Talk:Qedarites

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Qedarite/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mcorazao (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

After a quick skim this looks well referenced and the writing appears fairly clean. Some initial observations:

• References:
  • It is worthwhile to include links to online copies of the referenced materials to make it easier for editors to review your work, e.g. Geography of the Bible, The later prophecies of Isaiah.
    • Done. Tiamut^talk 10:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The books should have a location of publication (i.e. the city) specified. This is not strictly required for GA, though.
    • Probably will pass on this for now, given that its rather time-consuming and not necessary for GA. Will do it eventually though. Thanks for the tip. Tiamut^talk 10:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Some of the prose seems written from a scholarly perspective rather than being written for the general public. E.g.
  • Be careful when referring to statements and opinions of scholars like Herodotus and Philip J. King. Ideally the prose should not be referring to the scholars too much (i.e. just tell the story). In cases where it is necessary to mention one of these scholars provide at least some context on who the scholar is (e.g. "The Greek historian Herodotus" or "The theologian and historian Philip J. King").
  • The prose uses historical terminology like Achaemenid without explanation (including mentioning the Persian Empire without explaining these refer to the same entity). Since these things are beyond the scope of what the average reader knows about, the prose should be written in such a way that the reader does not have to click the links to understand the discussion.
    • Added some explanatory notes for this and others. Tiamut^talk 10:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Block quotes should not have quotation marks around them. Also you might want to use the {{quote}} template.
  • • Removed quotation marks. Will look into the {{quote}} template later too. Tiamut^talk 10:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• The List of Qedarite monarchs section could be better designed. This section is mostly just lists with little information about the items in the list. It would be better for the section to have the prose just discuss the monarchs but not attempt to list each one unless it is discussing each one. If you want you can have tables off to the side that have these lists.
  • I'm working on putting together a table for this information, since there is not much more to say about the individual rulers and half of those mentioned are discussed above in the section on Extrabiblical inscriptions. In the meantime, if it will hold up approval of the article, feel free to move it to the talk page. Tiamut^talk 08:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll do a more comprehensive read as I have time.

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your intial feedback. I'll be reviewing your comments more closely and as I implement the changes suggested, will let you know. Tiamut^talk 08:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added some comments inline for things I've done. Will add more as I do more. Thanks again for your time. Tiamut^talk 10:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Overall good but some issues. Some of the prose is still unclear (see examples below). More importantly, though, some of the discussion is choppy, mentioning this authority or that one and jumping from one historical observation to another. Makes it difficult to follow.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Overuse of quotation marks ("). In general when referring to terms (i.e. what something is called) you should use italics instead of quotes.

• I think I addressed this, but if I did not go far enough, please let me know. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Almost everything is extremely well-cited. One or more citations should be explicitly attached to the table, though.

• Table is now mostly cited and altered to fit the source used for it (itchen instead of the Regnal Chronologies source which is not RS). Three entries still need cites. If I can't find other references for them, I'll remove them. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   There really isn't much about the Qedarite culture and society. Isn't there more information available?

• I'll look for more, but sources on the details of their cultural and societal practices are rare. There is a bit of information on their religious worship, which is only briefly mentioned now, but I can expand that at least.

• I've added a Culture and society section with some new information and a religion sub-section. I also made "Language" a subsection of it. If you feel it needs additions or expansion, let me know. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1. B. Focused:

   The majority of the article is the "Historical References" section. Though this section does contain some embedded history about the Qedarites it is largely the people who have said things about them. Also the "Genealogy" section is more about traditions and controversy. It is probably more properly titled "Arab genealogical tradition" or some such thing. In any event it seems that discussion of the sources and discussion of the traditions takes center stage in a lot of the article.

• See below. Its not jusst Arab geneaological tradition, but also Jewish tradition and biblical scholarship that puts forward this thesis.

• I'll try to add an intro section to the historical references section that provides a more general overview of what is known about them. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   At times the article seems to mix religious accounts, tradition, and historical research without a clear indication of which statements fall into which category. Maybe some of these discussions should be put in separate sections?

