Talk:Banu Kilab/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 13:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll gladly take this huge article on, but will have to work through it in stages, so it may be some time before I post the review... Constantine  ✍  13:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

OK, let's go. I did a read-through last week and it looks really well done. I will now go section-by-section in detail, doing some copyedits (feel free to revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and making comments below.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Origins and branches
 * May I suggest using the foo template for Arabic terms?
 * Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * the most prominent being the first five, according to the historian Werner Caskel This suggests that this may be only one view, and that other historians may hold different views. Unlike the ranking of the tribes immediately after, this is not apparent here as no other views are listed, and since Caskel's article is in the EI2, I assume this is the consensus view, so this is redundant (unless I am missing something).
 * You are right, revised. Al Ameer (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The Mirdasid dynasty belonged to the Rabi'a ibn Ka'b sub-tribe. I think this is getting a bit ahead, better introduce this info when the Mirdasids are discussed. The reader already has to deal with too many strange names here.
 * Removed altogether; the Mirdasids are introduced later as being of the Abu Bakr division, which is more relevant than the specific lineage of "Rabi'a ibn Ka'b ibn Abu Bakr". Al Ameer (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Can we give a source for the genealogical chart?
 * Added sources. The chart is abbreviated to the main sub-groups of the Qays, particularly those relevant to this article, and so some of the 'progenitors' are left out, such as Sa'sa'a, the supposed father of the Banu Amir, or the supposed 'fathers' of the Hawazin and Ghatafan, etc. I could add them to be more precise and in line with the sources, if that would be best. Al Ameer (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I think it is enough if we focus on the tribes themselves. The chart is already extensive enough. It is however clear that some tribes are shown in more detail (the Ka'b, Ghatafan/Dhubyan) than others that are not the Kilab. I assume that is because these tribes are mentioned in the article? If so, that is understandable, but blurs a bit the subject of the chart. A more purist approach would be to limit the chart to the Kilab subtribes, and the 'sibling' branches of its parents (i.e. eliminating the subtribes of Ghatafan and Ka'b). This has IMO the benefit of focusing the chart on the divisions and relations of the Kilab. This is entirely optional, however.
 * Took your suggestion. Further, what are your thought on highlighting the Kilab, its branches and/or the parent tribes with a different color? Al Ameer (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Highlighting the Kilab and its subtribes with a color was indeed very helpful. Please restore it :) Constantine  ✍  18:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Abode
 * their respective territories were sufficiently large I get how the vicinity of the tribes explains their solidarity, but can't make the link to the size of their territories alone (is it because they did not have to compete for more territory? but this is contradicted by the Kilab were in a constant state of latent hostilities with its neighboring tribes and with the South Arabian neighbors of the Ka'b and the Banu Amir in general further down)
 * Your suspicion is correct, the implication being they each controlled enough territory that they did not have to eat each other's. I see your point though. Perhaps the fact that they were also 'full brother' tribes reduced potential hostility that large and strong tribes typically had for outsiders. In any case, I removed it. Al Ameer (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * they soured toward the end of the 6th century or the beginning of the 7th century do we know why?
 * Need to look into the sources and update you asap. I remember reading that Amir ibn al-Tufayl frequently attacked the Balharith in verse and the B. Amir/Kilab probably were in some state of hostilities with them by his time (late 6th/early 7th century). Before that, the leading clan of the Kilab had taken refuge with the Balharith on one or two occasions. Al Ameer (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is fine if we do not know, just state it, e.g. "Friendly relations had been maintained with the Balharith, Nahd and Jarm of Najran to the southwest, but toward the end of the 6th century or the beginning of the 7th century the sources report hostilities between the Kilab and the Balharith." Constantine  ✍  21:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Leadership of the Ja'far
 * its Tamimi counterparts since the Yarbu too are Tamimi, this doesn't work. "its Tamimi brethren"?
 * Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * were fully conscience were fully conscious?
 * Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * the inter-tribal conflicts are a headache to get through, despite the article author's doing a really good job at keeping it short and to the point, and providing context. I wonder whether the details about individual battles (how many were killed, or whose mother was captured) should not be split off to their own articles. It will not impede GA status for the present, but it would help with WP:SS concerns. On the other hand, it gives a wonderful picture of pre-Islamic Arab conflicts...
 * Thanks for the dose of sobriety. I trimmed a lot of the fat from the pre-Islamic period sections (and other sections to a lesser extent). Split some stuff off to Fijar Wars, Battle of Shi'b Jabala, and footnotes. Definitely need to start an article on the pre-Islamic ayyam (battle days), and on more individual battles if they are notable enough (Rahrahan, al-Nisar, Dhu Nuwab, etc.). Let me know how things look and if more trimming/summarizing is in order. Al Ameer (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Will need to re-review the section once I have some time. But I am glad that you did this, I literally had to start jotting down names and making diagrams to connect the people and events, to be able to follow this. And an article on the ayyam would be awesome. Constantine  ✍  21:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This made me laugh. How to approach this subject was a bit challenging. You have a tribe with a long history of recorded activity in three or four distinct geographic regions, and, despite the constant rivalries for leadership, they exhibit pretty impressive stamina and solidarity over several centuries (relative to other Arab tribes). The original motivation was to provide context for the Mirdasid dynasty article, which I intend to tackle eventually. To reduce the overall size of this article, I may create a separate article on the Ja'far ibn Kilab/Banu Ja'far since they are the focus of the tribe's history from the pre-Islamic period up to the reign of Abu Bakr. They retain some prestige into the first decades of Umayyad rule, but do not play a major role then or later. From that point, the Amr and Dibab appear the focus of the tribe's history until the rise of the Mirdasids (a family of the Abu Bakr). I also thought of the Banu Kilab in Syria, but decided it made better sense to keep it the way it is. Al Ameer (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand it is difficult to strike a balance, since the scope of the tribe's actions varies enormously over time, from the 'petty' warfare of tribal raids to regional dynasties. But I think it is now much better. And I am looking forward to any articles on pre-Islamic topics, they are an even weaker point in Wikipedia's already poor coverage of Arab history. I have also made some copyedits to the section, trying to make reading easier. Have a look and feel free to revert, as usual. Constantine  ✍  18:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

