Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Radhanite

Radhanite

I initiated this article, so I guess this is a self-nom though many others have made great contributions. I put this up for a peer review some time ago and tried to implement the suggestions as best I could. I think this is ready for featured status. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now:
  • The suggested sources for the name found in the "Etymology" section are not footnoted. It is easy to see that the etymology suggested by Gil should be footnoted to him (with page cite) but the others are not attributed to anyone.
  • I would think that a public domain portrait of Radhanites (or of just one individual) should not be hard to find and would greatly improve this article.
  • "The text of Ibn Khordadbeh's account" should be better integrated into the preceding section.
  • "This system was developed and put into force on unprecedented scale by medieval Jewish merchants such as the Radhanites; if so, they may be counted among the earliest modern bankers" The phrase "on an unprecedented scale" is somewhat vague here. How were letters of credit used before? On what "scale" were they used by Radhanite merchants?
  • "Some scholars believe that the Radhanites may have played a role in the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism. In addition, they may have helped establish Jewish communities at various points along their trade routes, and were probably involved in the early Jewish settlement of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, China and India." Both these sentences need to be cited.
  • First paragraph of "The end of the Radhanite age" needs historical citations.
  • More than just one contemporary account would be nice. It need not be as long as this one, but it would provide a more multi-dimensional portrait.
  • "For the Jews, it marked the end of the golden age of trade and the beginning of a long period of systematic persecution and victimization." This reads like a very overbroad and slanted statement.
  • The map has a lot of ugly artifacts from being saved as a JPG. A GIF or better, a PNG, would not look so unprofessional. Andrew Levine 00:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

To respond to a few of your points:

(1) This article is much more heavily footnoted than today's Featured Article (Canadian_House_of_Commons), which in point of fact has no footnotes at all. The truth of the matter is that virtually no encyclopedia contains in-article footnotes; references at the end of the article are considered sufficient. In Radhanites the facts cited are those that were raised as controversial. My position is that it would add little to the article to footnote virtually every fact as you suggest; the facts are derived from the extensive list of sources at the end.

(2) There is no portrait of a Radhanite. We simply do not have any. Ibn Khordadbeh's manuscripts were not illuminated.

I am in the process of making a few changes that may address some of your other concerns.

--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Made a number of changes, including numerous new cites and a new map. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your (1) above: It is unacceptable for a feature article to say of something which is factually disputed, "Some say X, others say Y." These are weasel words. Every statement of opinion must be attributed to the person whose opinion is represented. Even if you don't footnote it to link it to a specific source, the claim must be attributed to the person making it.

Also, I just noticed that the article is unclear as to whether "Radhanite" was just the term ibn Khordadbeh et. al. used to refer to pan-Eurasian Jewish merchants in general, or if this referred to a specific, unified guild with an organized structure. If the latter, details should be added about the organization within the guild/group. If such information does not appear to have survived, the article should make that clear. Andrew Levine 05:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

With regard to your above comments, I have cited various of the assertions and made clarificatory statements regarding the term Radhanite. The reference to Rhages in the Encyclopedia of World Trade also says "others say", so, weasel words or no, the formulation has been accepted by a peer-reviewed, professionally produced and published encyclopedia.