• I've tried to clarify further, but biblical tradition has seeped into modern scholarship and the divide is difficult to determine. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Sennacherib.jpg and Kinadshburn.JPG are not properly tagged (most of the information is about how it was copied from en.wikipedia which is irrelevant; the web site given is a broken link)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   I'm a little on the fence because the images seem to be somewhat tangential. The map, for example, shows the Assyrian Empire but not specifically the Qedarite kingdom. Are there any maps that are more specific?

• The images are a bit of problem. I suppose none of the fair use ones can be used here since are are non-essential. As for the map, I can't find a map of the Qedarite kingdom in Wiki commons and don't access to one to upload either. Perhaps moving the map of Assyria to the section where it is discussed would help. Please remove any images that can't be used here. Tiamut^talk 15:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Examples of unclear prose:

• "that lived in an area extending eastward from the western boundary of Babylon in the 8th century BC." - A bit strange phrasing. "Extending eastward" to where? Perhaps a different word than extending.
• Some cases of mentioning something before explaining it. For example, Sennacherib is brought up without mentioning who that is.

• Both of these issues have been addressed. I also did some general minor copy edits to try to smooth out the prose. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples of statements that may be misleading:

• "The Qedarites are named for Qedar, the second son of Ishmael, mentioned in the Bible" - Is it true that historians have found contemporary evidence of Qedar's existence and his being the son of Ishmael? That is what this implies. If that is not the case then perhaps this could be rephrased "The Qedarites believed themselves to be descendants of Qedar, described in the Bible as the second son of Ishmael" or something similar.

• Perhaps just adding "thought to be named" would be okay here? Its not just Arabs who believe there is an association between Qedar (Ishmael's son) and the Qedar or Qedarites. Many biblical scholars, Jewish geneaolgoists, and even contemporary scholars make this connection. I'll try to make that more explicit in the text. Tiamut^talk 21:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have never researched this myself so I can only go by the research you present. It would seem unlikely that there are credible records that go this far back (but again, I wouldn't know). "Thought to be named" is weasel wording. The point here is to distinguish between scholars who have done research according to modern scientific standards and scholars who have collected traditional beliefs according to some group. The former case, provided it is consensus among most such scholars can be stated as fact whereas the latter needs to be qualified as tradition, even if it is well-researched tradition. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• These traditional beliefs tend to be presented uncritically by modern scholars. The text reflects mainstream scholarship on the issue. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Arab genealogical scholars widely consider" - Unclear what this means. Is this talking about historical evidence or tradition?

• Both. I'll try to make that clearer in the text, but its already alluded to in the discussion of the various scholars. For eg. its mentioned that al-Kalbi, "established a genealogical link between Ishmael and Mohammed using writings that drew on biblical and Palmyran sources, and the ancient oral traditions of the Arabs." Tiamut^talk 21:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'll look at this again in more detail. The question is not whether al-Kalbi did thorough research but whether the research is accepted by most modern scholars as scientific proof. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• "the genealogy of Mohammed, the prophet" - Be very careful when dealing with religious references. On one side you can inadvertently offend and on the other you can inadvertently sound like you are advocating for a religion. In this case saying "Mohammed, the prophet" sounds like you are asserting that Mohammed was a genuine prophet. A more objective description like "Mohammed, the founder of Islam" avoids any debate.

• Would it be okay to write "Mohammed, the prophet of Islam"? That way his prophethood is given in the context of the religion that views him as such. Tiamut^talk 21:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sort of a gray area. The problem here is that you are asserting his being a "prophet" as fact, meaning that he was truly commissioned by God. This is a religious viewpoint which is, by definition, non-neutral. One could argue that in this context "prophet of Islam" is implying "who is considered by Muslims to be God's prophet", but some would argue legitimately that's not what the phrase says. As a general rule when dealing with such contentious issues it is generally better to look for wording that few people could find a reason to disagree with. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Changed to the wording first suggested and removed references to prophethood elsewhere. Tiamut^talk 17:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Questionable references:

• http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/Jordan.html - This is a self-published site, not a reliable source.

