference it right. Nobody cares about concepts... its all POV. Jasonasosa (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• PS: Paul... I really wish you could understand the concept of being specific with a real reference rather than just saying a bunch of Hullabaloo.
• PSS:Moreschi don't use references from websites or thesis. It has to be from published material.

Jasonasosa (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• What? Look, obviously this whole business of anyone being a descendant of Ishmael is so much pseudohistorical nonsense. We know that. The question is whether or not there is a tradition in Judaism and primitive Christianity of the descendants of Ishmael being identified with contemporary Arabs (contemporary here meaning the 1st century AD for Josephus, the 5th century AD for Sozomen). And there emphatically is such a tradition, for which we have ample primary (Josephus and others) and secondary sources: if you have access to JSTOR, check out this from the Journal of Near Eastern studies (1976). You are making a mountain out of a non-existent molehill. Moreschi (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thus this whole topic is POV and doesnt belong in the intro. Let me reword what I've been saying too: If many sources said that the descendants of Ishmael were blue aliens from the planet Xenon... Your edit should NOT say: "Blue aliens are descendant of Ishmael." Because that implys ALL blue aliens... only the blue aliens from Xenon are descendants. Just as the Transjordan Arabs are identified as the desendants of Ishmael according to Jan Retso who specifically said what kind of Arabs. If you want to get Josephus up in here, then get a reference and put it in the main article. Dont try to prove it to me here... because I dont care. Jasonasosa (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. The topic is not "POV". The concept of "POV" in Wikiedia applies to bias in editors. The view that Hagar was identified as the matriarch of Arabs is not a "POV", it's an uncontroversial fact in exactly the same way that Abraham is identified as the father of Ishmael. We don't have to belive any of these people even existed in order to report what is said about them. That is our role. The fact that Ishmael is the traditional partiarch of the Arabs is a hugely important fact which is entirely relevant to the significance of the figure of Hagar in history. Islam quite possibly would never have even come into existence without this tradition. Of course it should be in the lede. You appear to have some sort of personal agenda here, which is entirely inappropriate. It's very very very easy to find references for this. Why don't you just make a bit of effort to research the topic by reading Josephus? By the way, where does it ever say that Hagar died in the desert of Paran? Nowhere. Paul B (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't checked... POV means "Point of View" and thats what all of this is. If you have the proven facts... then reference it as such... dont put BAD references on the main page. If there is no reference for her death in Paran than omit it. Dont complain to me about it.

About that comment "Islam quite possibly would never have even come into existence without this tradition." This reinerates that it is more appropriate to use the term Muslims rather than Arabs as Eerdman dictates.

The only agenda I have is for the main article to use the termonolgy that the references support. If its not referenced then either mark it or get rid of it. I understand that common knowledge doesnt need to be referenced all the time... but, when it comes to "Point of View" topics the gray line is very fine.

Also, I already have my reference from Eedmans an acceptable source used throughout wiki, where's yours? If you want Josephus in here so bad, you do the research... and mind you... since he is a Jewish scholar, all of his views go down in Jewish views, keep him out of the intro. Jasonasosa (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake, I've been editing here for years. Stop being so silly. POV is an abbreviation of "point of view", but in a Wikipedia context it is a technical term to refer to the behaviour of editors and the balance of competing relevant viewpoints in articles, not to anything and everything that can be labelled a 'point of view'. It is not a POV in this sense that Ishamel was identified as the ancestor of Arabs by Jewish and early Christian writers and that this was central to his and his mother's significance. That is fact and by now you know it. The intro summarises the whole content. That's the point of it. The claim about Ishmael and Hagar's progeny is not specifically Jewish, or Christian or Islamic. It is common to all these traditions. Again you know this and are prevaricating for your own reasons. This is not helpful editing. It's obstruction. You know what my sources are, and Moreschi has given you others. I am trying to talk to you so that you will stop this behaviour when sources are added, and not then try to deny them for your own reasons. BTW, your source doesn't even say what your text says it says. Paul B (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with your source from Jan Retso... the problem is the way you referenced that person by not using their terminology. Thus you either dont have a valid reference for this subject matter, or you need to change how you edit. Moresechi shooting the name Josephus does not validate a good reference. For God's sake get a book and page number! And pulling a web address for a reference off of a thesis is total crap.

Also, Paul, thanks for pointing out that the Eerdmans reference can no longer stand in the intro as the original info had been omitted. - Jasonasosa (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

another source

There's an essay with 80 footnotes that may be of use. http://bibleproject.blogspot.com/2004/01/hagar-victim-or-villain-three.html "Hagar, victim or villain? Three sixteenth-century views" JOHN L. THOMPSON Fuller Theological Seminary Pasadena, CA 91182 Copyright Catholic Biblical Association of America Apr 1997 BrainyBabe (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A biblical figure with naked boobs?

