User talk:Kourgm22

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or sock puppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sheba
Hi and welcome, and apologies for having to remove most of your first edits. The most important problem was that you made Wikipedia state as fact that historians believe something. Even if your source was from historians, we could only say what they think and who they were. But they aren't historians which obviously means we can't use them as a source for history.

You also used them as a source for what was material from the Bible. I've left that in, reworded, with no source as it's from Kings 1:10 which is mentioned.

You added material into an existing sentence, deleting the first word which left the sentence making no sense.

And finally, we need page numbers for books so people with access to the book can find your source. We also expect editors to read the source - did you actually read it?

All part of the learning curve which really never stops - I've got over 100,000 edits and continue to learn. Dougweller (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't have an officially approved, membership-only special definition of "historians" other than "people who have written about history" from Herodotus to the present, regardless of whether said historians from Herodotus to the present have been considered "right" or "wrong"... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That isn't actually true, and as you well know, Til, we can't say 'historians' in any case in a situation like this because that makes the article look as though it is 'historians' in general, which it isn't. You are also encouraging this editor to edit-war - I've had no response from him at all. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And as you also know, page numbers are required. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw where Kourgm already edit warred and came here afterward, so it's on him... But I also noticed that he did respond to you here, then blanked out the response later... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hadn't noticed that. No response to my explanation that we need a page number. I don't know why he reverted his reply. I'll take this to WP:RSN although it might be a pov issue. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

On page 200 in the book, Storm Over the Arab World, it says "Historians who concern themselves with the long ago speculate that Sheba made her journey to Jerusalem to win Solomon's consent for the travel of her caravans through Jordan, which then he ruled." I did not generally say historians, I said some historians. Why is this a problem? Kourgm22 (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I just saw that the 1975 Cambridge Ancient History says the Queen of Sheba story may be legendary but that it supports the idea that Solomon controlled caravan routes through Jordan going to Yemen, and that she or someone came to him to discuss transit permissions (citing obscure historians like Theophrastus) It seems others have indeed discussed these points. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I did research on this for a college project and I really was thrown off when that information, which I did cite and did find directly from a book, kept getting erased. Kourgm22 (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm concentrating of pre-1970 because that is when the Storm Over the Arab World book was written and so the historians referred to must have been published prior to that time. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion at WP:RSN. It's nice to see the source and Til's source - written by Otto Eissfeldt might be useful, but the problem with yours is that it is so vague. It begs the question "what historians". Whatever Til says, I think your original source is great for the modern Arab World but not the sort of source we want for this article. Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to JSTOR? I'm currently searching through that for papers written prior to 1970 that might relate to the subject matter. - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, a 1941 book review: comments "Another tell, known today as Tell Kheleifeh, contains the ruins of five settlements built successively, one on top of the other. The oldest was first constructed by king SOLOMON under the name of Ezion Geber as a sea port and mining town on the north shore of the Red Sea. In the neighborhood of the settlement there were ancient copper and iron mines, and Ezion Geber was the Pittsburgh of old Palestine. "The original builders of Ezion Geber chose this inclement site ... because they wanted the strong winds blowing from the north to furnish the draft for the furnace rooms in the refineries and smelting plants of the copper and iron mines. It was a matter of harnessing the elements for industrial purposes." Thus king SOLOMON is shown to have been a copper and iron king and a shipping magnate, and the whole romantic adventure with the Queen of Sheba is being debunked into a prosaic business trip or economic conference. According to Dr. Glueck, the "Queen of Sheba came to see SOLOMON ... (in order) to delimit spheres of interest and to arrange trade treaties regulating the exchange of the products of Arabia for the copper of Wadi Araqbah.""

- Sitush (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * From says "A completely different situation prevailed on the shores of the Red Sea. There the Phoenicians had no standing whatsoever, for there existed no water communication between the two seas. They were eager to enter into partnership with Solomon for the exploitation of Red Sea and Indian Ocean trade, for which they provided their means, their experience and the crews. Solomon contributed to that alliance the harbour, the use of the land connection between the two seas, and the copper industry which he had developed at Ezion Gaber. This profitable combined enterprise culminated in the relationship with the kingdom of Sheba and the state visit of its queen."