More to come... Constantine  ✍  16:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Relations with Medina
 * Made some copyedits, feel free to revert.
 * Abu Bara was displeased by Amir ibn al-Tufayl's involvement were there any consequences? If this led to some action, add it, otherwise I'd suggest dropping it.
 * Removed. Al Ameer (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Although Abu Bara and his son...the Muslims were attacked upon encountering the Ri'l and other clans of the Sulaym at Bir Ma'una, where the Sulaym encamped under the Kilab's protection is this Kister's opinion/interpretation? is this one of the contradictory parts of the accounts, or what everyone agrees on? If so, I would move this to the section above. Generally, I would recommend reorganizing this in a chronological and thematic basis, e.g.
 * Intro into the battle and the differing accounts: "In July 625 a party of Muslims dispatched by Muhammad to the Najd were killed at Bir Ma'una, a watering place, by Bedouin tribesmen. The traditional Islamic accounts of the event are contradictory, and modern historians offer varying assessments of the event, differing on the Muslim expedition's peaceful or military character, its aim, and the composition of the involved parties."
 * Then, why the expedition took place/context: "The expedition to the Najd had been prompted by a meeting between Abu Bara and Muhammad, where the former had declined the latter's invitation to embrace Islam, but proposed to Muhammad that a Muslim deputation be sent to proselytize in the Najd under Abu Bara's protection. M. J. Kister concluded that Abu Bara, an elderly man by then, had sought to buttress his position within the tribe by backing Muhammad, but without embracing Islam. Muhammad had sought to win over at least part of the powerful Banu Amir, particularly following his military setback against his Quraysh enemies at the Battle of Uhud four months prior."
 * Then, who took part: "Although Abu Bara and his son, Rabi'a, promised them the protection of their tribe, the Muslims were attacked upon encountering the Ri'l and other clans of the Sulaym at Bir Ma'una, where the Sulaym encamped under the Kilab's protection. Amir ibn al-Tufayl and his cousin, Jabbar ibn Sulma, a grandson of Abu Bara, were the only two Kilabi tribesmen mentioned by name as participants in the Bedouin party. The sources generally implicate Amir ibn al-Tufayl with leading the Sulaymi assault against the Muslims. Kister placed the Sulaymi chief Anas ibn al-Abbas al-Ri'li, who sought to avenge the slaying of his nephew by the Muslims at the Battle of Badr in 624, as the assault's overall leader, but did not discount that Amir ibn al-Tufayl approved or participated in the assault.
 * Then, the aftermath: "The survivors of the attack killed two men of the Kilab on their return to Medina in revenge, prompting Muhammad to offer Abu Bara blood money for their slayings, which were judged to be illicit. Abu Bara was displeased by Amir ibn al-Tufayl's involvement. Bara's cooperation with Muhammad was largely seen as an aberration by the Banu Amir, and cost him his pre-eminent position in the tribe. Not long after, Abu Bara died, and was succeeded by Amir ibn al-Tufayl as leader of the Ja'far."
 * Excellent! Revised accordingly. Al Ameer (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Mu'adh, opposed the rebellion can this be taken as an indication that parts of the tribe remained loyal to Medina? Can this be stated?
 * Removed. Replaced with the Banu Amir's general position during the Ridda, which is more relevant. Al Ameer (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, much better.