A picture of Hagar "File:Abraham_renvoyant_Agar.jpg" was recently added, barely wearing clothes. After my second removal, an editor forwarded me to Wikipedia:NOT_CENSORED stating {It isn't "offensive" at all except in your imagination}! Obviously, this image pushes the author's POV of being a sex-slave like many claim. It's a personal POV and shouldn't be on this article. It's also not respectful as she's a biblical figure, wife of one of the greatest prophets, and mother of a great nation (according to the Bible). Any opinions?! AdvertAdam ^talk 10:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The image is an eighteenth century engraving, typical of the time. The fact that you evidently know nothing about art history is depressing enough, but the point is that this image represents the range of ways she has been depicted. It is not a "personal POV" in any meaningful sense. I guess all images are personal POVs in one sense, but this one happens to be typcial of its era, and to represent a "POV" if you like of a time and place. In fact WP:npov requires that a range of different POVs be included. In fact your grandiose vision of her is just one POV among others. Paul B (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well... first of all, why don't all arts have a naked boob if you say this is their era. It is a strictly pushing of point of view and you know that, as Hagar couldn't be confirmed neither a slave and neither a wife because of different translations. Therefore, Wikipedia can't take one side of the story, even tho Abraham's main page say a wife. Anyways, you know that artists haven't drew Sarah with naked boobs even once! And how can my grandiose be my POV if the Bible says that God took care of her and her son, making out of them a great nation. Does the Bible have a POV too. Be realistic, and don't demonstrate policies your way. AdvertAdam ^talk 11:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No it is not "pushing" a POV any more than other images are "pushing" different POVs. PoV "pushing" generally means trying to promote one point of view at the expense of others, not including a point of view as opposed to trying to censor it completely. It is you who are POV pushing by censoring a POV, or rather a visual tradition linked to one. You say "you know that artists haven't drew Sarah with naked boobs even once!" I don't know, but obviously they did depict Hagar! Because we have an image showing just that. There are many others [2], [3] [4] [5] [6] Paul B (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A POV is something abnormal, and having a figure without clothes is hinting to something. You know that the reason behind that is considering Hagar as a sex-slave, which was never proven. Do you consider it normal to have Abraham, or Jesus, or Mary naked? Would it be logical that I get a bunch of naked pics and add it to their articles? And no, I haven't seen any pics of Sarah naked, all what you bring is still Hagar. They're both wifes of Abraham, according to the Bible. Do you have any reasons to prefer that pic overthis? They're both on the same topic. AdvertAdam ^talk 12:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A POV is a "point of view", not "something abnormal". Please read WP:NPOV. You are trying to argue that a certain position can't be represented because you believe it is wrong. That is WP:TRUTH. All points of view are represented, including the negative opinions about Hagar found among Jewish and Christian writers. That's part of providing a rounded view. And nakedness does not imply being a sex slave. The story states that she was given to Abraham because she was young and presumed to be fertile, while Sarah was old. That's true irrespective of whether she was a wife or a concubine or something in between. I object to censorship. And I don't see why a full range of images should not be included. Eroticised images of the body of Hagar are part of the visual tradition whether you like it or not. Paul B (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