- Sitush (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * From "Surely, the scholars went on to assert, Solomon was not so great a personality and so powerful and wealthy a monarch that a queen of Sheba, one thousand miles to the south, undertook such a long, hazardous, difficult overland trip just to hear him tell riddles and to see his treasures. And yet it is but a scant thirteen years ago that the site of Solomon's Ezion-geber was accidentally discovered, and the subsequent excavations there have made it abundantly clear to us that, far from having exaggerated Israel's greatness under David and Solomon, the Bible painted a picture of that period on a canvas which is really not big enough and, in colors, hardly vivid enough. It turns out, among other things, that the greatest copper refinery known to the world up to a couple of centuries ago was erected and operated by Solomon's officials at Ezion-geber three millenniums ago. And for the first time we realize that Sheba's queen made the arduous trip from her own capital to that of Solomon precisely because the latter had become the commercial king of the entire region"
 * That is the lot, searching between 1900-1970. I used "Sheba" and "Saba" but I think there is another name for the queen. In any event, it seems likely that in the pre-1970 period there was some agreement that the visit related to trade. I've no idea if this helps because it is not a subject area in which I have much knowledge. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And that's an example of the dangers of using old sources. Ezion-Geber was redated and is a couple of centuries too young to be Solomonic (the original excavator, Nelson Glueck, was involved in reevaluating his findings). So any use of something like this would be based on flawed and rejected information. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the redating but I was aware of the pitfalls, hence my very specific wording re: the time period that I researched etc. Well-sourced speculation is fine but clearly in this case the speculation is not sourced well and has been debunked. - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's very interesting what I see happening here. First you say "I'm only going to look for sources before 1970" - arbitrarily, because the first random source happened to date to 1970."  Then you say - "Well, it seems all the sources I found were from before 1970.  That means they've all been debunked now, so that deal with that."   Of course ZERO sources seem to be required for your assertion that the theory has now been debunked.  The agenda here is blatant and obvious, but  you seem to forget that others are following this discussion. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not what I said at all. The source that was at RSN was published in 1972 and referred to unspecified historians. By definition, those historians must have been published before that time. I checked against that (I've said 1970 in this thread, sure, but my JSTOR search was indeed from 1972 - my error in typing here). The exercise was an attempt to find some of those unnamed historians and, yes, I am well aware that JSTOR is not the sum of human knowledge but if nothing turns up among the many, many papers there over a lengthy period then the chances are high that it will not turn up elsewhere. I'm not commenting on the rights and wrongs of the idea generally and indeed have been at pains to point out that I am unfamiliar with it. Acting in good faith, as I did in my treatment of Kourgm, I assumed Dougweller to be correct. The issue is the sources, not the people. I suggest that you back off: I can do without people making wild accusations of bad faith at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't the RSN page, we are talking about information that appears in many easily accessible scholarly works both pre and post-1972 being allowed on a wikipedia article; the fact that the first source that came to our attention is from 1972 is therefore not all that relevant to whether the information itself is allowed in the wikipedia article, and it always raises my hackles when someone says something like "We wikipedians can overrule that whole entire stack of references because they are all now declared 'out of date'", with no contradictory viewpoints even required. Excuse me? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I really, really do not understand what your problem is here: the thread concerns that source published by Follett. I was responding to the source offered. As it happens, the papers that I found may support the claim in that source. But the Follett source itself was unacceptable for a variety of reasons, as noted at RSN, which amount to poorly sourced material in a speculative paragraph. Now, if post-1972 research has shown the pre-1972 stuff to be wrong - which is the implication of the redating - then will over-ride my findings in relation to the source offered. And I pointed out that I am aware that we must use older sources with care. I've done nothing wrong here but your accusation of bad faith is simply unacceptable. - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We seem to be talking past one another here or failing to communicate. I'm saying, the date "1972" is completely irrelevant, in fact the Follett source is irrelevant now and no longer needed, now that the 1975 Cambridge Ancient History and other more specialist sources have been found saying much the same.  Actually I have still yet to see any source from any year before or since saying different, or disputing this specifically.  We no longer need a judgement on the reliability of the Follett source, finding more specialist sources has been easy.  The information is abundantly proven to be a legitimate scholarly view and should not be removed from the article on pretexts. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read RSN recently? And you're still accusing me of bad faith, suggesting that I've manipulated this thread to suit some design of my own. I think you'll struggle to find any edit by me to anything remotely connected to this subject matter. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not read RSM recently. But then, I don't have any question about the suitability of Cambridge Ancient History as a reference. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps you should both read RSN and question CAH. And without doubt you should apologise for your baseless remark regarding my intentions here: to falsely accuse someone of a "blatant and obvious" agenda and of manipulation is just about as serious as it gets. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's hardly any way to take this seriously. The content has been proven to be accurate from a variety of RSS, there should be no problem being allowed to state this in the article now, there hasn't even been found any opposing views in print so far, so at this point we should all know better than to use our own expertise to overrule these sources, one would think... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that apparently the dating has changed subsequent to those sources being published, per Dougweller, someone at RSN and our own article on Ezion-Geber. You'll notice that all the sources I dragged up above are based on the then knowledge of that place. Still waiting for that apology but it is beginning to look as if you may be too arrogant to admit your error. Find-an-admin time, I guess, since it is basically a personal attack and one that strikes at the heart of some things that I am known for: my willingness to find sources and my integrity. - Sitush (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, do find an uninvolved admin and request for comment also. I've only scratched the surface of scholars talking about this.  