Talk:Mudhar


 * The first two sentences are far too scanty for even a stub biography. Is more info available, or not, to justify having a separate Mudhar biography stub, as opposed to a biographical sentence or two in other articles where appropriate?
 * This article contains useful and relevant historical information / cultural tradition that should not be deleted.. But
 * This information is poorly presented, and it may be better presented in either a more visual way(list, chart, or diagram), or as a well written paragraph of prose. Hopefully a combination of the two.
 * This article would be better if there was some way of differentiating between these branches. Where did each one settle?(Map with arrows?) Did they wear different clothes, or worship different gods, or cook different foods? Art? Poetry?
 * Even after reading this article closely I cannot figure out how many branches of this tribe(Or family?) there are (or is it were?) So far, I think it may be seven.
 * Perhaps this article should be merged with Rabi'ah and Adnan

It needs serious review and it needs
People computer literate and speak the languages you people demand be perfected. By the way you have a self reference after a son of Ishmael.

Nebaioth is the last VERIFIED ancestor, I don't however speak arabic, or care to. Moreover there are no references or citations to prove otherwise, the information contained herein is pretty much irrelevant.

For instance, "ma'ad" yes, this whole thing is a work of fiction and fancy as it stands. 71.34.69.134 (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Further:
... On a personal note, I didn't read beyond the description of descendents because there is no verifiable information to indicate otherwise, and should since be blotted out. Or the situation referred to a moderating authority with a wider scope of the entire verifiable prattle.71.34.69.134 (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

and final.
This article and most anything associated with anything after the son (ibn/bnei/ben) of Nebaioth.

And the suggestion to merge with an article that is not verified in itself, just compounds the entire contradiction of the scope of the wikiproject.

Verifiable, not what's true. What's VERIFIABLE!

There is no verification anywhere! Just cyclic redudancy!71.34.69.134 (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)