• removed this source and a paragraph sourced to it for which no replacement could be found. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Cedar_(2) - Be careful how sources affiliated with religious institutions are used. Such sources have an inherent bias and can be seen as non-authoritative in historical matters.

• Attributed the material from that source directly to it. Tiamut^talk 15:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: The citation for the thesis "Women and their agency in the Neo-Assyrian Empire" has no information about the university that published it originally.

• The author is affiliated with Helsinki University (according to the acknowlegements), and it an e-thesis that was published by Doria, a site that contains "the digital collections of Finnish universities and polytechnics." Tiamut^talk 20:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall, this is a very well researched article. The above mentioned things should be addressed to make it GA. I'll leave this open for a little while. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Revised review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Sennacherib.jpg and Kinadshburn.JPG are still not properly tagged (most of the information is about how it was copied from en.wikipedia which is irrelevant; the web site given is a broken link)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Ideally at least a more directly relevant map should be used. I'm going to pass it though.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Although I do still have some concerns I think the article meets GA quality. Certainly it is very thoroughly researched. For FA I think some more aspects of how the topic is covered would need to be addressed.

The one limiting issue, though, is that some of the images still do not have correct information to establish that they are public domain. I can't pass it without that being addressed. If the information on the images simply isn't available then they should be removed from the article. --Mcorazao (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, for now I commented out those images. I'm awarding GA. Congratulations. --Mcorazao (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Content verification tag added

I added verfication request to four sources Tiamut cited in support of her arguments within the article lead. All four sources are offline and the arguments by themselves are doubtful considering the lack of support for them in online sources. Therefore, verification by third pary as well as specification of the relevant content is required.--Gilisa (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing doubtful about the sources cited or the content as I represented it. Not all four support the wording "Arab", but you could have looked them up yourself, by searching in google books for "qedarite" or "Kedar" and "Arab". Here are some examples:

• "the Qedarite Arab tribal confederation" - The Oxford encyclopedia of archaeology in the Near East by Eric M. Meyers,
• "Kedar designates a nomadic tribe, and Jeremiah refers to an alliance of nomadic Arab tribes living in the northwest Arabian desert." - Jeremiah: An Archaeological Companion by Philip J. King
• "the Qedarite Arab leaders" - Moab in the Iron Age: hegemony, polity, archaeology by Bruce Edward Routledge

Clearly the wording is supported. There are also other sources cited in the body like the book by Israel Eph'al which mentions "Arabs" are mentioned as an ethnic element for the first time in the Assyrian inscriptions that refer to Qedar. I'd appreciate it if people would stop disruptively deleting this information or tagging it with tags when its easily verifiable and locatable and there are no sources challenging this designation. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 16:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Pardon? "disruptively deleting this information"-To remind you, the wording was not cited adequately when this lines were deleted and in any case there is no room for this allegation. No one was disruptive. As for the tag I added today, considering the previous sources it was reasonable to add it then.--Gilisa (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The wording was always adequately sourced and cited. The urls for the books cited are listed in the bibliography at the bottom of the page. You could have looked them up yourself. I saved you the trouble by providing you direct links here. Please stop pretending that your intervention here has resulted in an improvement of the text or sourcing. It hasn't. You only wasted my time doing something you should have done before deleting the information in question or applying verification tags. Tiamut^talk 17:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you start to assume good faith. These allegations are baseless, you admited yourself that they were not originated in Arabia and yet called them Arabs while I couldn't find these sources you provide here myself and after a while I added the "verification" tag. You call it disruption and accuse me for doing it on purpose while it's just don't true.--Gilisa (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa, you are misunderstanding the content of this article and the content of my comments. Please become more familiar with the subject material. I said they did not originate in Arabia, but that does not mean they are not Arabs. I said that to clarify to Kuratowski's Ghost that his replacement of "Arab" with "Arabian" was inappropriate. They originated east of Babylon (modern day Iraq) and the sources describe them as "Arab". These sources are all listed in the article, after each sentence that uses the term "Arab". The links to the books cited in each footnote are found in the bibliography and can be searched online by anyone interested in verifying the information. The links I provided you above are drawn from those sources. Deleting the information (as you did and as did Kuratowski's Ghost) is disruptive and tagging it with verify tags when its easily verifiable is also disruptive. In any case, now that you have seen the information via the links I fished out for you above, I assume you no longer have a problem with the text and my work here is done. Tiamut^talk 17:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but again-who told that it's easily verifiable? Adding this tag is completly in line with wikipedia guidelines and as you see, it was solved easily when you added these links. The references as they are on this article only mention the author names and the page numbers, not the name of the book-not nothing else. It is your assumption that they are easy to find or that I've to do googling for the arguments you made. Also, there is large difference between Arab in the meaning of speaking language that is part of the family of Arabic language and being from the Arab people.--Gilisa (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Qedarites are called Arab by reliable sources cited throughout the article. The is not a linguistic designation, but an ethnic one, as noted by Israel Eph'al.

