Talk:Sheba

Request for Mediation

There needs to be serious discussion here instead of edit warring. Once again User:Kendrite claims absolute infallibility for his sources like Britannica and Finklestein, and wants to totally belittle what local sources say about their own history. This massive rewriting of the history of all parts of the world by Britannica should not be forced on wikipedia. All points of view need to be given neutrally. There is a very good reason why Sabaeans and Sheba are different topics. These are not things I am making up out of my own head; it can easily be shown that there is a LONG tradition of an African Sheba and a Yemenite Saba and no amount of archaeology done in Yemen on Saba possibly allows all of these traditions about Sheba to be brushed aside with all the smarminess of an Encyclopedia Britannica. All viewpoints needs to be told and those suppressing one view for another need to back off. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

the locals believe that Queen of sheba was a daughter of a Jini! should i include that? you can write whatever you want under the ethiopian section all i said is that Archaeologists (the authority on this subject) say that there is no doubt that "sheba" is Saba. They don't believe the queen ever existed. shouldn't that be included in the article? i didn't delete the ethiopian section and there is no archaeological findings in Ethiopia prove any of the tales. Arabs have a long tradition of unfounded fairytales as well but i didn't include them --Kendite (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

How exactly can archaeology prove a queen never existed? This sounds more like an agenda to me. Did the find an inscription stating "This queen never existed, and Sheba is the same as Saba?" No, those are skeptical ideas that were born yesterday in Europe. The farther back you go, the more sources say the opposite of that. The racism is the attitude saying "Africans couldn't possibly know anything about their own history, all of their history they take pride in, every last detail, needs to be completely rewritten by us self appointed experts" and then insisting that attitude is the only possibly correct attitude. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Because they have plenty of evidence about Saba in Yemen and Ethiopia as well but they didn't find anything about the Queen. not to mention that some of them believe that she might have been a queen over a Sabaean colony in northern Arabia. I don't know what you are talking about (agenda) stop sounding crazy and scary please. Sheba is the hebrew diversion of Saba. if you think archaeologists are racist than i don't know what to say. --Kendite (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If they didn't find anything about the queen those archaeologists must have been looking in the wrong places, but that is far from proving her non-existence and then trying to ram that skepticism down everyone else's throats. I have read plenty of other articles that state evidence for the queen has been found, but you claim to be able to pick and choose what is reliable and what isn't depending on the litmus test of your agenda. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What articles? that she was found in Nigeria? well you can write that down but archaeologists believe the kingdom was located in Marib in southern Arabia with several related colonies in northern Ethiopia and northern Arabia. You can write them a letter with suggestions i don't care. I have reliable sources about this matter and if you think they are part of a conspiracy than it's your problem --Kendite (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No, they are biased sources expressing a POV, not to be endorsed. You are claiming that your British sources are the ultimate authorities about Ethiopian history, and the Ethiopian sources are worthless about their own history. Typical attitude of white supremacism. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying Israel finkelstien, eduard glaser, The BBC, The British Museum, Alfred Felix Landon Beeston and every archaeologist and researcher in the world are biased? I didn't say Ethiopian accounts are worthless but just like the Islamic one is unfounded. you have provided the African, biblical and quranic accounts why do you oppose the archaeological one? just because you don't like it does not mean it's biased and racist. --Kendite (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Your claim of "every archeologist and researcher in the world" is just poppycock. It ignores all the archaeologists and researchers who have said different. All those sources expressing a contradictory POV, are expressing a contradictory POV, and therefore should not be endorsed, especially considering they have yet to "prove" anything whatsoever and difference of opinion still remains. All views should be mentioned including the skeptical one, but none of them must be endorsed, that is a cardinal rule of NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

provide me an archaeological source suggest otherwise? I have provided the opinions of Experts unless you have an equal source i'm not responding --Kendite (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You have written in the article: "Modern archaeological findings [1] [2] [3]indicate that Sheba mentioned in the Bible was the ancient south Arabian kingdom of Saba". This is dubious. Please explain in detail precisely WHAT these "findings" are and HOW they possibly indicate any such thing, apart from speculation, hypothesis and conjecture by people in armchairs in London. Just claining "findings" without explaining what the proof is, is unaceptable. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Sheba with Sabaeans

• I strongly oppose the proposal that has been made, edit warred over the tag, but until now not discussed here, to merge this article about the Biblical topic Sheba, with the article about Sabaeans. A careful reading of this article about the name Sheba in the Bible, shows that there are several individuals in the Bible with that name, and that is the scope of this article. The more I research, the more I see what a massive amount of unresolved debate there has been for centuries and still continuing, regarding the precise identification of any of these Shebas. The conjecture identifying various Biblical occurrences of "Sheba" and/or "Seba" with the archaeologically known Sabaeans of Yemen has never been proved nor disproved by any archaeological "finding", contrary to what is now being falsely asserted in the Intro. There is still just as much heated disagreement over this in available sources today as there was in Sir Walter Raleigh's day, or at any other time. Most scholarly sources at least do make an attempt to be fair and balanced and mention other views. Wikipedia if anything should strive to be the most balanced of all, not the most one-sided of all. Sheba, Seba, Saba and Sabaeans are all topics that have confused many authors over the centuries, and there may be some overlap in the territory covered, but we must not add to the confusion by sweeping them all into one article; it would be much preferable to explain all the nuances of Sheba (the Biblical term or terms) and Sabeans (the historically known kingdom of Yemen) on their separately dedicated pages. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has warned both editors about edit-warring, I'm glad this is finally being discussed here. So far as I can see, Til is right and there should be no merger. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to NOT merge. We should keep two separate articles, and blue-link them. Wdford (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no "unsolved debate" read the article in all wikis. Sheba is pronounced "Saba" in Arabic language scripture and in the Quran in addition to ancient south Arabian script (called Musnad which the Africans in Ethiopia got their script from). I have provided many sources saying that Sheba is Saba John philby's books "the land of sheba" and "daugtgers of Sheba" are all about Yemen. Wendell philips book "Qataban and Sheba" is about Saba, The Romans, greeks and assyrians all wrote about the kingdom with similar descriptions to that in the bible. The romans called marib "Mariba", should wikipedia dedicate another article for "mariba"? The Jews called saba "Sheba" just like they called Egypt "Masr"! why shouldn't we write another article about "Masr" since the Jews didn't call it Egypt? There is nothing to discuss here Saba is "Sheba" --Kendite (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Once again, the scope of this article is a Biblical term, or a series of Biblical terms; and all of the various conjectures about what that Biblical term means or how it might be interpreted. Would you be good enough to address the question of precisely what archaeological finding resolves this question, and how exactly, so that we might know what you know? Thanks Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

i'm not an archaeologist as all i can do is CITE THEM! --Kendite (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what would be considered a valid source than a well known archaeologist like Israel Finkelstein? you know that he wrote the following "there should be no doubt that the kingdom was located in southern Arabia" in a response to the nonsense afro centrists promote. why can't you look for ancient civilizations in Zimbabwe or Senegal instead of claiming other nations Heritage? and i already shed some light on the sabaean relationship to Ethiopia and possibly ancient israel (as there is enough evidence that sabaean colonies existed in northern Arabia) read "speculation about the location" section.

So in other words an "appeal to authority" is all you've got? (And an appeal to their own authority is all they've published?) No tablet dug up in Yemen, former Sabaean kingdom saying "This was the same thing as Biblical Sheba"? Remember, the scope of this article as it stands is Biblical Sheba (all four of 'em, whether spelled with Samekh or Shin, Joktanite or Cushite). An "appeal to authority" might have been enough, if there weren't also a large number of other published opinions speculating that Biblical Sheba was NOT the same as the Yemenite Sabaean kingdom, was located in Africa, or even elsewhere. But since these are published opinions, and since nobody has published actual proof, only conjecture about Biblical interpretation (which is typical for Biblical interpretation) then NPOV means we should mention the other theories as well, without giving "our" endorsement to just one school of thought regardless how how forcefully its proponents have appealed to their own authority. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

no, no ancient inscription was found saying that " this was the same thing as biblical sheba", that's just retarded with all due respect. You don't need such a stupid inscription to come to the conclusion that Saba is Sheba. I don't know what "large numbers" of other published opinions. these opinions were published before there was any exploration in Yemen. Provide a mew article suggesting that this kingdom was located in Africa and be precise, where in Africa and how did they come up with such conclusion? speaking of endorsement, i'm not the one insisting they were black, even Ethiopians look different than the rest of Africans!

anyway, as i said if you have a new research relating to this kingdom let's examine it. Because most of the new studies saying that the Sabaeans were the biblical kingdom of Sheba. All other opinions relied on literature whether it was Islamic or christian and that's why scientists were uncertain. But new archaeological studies have cleared any confusion. As i said, Sheba is pronounced "Saba" in Arabic language bible and in Ethiopian languages as well, and we already know that Sabaeans existed in northern ethiopia, shouldn't that give you an idea on where this whole "ethiopian sheba" came from? --Kendite (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We can only "examine" the research but so much, because instead we are supposed to be reporting on it, not examining it. And the inescapable fact is, what side of the Red Sea Biblical Sheba is found on (or BOTH sides according to several others) happens to be a debate that has been raged for CENTURIES. You haven't demonstrated where any of your favored "new" sources have compellingly settled the question, or really made the other conjectures go away, fold up and go home. It just seems to be more of the same "We are right and you are wrong because WE are the authorities" we have already seen for centuries. Okay, so we report on what they say, but we also report on what the other voices say, without discriminating or calling the argument in favor of one side or the other. Note I am not actually insisting Sheba was black, I am saying sources who say this are no less entitled to be reported on than the ones who say the opposite. It is clear that you have a definite personal opinion on the matter, and you want all of "us" to endorse your personal opinion as the only "correct" one. Perhaps giving WP:NPOV another read would help. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No we do have to examine a research. Whether it's outdated, biased (afro centrist nonsense for example). Wikipedia is not a democracy and i have to report what the authority says on the matter (archaeologists) What you call "other voices" is just your voice and i don't even know who you are. Sources that say this was a "black civilization" are not valid. What you are telling me is that archaeologists are not more entitled than afro centrists to be reported, yet you keep asking me to illustrate on how archaeologists came up with their conclusions. Fine, write down that afro centrists believe this was a "black civilization" but the reader should know that most archaeologists say that Sheba is Saba. --Kendite (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You keep claiming this magical priority for your favored "archaeologists" conjectures without a shred of proof. That just isn't going to wash. It's simply more drum beating and cheerleading for their "authoritie" over others. Please either tell us where is the "proof" that your archaeologists have found, or stop wasting our time. Is it because they're just simply smarter than everyone else is, and have figured it out in an experiment behind closed doors, only they can't tell anyone else what or where it is, so everyone else had better just simply accept it as fact in awe of their superior intelligence? Thanks. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, archaeologists do know about this matter more than others. I'm not going to a carpenter if i have a headache. You keep circling around this, you don't trust archaeologists because, according to you, are not entitled to speak about "black history" and now asking me for a "proof", i did explain why archaeologists believe Saba-Seba was "Sheba" here and in the article and i'm not repeating myself --Kendite (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay the current scope of this article is Biblical interpretation, and you are saying archaeologists know more about Biblical interpretation than anyone else. Not too surprised there. But I think it would also help clarify your argument a lot if everyone else incuding me could share your appreciation of why "afrocentric scholars" is a term of stigmatization. I know of a couple of sysops who have spoken with this assumption in the past, but the dots were never really connected for me. So would you please spell this out so we all can see things the same way you do? Cheers Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

they were never connected for you and will never be because you believe they were black! I have expanded the article and added the opinion of experts in hope that it might clear any confusion. I didn't ignore anything as i have wrote about the relationship of the Sabaean to ancient Ethiopia. What exactly is your problem? if the Sabaean inscriptions in northern ethiopia are not enough to connect any dots i don't what will. Sheba was not located in Nigeria so get over it..--Kendite (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems that because you failed to get any support whatsoever for a merge to Sabaean kingdom, you are resolved now to edit war to fill this article on Biblical Sheba as much as possible with content more specifically relevant to that topic. This is serious WP:UNDUE weight and WP:GAMEing the system, as well as WP:SYNTH for all those sources that mention Sabaean kingdom or Himyaritic Kingdom or whatever, but aren't making any point specifically regarding the mentions of "Sheba" in the Bible. You have also bestowed on me several times in your edit summaries the moniker of "the opponent", to which I object, and is seriously barking up the wrong tree. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

there is only you and another african here! it was not me who first suggested that this article should be merged and it wasn't me who merged it in almost all other wiki projects. Who told you that the article should be entirely and specifically about its biblical scope? the kingdom was mentioned in the bible just like many other kingdoms. All of the sources i provided specifically speak about "Sheba" in the bible and that it is in fact saba. The two theories provided in the article regarding the three different shebas are not my own! just because sources don't agree with your imaginary "black history" doesn't necessarily mean you should keep vandalizing other people contributions. everything i added is backed with sources i have tried to reach a common ground with you but you don't want to. the community is not responding so let them vote on it --Kendite (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop projecting what you are doing on me. I don't know what gaming is buy it's obviously what you are doing--Kendite (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Busted! I am not African. Neither am I the one promoting a nationalist Yemenite agenda on this article. Thank you for playing, please try again. As for the scope of this article, the source for the name "Sheba" is exclusively the Hebrew Bible, all of the relevant literature to "Sheba" acknowledges this much, and much of the current article better fits the scope of Sabaean kingdom or Himyarite kingdom while using sources that aren't even making any point about "Sheba", and should probably be removed as superfluous to this article. OTOH If you have any sources that mention "Sheba" specifically, they are certainly on topic and can be mentioned here, Sheba. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yemenite agenda? yes you just got me there.. well first of all it doesn't fit the himyarite kingdom because it arose much later and again, the sources provided make all points about "sheba" just read it again. I wrote the following :"

The two names Sheba (spelled in Hebrew with shin) and Seba (spelled with samekh) are mentioned several times in the Bible with different genealogy. For instance, in the Table of Nations [15] Seba, along with Dedan, is listed as a descendant of Noah's son Ham (as sons of Raamah, son of Cush). Later on in Genesis,[16] Sheba and Dedan are listed as names of sons of Jokshan, son of Abraham Another Sheba is listed in the Table of Nations[17] as a son of Joktan, another descendant of Noah's son Shem.

There are possible reasons for this confusion, the Sabaean established many colonies to control the trade routes and the variety of their caravan stations confused the ancient Israelites, as their ethnology was based on geographical and political grounds not necessarily racial[18] Another theory suggests that the Sabaean hailed from Southern Levant and established their kingdom on the ruins of the Minaean Kingdom [19] It remains a theory however and cannot be confirmed"

isn't that about sheba? the FIVE sources listed in the introduction specifically mention Sheba as Saba!not to mention the fact that i have been referring to all day that The word Saba is identical to the word Sheba in Arabic and Ethiopian languages (Amharic i guess) as well --Kendite (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"it can easily be shown that there is a LONG tradition of an African Sheba and a Yemenite Saba and no amount of archaeology done in Yemen on Saba possibly allows all of these traditions about Sheba to be brushed aside"

What African Sheba? do you know the amount of Arabic literature about Sheba? And i'm the one promoting a nationalist agenda my African friend? i know you are not even Ethiopian though. good luck figuring out conspiracies --Kendite (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

How the heck does saying that make me African? That is simply a factual statement I made and I stand by what I said, because it remains true regardless of where I'm from, which is irrelevant but happens not to be Africa. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It does because you first accuse me of being a "white supremacist" which is hilarious and you insist on your baseless anti science claims. you know what i mean when i say you are an "African", and i don't mean anything offensive by it but obviously you thing for that continent. i don't know how would this article be neutral, do you have suggestions? beside baseless "African Sheba"? --Kendite (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

@Abo Yemen: There is no reason to uniformly identify the Bible's description of Sheba with the historical kingdom of the Sabaeans. Likewise, the infobox does not match the infobox for the Sabaeans (which gives date of establishment than 200 years earlier than this one) and the none of the three sources used for the date of 1000 BCE are scholarly or reliable.

Numerous historical kingdoms are depicted in the Biblical text – Tabal and the Scythians come to mind – but this does not mean we are to assume they are entirely accurate reflections of their realities. Sinclairian (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

first of all, this article is definitely not ONLY about the kingdom mentioned in the bible. This article is about the kingdom in south arabia. the article "Sabaeans" is about the ethnic group and not the kingdom, the infobox type used there is wrong Abo Yemen✉ 16:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)