It seems from reading the article and your explanations that there does not exist enough verifiable first-hand information about Radhanites (or the Radhanites, whichever they may be) to make a featured article. I think that you deserve praise for having almost single-handedly written what is close to the best possible Wikipedia article on this obscure subject, but it just seem that the gaps in the historical record are too large to rectify. Andrew Levine 06:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the only reference with which you still have a problem is the Rhages statement. There are numerous excellent articles on items with far fewer first hand references. Respectfully, I do not think your reason for opposing is a valid one. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that this last objection should stop something from being a featured article. If what is known about a subject is significant, but limited, and the article accurately reflects the state of that knowledge, it should be eligible to be featured. This objection strikes me as comparable to saying we couldn't feature a biographical article on someone whose birth date is unknown. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Something like birthdate is a minor bit of information, a single data point. On the Radhanites, huge gaps exist in our knowledge of them: exactly what were they (general name for Jewish merchants, or organized guild?), how did they describe themselves (no such accounts exist), and who were some notable verified Radhanites (some speculation, but it's based only on broad conjecture; we don't even know one for certain). And I'm not talking about this just being missing from the article here, I'm talking about it being missing from the sum of all extant knowledge of the Radhanites, if what Briangotts has said is correct. That's a pretty big swath of unknown information there, much more than missing a single date. Andrew Levine 15:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support--Untifler 15:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support--Wiglaf 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written and informative article on a frequently-overlooked period. Length shouldn't be a criterion, especially on a subject where there isn't much material in existence. Isomorphic 02:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Factual incorrect in several areas. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, you must give specific reasons why you oppose. You raised several disputed matters of fact in the talk page of the article, all of which were either changed or cited to published works. This has the whif of sour grapes. Barring any specific allegations of factual errors (as opposed to cited facts that this user disputes) I ask that the bureaucrat reviewing this disregard this vote. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So any form of criticism is smashed with accusations of Bad Faith. What a nice Guy you are. Problems here include statements such as "the Radhanites were among the first to establish a unifed transcontinental trade network" - Which is false. There was unified intercontinental trade several Centuries there previous, including trade from Africa to Europe via Egypt and the Middle East, also on Ship from Ethiopia. "this (Credit) system was developed and put into force on unprecedented scale" - False. Precedents exist in China, and probably elsewhere should I bother to look. "Some scholars believe that the Radhanites may have played a role in the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism" While it may well be true, gives a false impression. There is no evidence to support such a conclusion, and their opinion is a minority one and should as such be stated. Gregory of Tours, iv. 12, 35; vi. 5 is used to source the statement "The economy of Europe was profoundly affected by the disappearance of the Radhanites. For example, documentary evidence indicates that many spices in regular use during the early Middle Ages completely disappeared from European tables in the 900s. Jews had previously, in large parts of Western Europe, enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the spice trade" - But the source says no such thing! IV(12) is about a priest who was buiried alive, but escaped, at the behest of a King who wanted his property. There is a brief mention of him being a "Great Friend of the Jews" and that he bought their "wares" (Which could have been spices, but that would be speculation) As for IV(35), all we learn from this is that there was a drunkard once. VI(5) tells us of Priscus, a Jew, and how King Chilperic attempted to convert him to Christianity, but failed. None of these in any way support the claim being made. Not that I'm doubting the accuracy of the statement, but it needs proper Cited sources. Bottom line here, for me anyway, is the Ethno-centric outlook this has. The Radhanites trade with China was not unique, Al-Mas'udi talks of the Chinese destroying merchant Muslim, Christian, Jewish and even Zorostrian ships in 878 in Caton (Guangzhou). Their Monetary system was neither as complex nor as developed as the Chinese. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations of ethnocentricity ring hollow given your own edit history. Nevertheless: the credit system established by Jewish merchants was unprecedented in scale because it transcended all national boundaries. A Jew from France could cash his letter of credit as far away as Kaifeng, and vice versa. Jewish communities were extant in almost every major city in the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and the Silk Road, not to mention the Black Sea and the Pontic steppe. Chinese merchants had an ingenious and sophisticated monetary and credit system but it was largely confined to mainland China during the period we are discussing. There was no Chinese community in Paris, for instance, where a Chinese merchant could expect hospitality and credit. While there were Nestorian Christian colonies in China, there is no evidence that they had substantial contact with Western Christians, and it is indisputable that Muslim traders were barred from trade access in most of Christian Europe during this period. Jewish merchants are the only ones in the relevant period who had access to virtually every major marketplace from Tangier to the Great Wall and from Malabar to Siberia. Others, sophisticated and well-travelled as they may have been, operated far more limited networks.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I am Irish, white and from an Anglo-French background. I have never made any attempt at making Articles regarding Irish White merchants of an Anglo-French Background a featured article, nor any article concerning Irish White people from an Anglo-French Background.. Nor any article at all as it happens but nice to see you start your defence of this article by making a personal attack and an accusation of bad faith. Your reasoning for inclusion of the term "unprecendented" is interesting, and should be explictly stated. Chinese Credit systems were in use outside of the Chinese controlled areas, but not, as far as I am aware, outside of Eastern to Central Asia, So include that it was "unprecedented" because it was fully international, that is a note made in China was tender in France, unlike the Chinese system. There is, at least, as much evidence that Christian Ships traded in China. That is because they are included in the same volume of the Khordadbehs work. Why would the Christians be using Ships to trade less they were travelling to trade abroad, which is my point. As for the limited trading of the Muslims, I would have to disagree. The Radhanites barely touched the Western Parts of North Africa, or the Horn of Africa, two areas were Muslims and Arabs were known to trade with, even pre-dating the Advent of Islam. Seeing exclusion of Middle ages Christian Europe as being "far more limited" is an example of that ethnocentricity I was speaking of. The Radhanites were good traders, but they were not in any way magicly unique. They weren't the only traders in to trade in what they traded in, and thier importance and great acheievements really centres on them trading from the Muslim trading posts to the Christian ones. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

With regard to your first two sentences, very cute. With regard to the third, you are outrageously out of line, as my reply to your vote made no personal attack on you, stating only that it was inspecific in contradiction to FAC policy. When you brought up your problems with the article I addressed them, and in fact made changes in the article in compromise, to which you responded by drumming up a slew of more objections (most of which had been dealt with by citing etc. long ago). With regard to the remainder of your long statement, I have no response, as you have said nothing new. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You say the problems highlighted have been dealt with, but they have not! You are still using Gregory Of Tours' History of the Franks iv. 12, 35; vi. 5 to source the statement "The economy of Europe was profoundly affected by the disappearance of the Radhanites. For example, documentary evidence indicates that many spices in regular use during the early Middle Ages completely disappeared from European tables in the 900s. Jews had previously, in large parts of Western Europe, enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the spice trade", but those verses do not support the claim in any way!! Also, the statement "Historically, Jewish communities used letters of credit to transport large quantities of money without the risk of theft from at least classical times" is backed up with Antiquities 18.6.3, but Antiquities 18.6.3 does not back this up. I don't have access to most other sources used, but the classic ones used, to which we can all read online, have been used incorrectly which does not bode well for the non-classic sources used. Also, the statement "Jewish merchants enjoyed significant privileges" is rather ambiguous. What privileges? Were they privileges for all traders, or just jews? explain. My opposition is valid, and I apologise if you opinion was taken incorrectly, but it seemed rather aggressive. --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Another factual innaccuracy. Whatever source told you that Ibn Khordadbeh wrote al-Kitab al Masalik w’al Mamalik was wrong. I believed it too mind, but I believe Wikipedia! Abu Abdullah al-Bakri actually wrote it. now, why is it that when I do a google search for the last part of the quoted statement "arrive at Balkh, betake themselves from there across the Oxus, and continue their journey toward Yourt, Toghozgbor, and from there to China" I get three pages of Google mirrors from this very same article? I need to know whose translation of Al-Bakris Kitâb al-Masâlik wa'l-Mamâlik you are using. Ibn Khordadbeh does kinda sound like Ibn Cordoba, But I'm not in the habit of putting up original Research. Check out Abraham ben Jacob for more info. The Article on Ibn Khordadbeh I see was almost entirely done by you, and remains entirely unsourced. Please Cite your Sources, this is fairly critical.--Irishpunktom\^talk 18:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, though Wikipedia quotes the English name of the book as the "Book of Highways and of Kingdoms" and you have it as the "Book of Roads and Kingdoms" the general accepted translation appears to be "Book of Routes and Realms" which really, IMO, just seems like a more obtuse way of saying Roads and Kingdoms, but there you go. Here we have the BBC using that name, Boston University too, Here it is on sale and Here it is listed in the Library of Congress. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. Ibn Khordadbeh was indeed the author of a book called Kitâb al-Masâlik wa'l-Mamâlik. I vaguely recall hearing of other works by the same title, and perhaps one of them was the al-Bakri travelogue you mention. But dozens of scholarly works mention and cite ibn Khordadbeh's book. As for the translation, I believe I copied it verbatim from Rabinowitz. I will check and cite as appropriate. For now, I am removing the disputed tag at Ibn Khordadbeh. If you wish to write an article about al-Bakri's book by the same title, I am happy to move the article on the book to an appropriate title (i.e. Title+(ibn Khordadbeh). Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Also, I believe that "Mamalik" translates exactly to kingdoms and derives from the semitic root MLK or king (cf. Heb. "Mamlekhet"). What the BBC and LOC choose to translate it as is their own affair, but "Kingdom" and "Realm" are not necessarily interchangeable. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute that you copied directly from some guys book. Right now, what I would like is to know whose translation you used? ibn Khordadbeh the persian, the famous one, was a translater who may well have translated the Arabic acount into the Persian which could be the cause of this. However, Al-Bakri's Kitâb al-Masâlik wa'l-Mamâlik deals with jewish traders going to China. Now are you saying that there are two books with the same name which in part deal with Radhanites but are completely different? This is too co-incidental, and for that reason I'd like to know whose translation you are using so i cna check it myself. Did Rabinowitz do the translation himself? --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Where did you learn that al-Bakri wrote a book by this title that deals with jewish traders called Radhanites? Might your source not be confusing him with ibn K? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The day you produce a fraction of the scholarship that Rabinowitz did over his career, you can refer to him contemptuously as "some guy". Until then [self-censorship to avoid violating WP:CIV.] Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

To avoid further controversy, I have rewritten the translation of Ibn Khordadbeh's quote, citing to Adler rather than Rabinowitz. I have also given a multiplicity of sources that state outright that Ibn Khordadbeh was the author of the Kitab in question (identifying and describing the Radhanites), not al-Bakri (who may, as I said, have written a book by similar or identical name). Hopefully we can put this issue to rest. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice guy. Maybe, as well as being a translator ibn K also wrote his own work with the same name and content as Al Bakri.. maybe, I still want to know whose tranlsation you are using. As for jewish traders called Radhanites, I don't know why their need be a name applied, as I understand it it just talks of the group of Jewish traders travelling east from frankland. Now, Ibn Khurradadhbih did also write, a book of the same name, but he was never based in Persia, living almost his entire life in Baghdad. A quick check on wikipedia shows that he is only mentioned once, Arabic literature <-there. The problem with using this as a source though is that it flies against your argument and maintains the greatness of the Arab traders, while also claiming that they inherited their understanding of the sea Networks from the nice Indian traders who travelled west, something not mentioned at all in the article. Perhaps this is another eaxmple of the ethnocentricity I mentioned earlier, or perhaps is another example of me trying "to downplay Jewish contributions to history while simultaneously shrugging off or sweeping under the rug Muslim atrocities against Jews". Maybe, just maybe, you feel better attacking me rather than accepting criticism and using it to improve the article. Who knows. --Irishpunktom\^talk 01:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that mus be it.

Of course, I have no idea where you're getting any of your info on Ibn Khordadbeh, who was Director of Posts in Djibal and whose father had been governor of Tabaristan. Maybe he lived in Baghdad but it is simply not true that he never was based in Persia. So those assertions are inaccurate, as is your assertion that ibn Khordadbeh did not write the Kitab. I will assume good faith error on your part.

The balance of your statements, again, are nothing new and not worth response. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. This is interesting and well written. Two minor things: I'd like to see more images if anything appropriate can be found, but that's probably unlikely. Also, I like to see embedded links to online sources in the text, showing who said what, but that's just my personal preference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Claims of factual inaccuracy appear to be entirely spurious. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Onter than being wanting for pictures (which, I gather, are unattainable), I think this is a very well-written and well-referenced article. I, like Andrew above, was not sure about the final sentence, but am sure I have seen such tone used in similar reference works; I also do think it is clearly marked by the subsequent events in history. jnothman ^talk 06:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Has all a featured article needs. Perhaps the Arabic could also be represented in Arabic script. JFW | T@lk 15:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object Well-written, interesting, informative, and I'd assume comprehensive, as I came away satisfied with my new "encylopedia-level" understanding of a topic previously unknown to me. However, in the (IMO) extremely tricky area of how sources and citations are used in Wikipedia, I do have two specific points, under the FAC criterion calling for factual accuracy/verifiability, plus one other, more an issue of writing style:

• Not clear on the source of the extensive Ibn Khordadbeh quoted material Presumably, this wasn't written in English, yet I can't find where the translation was obtained. Considering the length of the section and the amount of information it delivers, citing the source, beyond simply being suggested in the WP:CITE guideline, simply makes common sense in this case.
• What not to cite?I should note that I'm trying to make up my mind about the use of inline citations in Wikipedia (as opposed to, say, a bibliography). For one thing, in some articles, the copious use of citations renders text practically unreadable. And then, again thinking of the reader, the sources, when put forward so prominently, should be reasonably available: Are the majority of readers, faced with a bunch of footnotes, able to easily access this source material? And so forth. That said, it was made clear here that the subject is not well-documented, so I found the inline citations useful, insofar as that statement implied some greater than usual potential for controversiality. But, once having established this "level of citation", a statement like: "In addition, they may have helped establish Jewish communities at various points along their trade routes, and were probably involved in the early Jewish settlement of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, China and India." also seems in need of citation. There are other similar instances; wherever a specific statement is made, like, "led to widespread chaos in Inner Eurasia, the Caucasus and China.", I'm expecting a citation. Good or bad, useful or overkill, for starters, it should be consistent.
• "The economy of Europe was profoundly affected by the disappearance of the Radhanites." Perhaps my unrefined interpretation of the word "profoundly" (my emphasis in the quote), but, especially as the topic of the closing paragraph, the statement seemed dramatic and not well supported by the spice example as presented. The usage of "profoundly" may be fine for many, but it does suggest something huge that a reader may not see as supported as is. Perhaps an alternative wording to include the less subtle reader...

Tsavage: Spices were a substantial part of the Mediaeval market in Europe. The word “profoundly” seems quite appropriate to me.-- Olve 16:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Profoundly" is a much more charged and sweeping term, than, for example, "significant", "substantial", or even "far-reaching". "Spice" may've been a big deal, but the way it is presented as an example does not really support a "deep, far-reaching effect". A profound effect on an economy could be something that brings it near collapse; did the disappearance of Radhanites bring the European economy to the brink of collapse? It may be "only the choic of a word", but I made clear why it stood out to me: it sets the tone for what is effectively the closeout summary of the article. FAC is all about quality in the details, right? --Tsavage 17:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• It is not made clear what Radhanite refers to - This is an additional point, after a more critical re-reading. It is not made clear exactly who the Radhanites were. From my initial reading, I gathered that this was a name that, while not entirely well-documented, referred to "Jewish merchants" trading along certain routes, during a certain period. I believe that is the intention of the article. However, that Radhanite refers to these merchants is not sufficiently established, and what information there is is vague. Ibn Khordadbeh is cited as one of three primary instances of use of the name, yet in the extensive Ibn Khordadbeh description of merchant activity, "Radhanite" is not actually mentioned" and the source for Ibn Khordadbeh is not given, so basically, this is unsupported. Yitzhak Dorbelo and Sefer ha-Dinim are the other two primary sources mentioned, but the information in each case is vague and only a sentence long. The Etymology section is similarly unclear, apparently referring to the name itself, but not to the people or time period it referred to. Since the article frames itself in the uncertainty as to what "Radhanite" refers to--Whether the term, which is used by only a limited number of primary sources, refers to a specific guild or is a generic term for Jewish merchants in the trans-Eurasian trade network is unclear is the second sentence--it is necessary to know: On what source is it based that Radhanite refers to "Jewish merchants dominated trade between the Christian and Muslim worlds during the early Middle Ages (approx. 600-1000 CE)"?

Again, I dunno if the approach to sources and citations is being well-handled for a "general encyclopedia", but proper and consistent verifiability seems important, especially in a more obscure topic where sources are limited, and therefore objectivity and accuracy are more difficult to esptablish. and I almost didn't want to object here, but, what's the point of FAC if not a place for stuff like this to get thrashed out...? --Tsavage 15:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (Updated: I struck my comment because I realize it could be misinterpreted as my objection being minor. That is not the case. My objection is as stated, and not simply a comment.) --Tsavage 20:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

• Strong support. -- Olve 16:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support per nominator --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support A reasonable approach to a very dimly lit region of economic history, one which deserves far better illumination. The assertions and conclusions drawn by the author are somewhat general, but that is to be anticipated in an overall survey article - quite apart from which, sources for that era are sparse in any case. --Obsidian 22:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support. I still think the low number of firsthand attestations should be a barrier to FA status, but it seems most of the other shortcomings have been addressed. Andrew Levine 17:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity, if according to your interpretation of FA criteria (here, your concerns would seem fall under comprehensiveness and/or verifiability), this article doesn't meet the FA standard, why are you voting "support"? (IMO, FAC should be quite uncompromising, else what's the point of anyone spending time here? Why work so hard on reading and re-reading, researching, discussing, and so forth, over days and even weeks, just to have less than GREAT articles make it?) --Tsavage 18:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Although the debate is long closed, I now believe that I was wrong to support this article. I was under the impression at the time that this process was more like a vote than it actually is, and so symbolically, I am changing my "Weak Support" vote back to Oppose. Andrew Levine 02:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

what the hell?