It seems you are unfamiliar with the referencing system used here. The author's name, year of publication and page number cited in the footnotes correspond to the books listed in the bibliography. There, the urls for all the books are available and you can search within them for the information cited. That's enough to meet WP:V. I was under no obligation to provide you with direct links, as I did above, but in order to remove the tags more quickly, I did. No need to thank me. Are you quite done now? Tiamut^talk 18:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No I don't, Israel Eph'al is not listed in the Bibliography. And as long as there is no direct link and one side found the arguments to be doubtful he/she may ask for verification. It's not a big deal, right? P.s. Just to demonstrate the large fuzziness of describing those as "Arabs" I suggest you read the introduction of this great book [1]. As I understand it, and it's supported in many RS, modern Arabic people are mostly descendants of Arabics from Arabia while Qedarite were certainly not-so when refering to them, the use in the term "ethnicity" as implying to their Arabicness , directly or indirectly, is quite incorrect. In any case, the article reflect one opinion--Gilisa (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that the missing information. The book by Israel Eph'al, The ancient Arabs: nomads on the borders of the fertile crescent, 9th-5th century B.C., has now been added to the bibliography. The url listed there links directly to the information supporting the sentence on this being the first mention of Arabs as an ethnic element in Assyrian inscriptions.

I'm familiar with Bernard Lewis' work which you linked to above. I tend to share Edward Saids' opinion of him, which wasn't very high. In any case, he doesn't mention Qedarites at all so his work is not relevant here. If you know of other sources discussing Qedar, Kedar, Qedarites and the like who dispute that they are Arab, please present those sources. Anything else would be WP:SYNTH. Thanks again for pointing out the missing biblio info. Have a nice day. Tiamut^talk 19:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Edward Said? Well, that's an original choice for unconjugated reviewer! ;) Bernard Lewis book is considered as RS by any account. I was just pointing on your problematical assertions regarding their ethnicity. Did Eph'al specificaly refer to Qedarites as ethnical Arabs? Whatever your answer is, I doubt this claim represent the bulk of research.--Gilisa (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Read. the. sources. When you finish, we can talk. Tiamut^talk 19:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I read enough, not necessarily all of those are in agreement with yours. All is needed for further discussion is good will. P.s. I can't get to the relevant pages in Eph'al's book in the online version. So, did he specifically refer to Qedarites as ethnically Arabs? Cheers and have nice days as well --Gilisa (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What is needed is source-based discussion. To reply to your question, Eph'al writes: "this is the earliest occurrence in Assyrian documents of the Arabs as an ethnic element in Babylonia" [2]. Tiamut^talk 20:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that's what we do now. Is it on page 102? Because the link direct me to this page which is empty. Cheers--Gilisa (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The page your link directed me to is blank. In any case Eph'al writes Arabs with inverted commas on page 101 of his book (the link direct to page 102). --Gilisa (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The quote I linked you to above is on page 113. The context in which Eph'al is using Arabs on page 101 is different. Tiamut^talk 07:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote already, the link you provided direct to blank page (113).--Gilisa (talk) 07:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, I don't now what to do for you. You have the bibliographical information now so if you want to verify the contents you can go to a library. I've done my part by providing you that information, a link to google books (whee I can see it) and an excerpt of what it says typed out. Its now your job to do more work should you still wih to verify the contents further. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 07:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Title vs subject matter of the article

