Talk:Sabaeans

Untitled

I have removed the notation regarding the article by Megolomattis, since he is an unreliable source. His articles usually are diametrically opposed to the scientific world. He is stating the relation is unfounded and unproven. While if you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J_(Y-DNA) you will see that...

For example under Haplogroup J1 dna genetics of the Amhara and regions of the ancient Aksumite Kingdoms it is notable since this haplogroup shows highest frequencies in the Middle East North Africa and ETHIOPIA [Thomas et al study 1999] J1 was spread by two temporally distinct migratory episodes, the most recent one probably associated with the diffusion of Arab people[1] Haplogroup J1 is most frequent in Palestinian Arabs (38.4%) [Semino et al] and Arab Bedouins (62% and 82% in Negev desert Bedouins). Also in Arabic speaking countries like: Algeria (35%), Syria (30%), the southern Levant Iraq (33%), the Sinai Peninsula, and the Arabian Peninsula collapsing suddenly at the borders of Arabic countries with non Arabic countries (Turkey and Iran). It entered Ethiopia in the Neolithic with the Neolithic Revolution and spread of agriculture, where it is found mainly among Semitic speakers (e.g. Amhara 33.3%)

Essencially Semitic speaking Ethipians fare the same amount of J1 as do Palestinians, Syrians, Algerians, Iraqiz. This is rather significant. Other researchers have found Semitic ethiopia nearest cousins to be in Yemen & Oman followed by the rest of the Semitic world. Recently a program that details a scientific journey into Ethiopia and Yemen for the origins of Sheba and Aksum. The program is available at http://www.pbs.org/mythsandheroes/myths_four_sheba.html The program begins questioning both Ethipias and Yemens right to claim Sheba as origin. If you actually watch the program the program ends stating that Yemen is the origin. The program affermed that Sheba and Aksum have Ancient Yemenite/Semitic origins. This is actually the most scientific concencus, while the other views were mostly put forth by those who would rather have an ancient christian center as origin rather then an ancient southern arabian center. Mazighe 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

2st Millenium?

The 2st Millenium to 1 BC? WTF? From 2000 AD to 1 BC? Also 2"st"?Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sabaeans

i want to say something / The Qahtani arab people in iraq and arabia are descent from the Sabaeans of yemen.

Koran/Qur'an

For whatever it's worth, the Sabeans had an important place in Islamic theology. In the Qur'an in 2:62 it reads, "Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans [before Prophet Muhammad] - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be ... " (Sahih International Translation) You can find similar references in 22:17 and 5:69 in the Qur'an that mention the Sabeans 66.188.228.180 (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Total revamp necessary.

This article is wrong on so many stuff, while covering so little. Also I believe I browsed this page a long time ago and back then it seemed to have much more and better information. Am I dreaming or has there been vandalism on this page or something.

There are some good sources and references listed, for example the great work by korotayev, yet this article is so well...of bad quality. I'd like to have a new go and start from the ground up, I could use some help of native English speaker or someone else with a very good grasp of English.

Titirius (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This entire entry is entirely bullshit. The logic this site relies on is that it is better to give a crappy answer than no answer at all. Not only is that logic unethical it is also problematic on many different levels. I use this site frequently because I do find that there is some utility and less information in this site. Do not condescend or patronize through refrence to "wiki". Truth is a noble pursuit. Truth exsist independently of what any single person or group of people percieve or conceptualize. Continuation of the logic used by "wikipedia" will only result in mass ignorance. I honestly believe any EXCUSE to rationalize the endeavor this site has taken to be unethical/wrong/sinful or whatever word best describes to your perception of reality as something constituting a methodical process evoking only negative results. I am not going to make such a statement without identifying myself, because that would be a cowardice act. My name is James Dabrowski. Any questions or comments or need to vent frustration refer to this email- duderotc@yahoo.com. Good day.

Merge with Sheba

The word Saba is identical to the word Sheba in Arabic, both are called سبأ and no distinction is made whatsoever. | Moemin05 (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• respectfully oppose -- the one article is about a biblical "kingdom", & the other is about an archaeological culture. it is by no means certain that the two are one & the same, & the sabean culture article covers a scope FAR beyond the biblical reference.

ergo, merging the sabeans into sheba would be a mistake.

i would also argue that a reverse of the proposed merge i.e.: sheba<sabean instead of sabean<sheba would be inappropriate as well. there are other claimants to the biblical "kingdom of sheba", considerably less than solid "proof" that sabean = sheba, & even IF "kingdom of sheba" mentioned in the bible did in fact exist, & it was sabean (which is quite possible, but not certain), we STILL have no clear idea of how it "fits" into the "big picture" of sabean history. i.e.: location, size, extent (was it THE kingdom of ALL sabean lands, or was it some smaller entity), duration, dynastic history, etc.

with all due respect IT DOESN'T MATTER IF "THE WORD IS THE SAME" in some modern languages (also please note that it is decidedly not the same in english); that in no way resolves the question of whatever-the-relationship between the historically-documented sabeans & the biblical "kingdom of sheba".

also; wikipedia tends to differentiate between biblical & archaeological topics; unless the subject of the article inherently (& indivisibly) falls into both categories.

Lx 121 (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)