User:Briangotts, exactly who are you referring to when you solicit votes for this with the statement "This FAC is being opposed by a POV pusher who has consistantly tried to downplay Jewish contributions to history (while simultaneously shrugging off or sweeping under the rug Muslim atrocities against Jews and otherssee, e.g., al-Andalus and Banu Qurayza). Please review the article when you are able and weigh in on the FAC page, or not, as you feel appropriate". Why must you persist in using personal attacks against people who disagree with your own POV? --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And how many people did you send this to? --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I was, of course, referring to you. And I regard the statement as 100% accurate. Nor did I solicit votes. I alerted people who might be interested in the vote, and urged them, as you plainly see in the quote that you cited, to vote (or not) as they felt appropriate. Don't cloud the issue by hurling accusations of malfeasance for an activity that violates no policy. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Right so, do you actually think that I am on some anti-Judaism crusade on wikipedia? Further, I never said that you were violating policy, rather I asked to whom you sent your vitriolic hyperbole, and you chose, for whatever reason not to answer. I also asked to whom the statement referred, just to make it explicit. --Irishpunktom\^talk 01:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Spare me your hysterics about "vitriolic hyperbole" please. I discribed you as a "POV warrior" an opinion which I stand by 100%. This discussion has only solidified my opinion. If you think my discription of you as such violated some WP policy, you are welcome to go to the ArbCom and we'll see what they think. The information regarding who I sent the message to is as available to you as it is to me. My contributions are open to your review; indeed, a link is attached to my signature. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If Brian is sending this message out, I think he is out of line. Tom has raised legitimate questions concerning the factual accuracy of the article, some of which the nominator has yet to even acknowledge much less correct, and for Brian to go around implying that Tom has anti-Semitic motivations is uncalled for. I also think that Brian is being disingenuous when he says he wasn't soliciting votes with his talk-page requests. And for what it's worth, I too am Jewish and I too oppose this article's candidacy. Andrew Levine 02:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to continue to oppose, and I in no way begrudge you your opinion in the matter. Your comments were very useful in improving the article. With regard to Tom, I have addressed and corrected many of the issues Tom raises. Many of the "factual disputes" he has injected into this discussion are themselves, to be kind, factually innaccurate (such as his statement that ibn Khordadbeh was not the author of the Kitab that discusses the Radhanites). There is no way to "acknowldege" such false statements. The article is heavily cited to a number of sources. If Tom wishes to continue disputing well-sourced facts, he may do so; I feel that I have gone above and beyond the call of duty in addressing the issues raised in this discussion.

With regard to my contacting people to inform them of this vote, you are entitled and welcome to your opinion that I am "out of line", but please point out a Wikipedia policy that prohibits the nominator of an FAC from informing possibly interested persons (many of whom contributed to the article) about the vote. Most of the people I informed don't know me from Adam, don't owe me anything and could just as easily have voted against the article. Among those I contacted were people who made critical statements about the article during its peer review. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not that you have been contacting Wikipedians to ask them to comment on the vote that I object to; lots of nominatiors do that and I have no problem with the practice. It is that you have slandered Tom and accused him of pushing an agenda that do not, to me, appear to be his motives. I wish that you extend the same civility to Tom that you have accorded to me, and further that you address his comments about the information drawn from Gregory of Tours. Andrew Levine 17:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot dispute Tom's statements about Gregory of Tours because I don't have old Greg handy. However several days ago I replaced the citation with one to another group of sources saying the same thing.

Before you make judgments about whether I have "slandered" him, why don't you take a look at his extensive history of editwarring and discourteous conduct with other users. His contribs should speak for himself. If I have treated you with greater civility and respect than I have him, it is because you have done nothing that would deserve any less. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)