When someone does something abnormal, means that there's an intention behind it. You said that there's no intention or POV and it's all "part of the visual tradition", then why is it only used on her? Of course you realize that most pics of Hagar are naked, and there is none for the Virgin Mary when she was young. Who has the authority to pick which one to put, if they both have the same meaning: full clothes like every other Biblic figure, or naked for no reason (as you said it's not POV). You already said it's not a POV, then why do you object on the pic I sent you? It's not about right or wrong, it's about favoring a character over another with no reason. Favoring a naked pic than clothes on only one character is a choice you made, weather you admit it or not. AdvertAdam ^talk 13:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Adam, you are not making any sense. There is nothing abnormal. All artists have "intentions" behind their images. That's part of their meaning, and part of the history of the representation of a person. Hagar is often depicted in a mildly erotic way because of her role in the story. The Virgin Mary is almost never depicted naked. That's a difference that exists in the history of art. It is not for us to argue about whether it should or should not exist. It does. Also, there are many pictures in the article. What we need is a range of images representing the full variety of ways she is represented. This is the only one displaying any mildly erotic component. Paul B (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Sorry, but I don't see the problem with "the boobs". Visual art has displayed the human body with different degrees of prudishness throughout history. In parts of the 18th century, display of breasts was unremarkable. I don't see how this suggests "sex slave". See e.g. File:Vanloo, Triumph of Galatea.jpg and File:Thalia.jpg for other 18th century images with "boobs". File:Peter Paul Rubens 004.jpg is a somewhat earlier example of Old Testament breasts. These images are simply part of the Western heritage of art. Showing some of them here is not undue weight or POV, it's helping us to provide a complete image. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)—Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. The case for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is convincing. Moreover, the strongest argument against the move, that Hägar the Horrible is equally worthy of primacy, fails disambiguation conventions for two reasons: 1) the comic character's name is styled with an umlaut (Hägar) which is considered sufficent disambiguation; and 2) "Hägar the Horrible" (and not simply "Hägar") is the correct name of the article's subject, being about the comic strip as a whole rather than just its titular character. As Hagar (the biblical figure) is known simply as "Hagar," the comic disambiguates itself. -- Hadal (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Hagar (biblical person) → Hagar – Article should be moved to Hagar over the Hagar disambiguation page. The biblical use appears to be the original use of the name, and several pages on the disambiguation page make reference to the biblical name. PeRshGo (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. This was just rejected less than six months ago, and I see no new argument presented here. Being the original usage has only the tiniest possible influence on determining the primary topic, certainly not enough here to outweigh all of the many other uses on the disambiguation page. Powers ^T 02:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment this is an improperly formatted multimove. The related move is occuring at Talk:Hagar. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per the 2010 requested move, the comic strip character has high prominence per arguments presented by multiple people back then. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I think Powers and the IP forget the arguments raised six months ago. Srnec (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? The arguments raised six months ago didn't result in any consensus to move; if nothing has changed (it hasn't), then the result should be the same. Powers ^T 12:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Support. She's a religious mother of a 1.6 Billion nation, so she's considered notable enough. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 02:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Notable enough for an article, yes, but that's not under contention. The question is, is she clearly the topic that is most likely sought when someone searches for "Hagar"? Powers ^T 23:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Obviously, there aint a more famous name for Hagar. I'm not trying to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF, however, Sarah is a mother of 12 tribes (great nation of Israelite) and Hagar is a mother of the another 12 tribes (great nation of Ishmaelites) of Abraham, according to the three Abrahamic Religions! They do go hand-by-hand and both require to have a direct article. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 03:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't think that's obvious at all. I don't see why we should be required to favor mythological figures from certain Abrahamic religions. That's biased. Powers ^T 11:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Keep your personal opinions for yourself; I've already put my reasons. Guess all Encyclopedias are lying and full of Mythologies too. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Is it the word "mythological" to which you object? Fine, ignore it then. Why should we be required to favor figures from certain Abrahamic religions? Why is being a major figure in those religions sufficient to mean that they are always the primary topic? Powers ^T 14:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Being a major figure in an Abrahamic religion is presumptive evidence that something is a primary topic for its name. Absolutely. For my part I don't see why we should be required to favour comic strip characters of fleeting notability. What's biased is the assumption that the comic strip character is more notable simply because he is more well-recognised by the type of people who edit Wikipedia. Oh, and the Avatar case is a precedent. Srnec (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. To me it's a no-brainer. I note that no disambiguation is necessary between the biblical character and Hagar the Horrible. Andrewa (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hagar. 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/20081113015839/http://www.ou.org/torah/ti/5763/chayeisara63.htm to http://www.ou.org/torah/ti/5763/chayeisara63.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/hagar/issues/1_1_2000/1120001.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hagar. 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/20110219231154/http://www.finrrage.org/pdf_files/RepTech%20General/Lord_Hath_Restrained-Me-from_Bearing.pdf to http://www.finrrage.org/pdf_files/RepTech%20General/Lord_Hath_Restrained-Me-from_Bearing.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hagar was an Egyptian slave/handmaid of Sarah

I added slave to... She was an Egyptian slave/handmaid of Sarai (Sarah). 2601:580:4:5DD8:91FD:3E7D:5790:2776 (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hagar Genealogy

I can find no evidence for the genealogy entry: "Genealogists say Hagar was the Daughter of King Salitis / Shalik The first Hyksos king". The entry links to a genealogy testing site, but it makes no sense that someone got the genealogy information (outside of what the Bible says) for an obscure individual who lived about 4000 years ago and has no known grave site. --Sacr1fyce (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hagar by Edmonia Lewis.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Zapolya

Samuel Taylor Coleridge's play Zapolya. The link should lead to an article on Coleridge's play; instead it leads to the article on the Hungarian king. Unfortunately, the article on Coleridge doesn't mention this play, or I would link it to the relevant section there.