 * Can we introduce the title of caliph when talking about Abu Bakr as Muhammad's successor as leader of the Muslims?
 * Done. Al Ameer (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Activity in Arabia until the 10th century
 * Link caliphs in Medina to the Rashidun?
 * Done. Al Ameer (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * among the sub-tribes of the Kilab and the Banu Amir which remained in central Arabia as opposed to? We should mention here that a part of the tribe relocated as a result of the Muslim conquests.
 * Revised to just "the Kilab and the Banu Amir in central Arabia". Al Ameer (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * central Arabian risings of the mid-9th century hmmm, perhaps 'Bedouin uprisings in central Arabia during the reign of al-Wathiq' or similar?
 * Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

More in the next few days. Constantine  ✍  21:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Iraq and the east
 * the sole Qaysi in the Iraqi viceregal administration should we mention here that the Muhallabids were champions of the Yaman, and their rivalry with the Qays? Otherwise the significance of this is unclear.
 * Sorry for the delay, I didn't have that much time to focus properly on this until today. Have, as usual, made a number of copyedits, to save time. Please have a look at them.

I am, at long last, finished. Overall it is a very good article, and I learned a lot from it. Once my remarks are addressed, I will be happy to pass it. My only concern is the impression that the article is cobbled together from what are, in effect, separate articles: the tribe in pre-Islamic times, the Banu Zufar and Banu Bayhas families, and then a detailed article on the Emirate of Aleppo and the Mirdasid dynasty, plus some shorter sections on the tribe in other regions of the Islamic world. I know you are aware of the problem, from our discussion above, and of course the article must reflect the sources. I can't really think of a solution other than thorough trimming, which IMO at this point would be excessive and counter-productive. However, if and when you create fork articles from here, a suitable trimming of the corresponding sections here might be in order. Nevertheless, once again, well done. Constantine  ✍  18:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Early migrations and leadership of the Qays
 * the chief of the Ja'far was Abd Allah ibn Bishr of the Ja'far in Syria, or over those in Arabia as well? Ditto for the the chief of the Abu Bakr, Abd al-Aziz ibn Zurara ibn Jaz.
 * Pages for Dixon 1969?
 * Emirate of Aleppo
 * their kinship connections with the Kilab in the Jazira why was that an asset?
 * army of ghilman suggest using the hybrid plural 'ghulams' or 'ghulam-based army' to make it easier for the average reader
 * In 1056 Thimal was pressured by whom?
 * Later, in 1277, the Kilab gave their allegiance to the Mamluk sultan Baybars at Harim in northern Syria This ends rather abruptly. Nothing more heard of them after that?
 * In general, this section is very well written, and I have little to remark on it as such.
 * Sources
 * oclc for the works missing an ISBN
 * location for Cobb and Shaban
 * Cappel is a journal article, so it should be formatted accordingly, with page range.
 * Dixon is a PhD thesis
 * consistent formatting of ISBNs (either with or without dashes)
 * I will have most of the points addressed on Monday or Tuesday, please excuse the delay. I agree that the essential remedy would be to shift a lot or most of the material to individual articles, with this article serving as an umbrella. I have already started to some extent, but it will of course take longer to complete. Al Ameer (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, take your time. Constantine  ✍  08:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Status query
Constantine, Al Ameer, it has been over two months since the last post here on April 3, and not a single edit has been made to the article itself by Al Ameer to address the issues raised on March 27. Where does this stand, and more important, how soon can the necessary work be done? If the answer is not numbered in days or perhaps a week or two, it is probably time to close this. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I intended to finish the sub-articles and the trimming here several weeks ago, but this did not happen and I do not see it happening within 2 weeks. I am OK to have this nomination failed/closed and will re-nominate when it is ready. Al Ameer (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, . However Ialso don't have a problem with waiting till this is done. Constantine  ✍  13:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Constantine, Al Ameer, it has been another two weeks, and while Al Ameer has edited elsewhere, it hasn't been this article. I really think it's time to close this now. It can be renominated when it's finally ready. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Constantine, Al Ameer, it's been another six weeks and more without any action. Absent objections, I plan to close this at the end of 17 August 2022 (UTC), or earlier if you concur. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Close it anytime, as I stated several weeks ago. Will not be moving forward on this anytime soon, unfortunately. Al Ameer (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)