Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EvKnight13 (talk | contribs) at 18:31, 26 December 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Radhanite received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Radhanite has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

An excellent article.--Wiglaf 19:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have commented on the peer review page. Isomorphic 28 June 2005 05:38 (UTC)

First Problem

ok, I don't know a lot about the Radhanites, but, this I do know about the Roman Empire. Over 100 years BCE the Asians in the area of Modern Day China, the Han Dynasty folks, began -what I like to call- the "Silk Road" which led to them trading with the Romans who are considered Western by most people. Did the Chinese cease that trade? The answer is no, thus the statement "The Radhanites were the first Westerners to establish trade with China in centuries" s wrong. Also, "Many historians believe that it was these Jewish merchants, not Chinese prisoners-of-war, who introduced the art of paper-making to the Caliphate." is unsourced, speculative and odd. Chinese traders did come west, and the Radhanite folks were not the only ones going east, so the suggestion that the only possible way of paper-making getting to Baghdad was via the Radhanite or the POWs is dishonest and wrong. "Historically, medieval Jewish communities used letters of credit to transport large quantities of money without the risk of theft. This system may have been pioneered by the Radhanites; if so, they may be counted among the earliest modern bankers." - Incorrect, recommended reading = anything of the asian/Chinese banking systems and also the Pre-modern Banking set up in the Delhi Sultanate (There are books on that that are amazing to read). In short, source all claims made. --Irishpunktom\ 16:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The Radhanites, of course, would have predated anything that came out of the Dehli Sultanate. As for China, you are welcome to enter your own <cited> retort to the now-cited references to Jewish credit systems. RadhaniteBriangotts ] 03:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The system of banking used in the dehli Sultanate was far similar to what we would understand as banking than what the nice Radhanite folks had set up. The Chinese financial system is well documented, using leather then paper as representatives of held deposit wealth over 700 years before the Radhanites traded their first slave. Banking as a system is old, a lot older than the Radhanites and has existed probably, in one form or another, since man could count. This piece reeks of Ethno-centric POV meanderings, and could do with a cleanup. --Irishpunktom\ 20:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You asked that I cite sources, and I have. If you wish to challenge them do so. But you had better cite your sources and they had better be from reputable publications. The fact that the article doesn't comport with your understanding of the world does not make it an "ethnocentric POV meandering", and I'll thank you to take a more civil tone in future.Briangotts ] 21:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought I was more that Civil, "ethnocentric POV meandering" is hardly personal abuse, it is my observation. Here is a source for the bank set-up in China - It includes the quote "It is however in China that the use of paper money was most fully developed in early times. More than a century before the Christian era, an emperor of China raised funds to prosecute his wars in a way which shows that the use of leather tokens was familiar to the people." Era. It includes the same speculation as I in so far as it speculates on the origins of banking, but the point is the idea that the Radhanites were the earliest bankers is simply wrong. --Irishpunktom\ 18:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't say they were the earliest bankers. I will assume in good faith that you are not setting up a straw man. The text of the article says they "may be counted among the earliest modern bankers"... --Briangotts ] 20:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't stop it being False. They were not Modern in any concieveable fashion and were not early either. Its simply not true. --Irishpunktom\ 16:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If that is your problem with the article, I expect you will be withdrawing your opposition to featured status based on the latest changes. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Lev Gumilev

Someone, please enlarge on Gumilev's opinion that the Radhanites were shadowy architects of the early Russian foreign policy who stood behind Rus' early campaigns against their chief trade rival, Byzantium --Ghirlandajo 14:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What work is this in? Gumilev had many theories with somewhat dubious factual support, to put it mildly. His belief that Khazar Jews oppressed and exploited hard-working Slavs was the product of old-fashioned anti-Semitism. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

early Middle Ages?

The article on the Middle Ages is not consistent here, either, but this article uses once Early Middle Ages, and later early Middle Ages. What is the correct capitalisation (I'm not a big history editor)? jnothman 06:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's "early Middle Ages".

"one knows the way"

This seems strange for a name. Should it be "one who knows the way"? jnothman 06:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Fixed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

Thoughts on including "external links" to the article? Tomer 11:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter