Talk:Sheba

message: From aramcobrat_ps
I am wondering what to do with one paragraph in the version on "Sheba" that I found:
"Modern scholars tend to think a link to the Sabaeans of southern Arabia, who inhabited the same region, is the most probable. But the Sabeans did not rise until well after the legendary Queen of Sheba was meant to have lived, leaving some to believe traditional accounts of the wealth and power of Sheba to have been greatly exaggerated."
From all I can read elsewhere in the reputable literature, the last sentence beginning with "But ..." goes against the majority view of the Sabaeans as contemporary with Solomon (c. 900 BC) and of Sheba/Saba as being an incredibly wealthy kingdom based on its export of frankincense to Rome.  Unless it can be written as one viewpoint, I recommend it just be deleted.  One Wikipedia writer/reader's problem believing a tradition is no reason to give him/her the final word on that topic.
I agree with the unsigned poster above - in fact, I've got the 2006 Encyclopedia Britannica open right now, and they make a direct connection between Saba/Sheba, and don't even mention the other theory at all.  Joey 17:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, fix it. If there is a minority view it should be represented here if sources can be discovered that support it. Otherwise deleted. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 11:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saba 

message: Can someone explain this to me? Something is not right. First of all, why would she submit to Allah. if Solomon was the King of Israel and, second of all, didn't Islam started to exist in V cent AD? 
And we are talking here X cent BC. Something does not add up.  Norum (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Allah is not a name or an Islamic thing, it is simply the Arabic word for God.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ff11 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline? 

message: :Other maps contradict it and indeed make more sense in line with the Biblical text. Saying that the map is seen through the eyes of the Israelites, "according to the documentary hypothesis" makes no sense at all, because by definition, the documentary hypothesis is the situation as seen through the eyes of modern scholars, without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why it's called a hypothesis.
The map should be removed altogether. Either provide a historic map or remove this map.--Xevorim (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree, let's remove it. I've always disliked that particular map, because it pushes the obscure revisionist viewpoint that the Assyrians were considered Hamitic. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map is according to Wikipedia's eyes, not those of the ancient Israelites 

message: According to this source, "the people of Tubba are the people of Sheba." As such, People of Tubba should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[People of Tubba]] 

message: At Jobs 1:15 of Old Testament, Sheba was mentioned. I could not find any referencing to it in this article. Is it worthy to note and accurate? --Cheol (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheba at Jobs 1:15 

message: There is data copied and pasted from the top of the page and put at the bottom.  This is no value added to have it twice.  "Sheba was located in Ethiopia. Ruins in many other countries, including Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia and Iran have been credited as being Sheba, but with only minimal evidence."  129.139.1.69 (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeat

message: This is a South Arabian Kingdom as every archaeologist has pointed srael Finkelstein, Neil Asher Silberman,David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition p.171 Kenneth A. Kitchen : The World of Ancient Arabia Series. Documentation for Ancient Arabia. Part I. Chronological Framework and Historical Sources p.110 At the end of the 19th Century dated Austrian archeologists like Edward Glaser and Fritz Hommel dated the start of the South Arabian civilization in the late 2nd Millennium BC. I don't understand what Ethiopia has to do with this kingdom or WEST AFRICA for that matter. They were not black so was ancient egyptians and Phoenicians and every other civilization in the ancient world.. it's really irritating --Kendite (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: i really agree with you on this  Al-Aidaroos✉ 04:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Arabian kingdom 

message: If you want to add references relevant to Sheba please do so without blanking out well documented information on other traditions just because you don't agree with them. We try to tell all sides of the story here, per WP:NPOV, not just one side if the story from a point-of-view. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the source about the west African claim or even the aksumite? you didn't provide any source. Religious text is not a primary evidence there are plenty of other sources about this kingdom --Kendite (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add references without blanking significant views 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for Mediation 

message: I have only barely scratched the surface of scholars talking about this.  Some editors at RSM have taken it on themselves to say what scholarship they find acceptable.  This will not be possible without a fight and a full demonstration of what they are attempting here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are not even going to make a case on the talk page, you are just going to revert valid information pretending a "consensus"?  You clearly have no idea what scholars have said on this subject. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You deliberately stayed away from the discussion at RSN - that's where we discuss sources. Go there and see if you can get others to agree, don't try to edit war your own view on the issue. Dougweller (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article is stuffed up, Til. The Tanakh refers to two Shebas, geographically distinct (one near Dedan, the other near the classical Sabaean area), and until the article, using the relevant philological-exegetical sources clarifies this, all generic references to 'Sheba', esp. by poor secondary sources, must ipso facto be suspended.Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no obligation to go to RSN, I have no questions for them.  Your agenda for this article that diverges from scholarship on the topic must be discussed here. For starters, try getting the book the British Museum put out in 2002 by 12 of the leading European and North American scholars specializing in this very subject. Oh, by the way, while you feel free to overrule scholars you "know" are wrong, do you actually have any reference yourself you can put here explaining your POV and why you think these scholars are all wrong? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer the question. Scholars state that the Tanakh's use of the toponym 'Sheba' refers to two distinct locations. Which is being referred to in this awesomely poorly sourced article?Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This source is only saying the exact same thing the other sources say, talking about the Sheba located on the Red Sea of course.  But to repeat my question, what references are you getting yours from?  Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Okay, the two Sabas in the Tanakh... the people on both sides of the Red Sea can see across to the other side, that's how close they are... there are actually three distinct Sabas that peoples in the area claim lineage from, the third Saba is not mentioned in the Tanakh but is considered a grandson of Yarab. The African Saba was indeed distinct from the Arabian Sabas, but the Sabaeans who claimed descent from Joktan / Qahtan did cross and came to dominate on both sides for a while, and there were several times in history when both sides were ruled by the same potentate. So it is understandably confusing. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have an obligation to go to RSN, but you do have an obligation not just to ignore a discussion there and try to edit war your version into an article. And local consensus, which you don'thave in any case, can't overrule community discussions. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So, any sources explaining your POV and your position that all of these scholars are wrong? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Editors of Sheba will presumably want to be able have a say in the discussion on this page, if that can be allowed. One thing maybe you can explain to me that I have trouble following is what relevance the discussion about Ezion-geber has to the text being deleted. That sentence has nothing to do with Ezion-geber that I can see. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Ezion-Geber, we had a discussion at User talk:Kourgm22#Sheba. The recently removed source was vague and useless, per RSN. In attempting to support the "some authors"/"some historians" construct of that 1972 source, research on JSTOR found some references that might have bulked up that vague phrase. All of them relied on the then accepted information derived by Nelson Glueck in the late 1930s. Since Glueck's efforts were subsequently reappraised, it turns out that the nature and dating that he had originally posited for Ezion-Geber was wrong. Ipso facto, the JSTOR sources reliant upon it were also wrong. You were aware of both the RSN and talk page discussions and all of this, and more, has been said there. - Sitush (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone logically explain the relevance of the dating Ezion-Geber to the text being deleted?  When the text in question has zilch to do with Ezion-Geber, I don't expect the editors who are currently populating RSN to come up with a lame and utterly illogical argument like "See?  We've proved the dating of Ezion-Geber is wrong.  That proves the whole entire stack of sources talking about the Sheba caravan trade are also wrong, and not only wrong, but the viewpoint of these scholars on the Sheba caravan trade should not even be mentioned."  That isn't going to fly.   If you want to claim to debunk what most scholars say about the Sheba caravan trade, at least be able to find sources that do so, not sources that debunk the dating of Ezion-Geber, please. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

text: You miss the point. If there were two Shebas, to which Sheba does the caravan trade refer?  Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, there were three Shebas that various groups claimed lineage from. The two Arabian tribes of Saba were somewhat allied, and formed a Sabaean polity in Yemen, though these Sabaeans also colonized part of Africa under their rule.  This is the same Sabaean kingdom that archaeologists such as Christian Robin have done such extensive work on and written so much about on this. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a view. Unfortunately, scholarship has only contested theories, and in your construction of three Shebas from the biblical genealogical lists, the problem is that interpretations differ: some scholars put the Sons of Cush in northern Arabia. The point is, history at this level is conjecture, conducted between scholars whose views and emphases differ, and one can only write these pages by referring to various positions. One certainly cannot assert, as you have twice now, one particular viewpoint as though it were a fact or consensual.Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that a second rate source was unfortunately used to cite an essentially correct statement that is still correct today. Much better sources on Sheba, the article topic, are available than the one Kourgm chose. Christian Robin has written about the Queen of Sheba / Reine de Saba in both English and French and stresses that while nothing has been yet found verifying her specific identity or her name, leaving her essentially anonymous, the accounts of Saba having a queen are not unfeasible, and the accounts of Saba having a queen and trading with Israel at some point are not unfeasible or ruled out, but rather, the idea in the Bible, Quran, and Kibre Negest that Saba negotiated and ran a caravan trade as far as Israel is in keeping with what is archaeologically known about the caravan kingdoms and may well have some historical background. That's why Saba is called by the scholars who have written about it, one of the "caravan kingdoms", the one Robin says was most powerful in the area until around 700 BC. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm sure the people who write things like "the sons of Cush were in northern Arabia" have been anywhere in the area or bothered to find out what traditions are there! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