When scholars are talking about something, but wikipedians don't want it mentioned that scholars hold these views, they should at least come up with sources disputing them.  But then in that case it should be mentioned that there are disputing scholars to the first set of scholars.  We have an obligation to be accurate, not to bend to people who say "Nobody believes that any more, so we may not talk about it" when they haven't even any sources making such a POV assertion. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The quotes above all concern Ezion-Geber, they all seem to presume the correctness of original analysis offered by Nelson Glueck regarding the function of that place and thus they all get the chronology wrong. You will note that they all post-date his discovery. Glueck himself changed his mind, eg: what he first considered to be smelters were later redesignated as granaries and as citadels. His recording methodology left something to be desired and the pottery that was retained turned out to be Negevite pottery. His thesis was reappraised in 1985 and the dating was changed significantly. The Queen of Sheba could not possibly have lived for 200 years or more and thus it is impossible for the older theses, including that of Otto Eissfeldt, to be correct in the light of more modern assessment. Consequently, we have as yet no academic source to provide verifiability of the statement - speculation, as presently offered, seems useless & the cited source certainly is so. It is fine to cite NPOV/the idea that we show all valid opinions but the issue here is that the older opinions quite simply are not valid and that even the person at the heart of them developed doubts. See, for example, the reappraisal itself at the head of the list below, together with reviews of it that span a decade: I don't just grab a source and think that is the job done. I found sources to support the vague "some historians" claim in the Follett publication (that was one job) and I've now found more modern sources that debunk the whole thing (the other job). Quite why CAH do not update their books is beyond me but I've seen similar things relating to their history of India. They can be useful as a base but you do need to look forward. I've dropped a note with someone who is a syndic of that Press and whom I know from university days. Hopefully, he'll get back to me. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, the fallacy seems still to persist in tertiary sources, eg: this. My suspicion - unconfirmed - is that they are relying either on poor research or on Biblical references. The so-called Ezion-Geber excavated by Glueck seems to be another place. - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sitush, How can you possibly claim the ability to debunk entire schools of thought, claim for yourself the authority to rule them inadmisible, unmentionable, and declare "who's right and who's wrong" in a controversy, and yet at the same time pretend that you don't have any agenda? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Til, you are setting a bad example for this new editor. I've tried to encourage this editor to take part in the discussion at the WP:RSN noticeboard while you seem to be suggesting that that isn't necessary and the editor can go ahead and add it - because you say so. You're also, not for the first time of course, failing to show good faith towards another experienced editor. Please encourage new editors to use our noticeboards, it can avoid a lot of problems. Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Good faith has already gone out the window here. Sitush et al seem to say their pov is the only right one, so all the many scholarly  sources contradicting their POV cannot even be mentioned, says them?  And I'm supposed to accept all this on "good faith"?  Fat chance.   I want a request for comment if this is going to turn into a content dispute. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * RSN is supposed to tell you that if scholars talk about something, we are allowed to have an article about it.  That's how I remember the place.  If they are now instead telling people - "No - any source that doesn't pass our POV litmus test xyz cannot even be mentioned on wikipedia", then the wrong people are now lurking around there. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You're wrong on all counts. If that was all RSN did it would be redundant. And you've made it clear before you don't like our WP:NPOV policy. Again, you aren't helping this new user become a good editor, which is a shame. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You have some crazy idea that WP:RSN has some kind of holy jurisdiction overruling article editors who watch the article talk page and have actually contributed to the article, so all random editors with a "certain" mindset have to do is hang around RSN now, and agree to render their verdicts on scholarship they know little of and call that a "consensus" that cannot even be appealed, overrules any consensus on the local talk page, and even discussing the issue further on the relevant local talk page is now being discouraged because apparently everyone is supposed to go crawling to the "wiser" RSN editors now to plead for their "verdict"? These few select editors are simply deciding by "consensus" what scholars they like and find acceptable, and what scholars they are branding as "Heretics" and "anathema" on any topic, this is the ugly side of wikipedia alright.    I had no idea this was the new system on English wikipedia, but if so, I shouldn't even be here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Till, I find the obviously prejudicial and rather obviously emotional attempts to impugn others who are fairly and reasonably trying to apply FT/RS guidelines on the relevant noticeboards disturbing. Rarely if ever have I seen any of them ever come close to using the derogatory name "heretic" or "anathema" regarding anything. I realize that there are a number of religious groups out there, like the Jehovah's Witnesses belief in Jesus being put on a torture stake as opposed to a cross, for instance, who hold to religious beliefs which are not only not accepted by the academic world, but most often actively dismissed as wrong by the academic world. Please refrain from such gratuitous insults to others in the future. And I hope everyone remembers that our purpose here is to build an encyclopedia, more or less following the guidelines and policies regarding what qualifies as "encyclopedic" based on, in a lot of ways, the similar guidelines and policies for other print encyclopedias. It will always be the case that some individuals, who hold or perhaps promote ideas which have gotten little if any academic support, and possible academic opposition, will be dissatisfied with the neutral application of those policies and guidelines. That is unfortunate, but unavoidable. I sincerely hope that those individuals place the broad idea of developing an encyclopedia over the more personally driven promotion of beliefs or opinions with which they are sympathetic.
 * There are a number of very highly regarded reference books relating to the ANE and the Bible which have been put out in recent years, including the 6000 page Anchor Bible Dictionary, which while kinda old is also probably the the most exhaustive work on that field. I can and will try to consult some of the more recent ones like that to see what they say on these topics. If there seems to be a prevailing opinion in them that some ideas which may have been credited for a while before, but which are no longer widely credited based on subsequent developments, deserve a certain degree of attention, I would have to assume our own policies and guidelines would probably support our content giving the material roughly equivalent weight. John Carter (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)