Talk:Qedarites

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.  T i a m u t 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.  T i a m u t 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.  T i a m u t 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?  T i a m u t 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 . 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.  T i a m u t 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.  T i a m u t 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" .  T i a m u t 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.  T i a m u t 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.  T i a m u t 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&#39;s Ghost (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2011 (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)


 * 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)