text: the scholarship of Israel Ephʻal is of more interest to me than your obiter dicta.  Robin is a great epigraphist, and certainly a reliable source, for his views. I eagerly look forward to scholarly explanations of how many camels are required to transport 4 tons of gold over 1200 milesNishidani (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's tons of other stuff that's been written on this topic (Sheba) by experts, but Robin the archaeologist is certainly considered reliable by others in the field. But this is the closest you've come to revealing the references for your assertions, although I've asked repeatedly.  I just can't help wondering though what is your reference for "some scholars put the Sons of Cush in northern Arabia", I actually have no idea where that came from, who ever said such a thing, or what its relevance would be to the caravan kingdoms like Sheba on the Red Sea. So yes, I am still missing your point. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Israel Ephal seems to be known for pointing out that Assyrian inscriptions around 800-700 do mention quite a number of Arabian queens, this sounds like good info for the article if anyone can find more specifics. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this issue really important to the article? What difference does it really make? If there is an RS on the subject of caravans from Sheba to Israel then fine, put it in. If there are RS sources that support it, then just include a line that says "Some sources theorize that the biblical Queen of Sheba, assuming that she really existed, went to Israel specifically to discuss the caravan trade with the biblical King Solomon, assuming that he really existed." What's the big deal? Wdford (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just what the RSS do say, and I'm still waiting to see what sources disagree.  So I'm kind of wondering the same thing! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

text: You appear to confuse 'reliability' with truth. In articles dealing with ancient history particularly, there are no truths, only interpretations by specialists. In any case, the page has to be rewritten from top to bottom using only recent scholarly sources, some of which happen to coincide with a fundamentalist perspective. You don't appear to be familiar with these books. Whatever, I propose, when time allows, to rewrite this according to the strongest wiki specifications from top to bottom. As it stands, it is totally unacceptable. Any improvements you wish to make, using impeccable sources are, in the meantime, welcome.Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is cute - "You don't appear to be familiar with these books" but you seem reluctant to tell me what books they are, so what can I say?  Sounds like there is quite a litmus test for "reliability" here, some unusually high standard at any rate. Impressive agenda you have marked out here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

text: It's clear you are unfamiliar with the literature because you never use it, even though some of it backs your POV. If you were familiar with these works, I presume you would have added them and their research to the page. The notes and references give a strong impression of indifference to careful review of the abundant scholarly works. My agenda is (a) to be comprehensive (b) readable (c) provide a reader with an encyclopedia-level overview of the current state of our knowledge on the topic. If you edit an article, you do not scrounge round for anything that suits what you'd like to see in it: you read the scholarly literature on the subject, and edit in everything that is germane to the topic. It's that simple.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Any particular reason why you don't want to share what sources you are using at this time? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Since everyone can access either a library, or google books, or ask people at the ref desk here for copies of JSTOR articles, or all three, it's not a matter of sharing, since anyone can fish up the requisite material, in this day and age. But, why not just read the article, and  throw out the obvious junk and fix its many astounding statements, e.g.'These peoples are estimated to have arrived in Yemen from 10th century to 12th century BC.' I haven't, for lack of time at the moment. Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But you have made some rather strange assertions here, and I get the feeling there really are no sources backing them up, because I ask where is this coming from, and you won;t tell me, only say "oh, obviously you aren't familiar with them."  I'll try one more time: Who exactly believes that the "sons of Cush" points to Northern Arabia? (When you argue "some scholars put the Sons of Cush in northern Arabia.") Is there another Sheba / Saba located somewhere I'm not aware of? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only strange because you don't look (at, for example). Israel Ephʻal,The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent, 9th-5th Centuries B.C,. BRILL 1982 p.277. There are a couple of dozen books on the material required for this article, at a minimum. Do some reading. You'll find that Eph'al's position is contradicted by Kitchen, who is challenged by. . but that would be to both spoil a good story, and do your homework for you. 'Nite.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just trying to find Ephal's 1982 paper a short time ago, but could not, only references to it like the one about Arabian Queens in the 8th century BC.  All I have seen of it suggests it is a good source.  But does he really speak of a Cushite Sheba in Northern Arabia?  Come on... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