The title of the article is currently Qedarites, but the article contains information on at least three subjects which although related are nevertheless distinct: a) Kedar the son of Ishmael, b) Kedar the region named after him (according to traditional history) and c) the people known historically as Qedarites/Kederenes from the late 8th century BC onwards. The Kingdom of Qedar forms a fourth topic which can be regarded as a subtopic of c) as the people were still called Qedarites/Kederenes in late antiquity long after the ancient kingdom.

These are indeed separate subjects given the fact the term Qedarites/Kederenes as a name for a people is only found as a name for the inhabitants of the region _after_ the earlier inhabitants were conquered and dispersed by Tiglath-Pileser in the 8th century BC. The term is first found describing the people of the vassal kingdom ruled by Queen Zabibe consisting of people who had settled the region subsequent to the conquest and destruction, the Assyrian reecords do not use the term for the earlier people of the region (nor do Greek or Latin texts). The inhabitants before the Assyrian conquest are referred to simply as a mixed people in the Bible, which means that even they were not simply the people descended from Kedar the son of Ishmael but a mix of people who had entered the region. The description of the tents of Kedar being black discussed in the 19th century views section applies to the tents of the people in the region long before the people formally known as Qedarites/Kedarenes. Given all this, the article would better be named Qedar or Keder and should be structured to cover the whole history of the region starting with the the traditions about the Ishmaelite clan of Kedar, then discussing the mixed people of the region of later times (and the description of their tents), then the Assyrian conquest and the subsequent appearance of the kingdom of Qedar whose people are hence called Qedarites/Kederens in the historical record.

Alternatively the article could be split into separate articles on Kedar son of Ishmael, Kedar (region) and Qedarites. Regarding spelling, although "Qedar" is a more technically correct transliteration of the name, the most common English spelling of the name is Kedar and so this should be the spelling in the primary title with other spellings as redirects. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Women and their Agency in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Saana Teppo (nykyisin Saana Svärd). Master's Thesis, April 2005. Used 6 times but fails WP:RS as it is only a Masters thesis. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Consolidated kingdom? In S Judah?!

"moving westwards during the 6th to 5th centuries BC to consolidate into a kingdom stretching from the eastern limits of the Nile Delta in the west till Transjordan in the east and covering much of southern Judea, the Negev and the Sinai Peninsula. Refs: Stearns and Langer (2001), p. 41; Eshel (2007), p. 149."

Stearns and Langer isn't accessible anymore, at least from my location. Eshel p. 149 is, and he only speaks of "Qedarite distribution", nothing about a consolidation into a kingdom, nor does he present them as masters of Mareshah, let alone southern Judah, but just as one ethnic group among several mentioned in the Mareshah ostraca.

From what I know, it was the Edomites, called Idumeans by the Greeks, who took advantage of Babylon occupying Judah (587/86) by settling southern Judah in greater numbers, so much so that it became known as Idumaea. Not Kedaraea! See Herod's family etc.

Either someone with access to a hard copy of Stearns, or who knows of another good source, can offer here a full quotation editors can work with, or this "consolidates into a kingdom" must be removed, or at least its territory reduced to its real dimensions. Arminden (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is FULL of mistakes!

This article confuses the Nabateans with Qedarites and there are so many errors in it. Ibnismail2222 (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ibnismail2222: which part of this article confuses Nabataeans with Qedarites? Antiquistik (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The section on the history in the Hellenistic period, for instance, routinely uses Qedarites to refer to the Nabataean kingdom. Sometimes the sources just ambiguously refer to 'Arabs' but other times it's clear the Nabataeans are meant. When do we have the latest explicit references to Qedar? Benji man (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)