text: I've reverted them again, per the original RSN discussion etc. If they don't like the outcome then they'll need to overturn it there or elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholars talking about Solomon's caravan trade with Sheba 

message: Why does every article of history or religion here at Wikipedia have to have some reference to Islam? The Jewish legend of the Queen of Sheba has absolutely nothing to do with a religion arriving over a thousand years later.
:Because it's an equally valid religion with its own revealed text. We don't decide which is valid and which isn't. And your statement is simply wrong, Islam is an Abrahamic religion so you won't find it in articles about other religions. You're letting your prejudices show. Doug Weller talk 04:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does the Koran have to do with any of this?? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Sheba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/online_tours/middle_east/ancient_south_arabia/the_kingdoms_of_ancient_south.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The editor B'er Rabbit got so angry about me stating that the global penetration of the story of [the Queen of] Sheba is due to, in order of their importance, the Bible, the Qur'an, and the Ethiopian tradition, that he furiously reverted a whole bunch of amendments made by me, most of which he quite likely has no reason to contradict. Is the "political correctness" fanaticism reaching such a level that any factual statement that puts a Judaeo-Christian tradition or source ahead (in ANY regard, be it statistical or chronological) of other traditions, becomes the target of offended rants? I couldn't care less about the religious "truths" of this or that traditional group, whoever they might be, and even less so about fundamentalists of modern pseudo-religions, such as PC, but historical and statistical facts and truths I do care about. I have lived through the hell of "one truth fits all" once and will do my best to "kill it in its infancy" wherever I see it sprouting again.Arminden (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor, , continues to add "Ethiopian" a second time for incoherent reasons. Please discuss it here because you are making no sense - you're not even writing complete sentences, they cut off halfway. WHY would we write "Ethiopian, Jewish, Muslim, and Ethiopian"? Why? Ogress 20:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

text: *, thank you for the block. What's happening is that someone is looking for an excuse to blame others for systemic racism, etc. Of course that edit makes no sense, if only because it messes up a logical string of three religions followed by a precision of one of them. Just anger, that's all. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

text: One of the combatants turned out to be a sock, so the protection has been lifted. Favonian (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible - Qur'an - Kebra Nagast, in this order: don't kill me over it 

message: It was either that or multiple blocks for edit-warring. Use the talk page and everybody lives! Favonian (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the combatants turned out to be a sock, so the protection has been lifted. Favonian (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article fully protected for three days 

message: Hi all, I have looked into the muslim story of Sheba (Saba') and it appears to be that there are two separate stories mentioned, the first which is currently covered in the article about Solomon and the queen. However I did come across another which refers to the people of Saba' having a large dam, that was eventually broken because of their disobedience to god. What is the correct chronological order of these two narrations and do they both refer to the same people? I couldn't work that out for certain. Thanks, EvilxFish (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: sabaa was a kingdom that remain for a long time and the destruction of the ma'rib dam marked their end  Al-Aidaroos✉ 04:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  More to the muslim tradition 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sheba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308133058/http://www.newu.uci.edu/article.php?id=3141 to http://www.newu.uci.edu/article.php?id=3141
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, this article is no different than the article of Queen of Sheba. I will change it to Kingdom of Saba and put things from historical reference (primary Arab) because it is about a kingdom in South Arabia or I will create an article with the title (kingdom of Saba). SharabSalam (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's normally called the "Kingdom of Sheba" (which was a redirect) in English reliable sources, so I've moved it to that. Please make sure you are using academic sources, I've just reverted you for using 2 self-published sources. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should this article be about.