Talk:Queen of Sheba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Bible (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Judaism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ethiopia (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethiopia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ethiopia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Yemen (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Queen of Sheba is supported by WikiProject Yemen, which collaborates on Yemen-related topics on Wikipedia. Please participate by improving this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Africa (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

The Queen of Sheba, both as a historical person (possibly), and as a mythic figure, deserves a more grown-up entry. Wetman

The article implies information from the Bible, which it is not. Everything after the first sentence is legendary. Pollinator 12:29, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No one else has corrected the error, and I can't myself, as I do not know the source of this statement, wrongly attributed to the Bible, so am moving it here: The king tricked her into bed with him. She later gave birth to a son, which was not accepted by the critizing elders of the council. She returned to her kingdom with the son Menelik? and later established a kingdom in Aksum, modern-day Ethiopia. Possibly it's a tradition of the Ethiopian royal family. If so it should be attributed correctly. Pollinator 04:49, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Bilqis redirect[edit]

I redirected the Bilqis article to this one as the debate seemed to be dead. I think it makes sense because Bilqis is referenced here. ka1iban 17:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Can some one explain to us the meaning of "makeda"? I cannot accept the meaning (not like this / thus) which is a modern dialectal Arabic: maa kida(Sudanese).

Is that where that meaning comes from? It's surely wrong, then, since it is not Arabic in origin. I'll remove it now. — ዮም | (Yom) | TalkcontribsEthiopia 17:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Modern Theories needs source or sources[edit]

Will a knowledgeable person kindly provide sources for this section, or else somebody (namely me) will delete it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 07:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Modern theories
A theory has been voiced that the meeting between Solomon and the Queen of Sheba was not for love or admiration but a discussion about trade. According to the Bible Solomon built a fleet of ships at Ezion-geber. The theory is that Solomon intended to routinely sail to East Africa and there trade, bypassing the South Arabian kingdom of Sheba which previously acted as middleman in this trade.[citation needed]

Sheba's Kingdom was in Yemen. Not Ethiopia, as known by everyone and agreed by historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.224.95 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Axum Kingdom and the Arabian Peninsula[edit]

The following sentence seems to be an add-on: "There has been evidence of Arab tribes in Arabia, not there has been no evidence of a Queen called Bilqis or any female ruler ever over Arab tribes of Arabia." This add-on is not grammatical, and it contradicts archaeological findings in Yemen. Indeed, we have proofs that the Axum (African, pre-Ethiopian) kingdom has extended into the southern tip of the Arabian peninsula for some time. Therefore, this sentence is confused (if not misleading) and should be deleted. Hugo Dufort 02:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have also corrected the second-to-last sentence, making the geography more specific ("southern tip of the Arabic Peninsula (actual Yemen)" instead of simply "Arabia"). Hugo Dufort 02:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Best name ever?[edit]

"According to the Jewish law, Sheba's name was ULTRAEXTREME70." While this might be a great name, and I'll certainly considering giving it to any children I have, I don't think it's a correct translation from Hebrew. Does anyone who knows better than me about a) the subject at hand, and b) Wikipedia (since this is my first post), care to correct it? 216.86.36.211 20:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The entire sentence is a piece of vandalism that was added two days ago and removed again within a few minutes. You seem to be looking at an old version. If you are new to wikipedia, all you have to do to get the current version is click the 'article' tab. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Modern African Account[edit]

What is the point of the "Modern African Account" section of this article? Beside the fact that everything stated lacks citation, the paragraph not only fails to relate any modern African account but exists in parallel with the actual modern African account related under "Ethiopian and Eritrean Account" heading. I suggest that the information contained in this paragraph, if it be truly pertinant and accurate, be properly cited and placed under a relevent heading.--Jr mints 21:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Ethiopian account has citations in the beginning paragraph...to give the citations from Kebra Nagast would be usless unless you read GE'EZ (I still can't find a reputable translated version without speaking to the Ethiopian priests). There is always controversy among scholars when African (or any other people of color) history appear to contradict the myth of white supremacy and myth of the European involvement in the bible before the New Testament. It is not coincidental. Watch the history channel: Scottish, Irish, and Confederate (U.S.) ethnocentric zealots are treated as if they have delivered the gospel of their respective cultures and never contradicted despite being without proper citation. Many of the written references that the aforementioned groups cite are from ethnocentric sources or some form of undocumented oral lore that was formulated well after the historical events that they have professed to have occured. Yet scholars continue to discredit the Kebra Negast from a culture that has held documentation this history for more that 700 years...try 3000+ years and to this very day lives in a culture that is the most similar to the bibles description than any other!!! Somehow the history channel takes the Irish, Scots and Confederates at their word although the three cultures were not as proficient as the Ethiopians with written documentation or the oral tradition. Different rules apply for European ethnocentrics... I suppose. My citations will appear in a separate post although I doubt many of you etnocentrics will accept them..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.201.186 (talkcontribs)

Old Vandalism[edit]

I removed some old vandalism that looked like it had been overlooked in some recent edits. Silly people... Amers4 12:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Ethiopian account has citations in the beginning paragraph...to give the citations from Kebra Nagast would be usless unless you read GE'EZ (I still can't find a reputable translated version without speaking to the Ethiopian priests). There is always controversy among scholars when African (or any other people of color) history appear to contradict the myth of white supremacy and myth of the European involvement in the bible before the New Testament. It is not coincidental. Watch the history channel: Scottish, Irish, and Confederate (U.S.) ethnocentric zealots are treated as if they have delivered the gospel of their respective cultures and never contradicted despite being without proper citation. Many of the written references that the aforementioned groups cite are from ethnocentric sources or some form of undocumented oral lore that was formulated well after the historical events that they have professed to have occured. Yet scholars continue to discredit the Kebra Negast from a culture that has held documentation this history for more that 700 years...try 3000+ years and to this very day lives in a culture that is the most similar to the bibles description than any other!!! Somehow the history channel takes the Irish, Scots and Confederates at their word although the three cultures were not as proficient as the Ethiopians with written documentation or the oral tradition. Different rules apply for European ethnocentrics... I suppose. My citations will appear in a separate post although I doubt many of you etnocentrics will accept them..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.201.186 (talkcontribs)

Queen Sheba: NO Queen of Sheba: YES[edit]

Queen Sheba or Sheba is not right. The Queen of Sheba is often called Sheba or Queen Sheba. Though the article title is Queen of Sheba, she is often referred to as Queen Shebaor Sheba in this article. Is this right? Thin Smek 00:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The account of the conversion (besides disagreeing with the account in the Bible) is different from the historical accounts given elsewhere on Wikipedia. Also, the bit about the Ethiopian emperor's resentment is pretty broad obviously needs some citation.

For the Ethiopian monarchy, the Solomonic and Sheban lineage was of considerable political and cultural importance. Ethiopia had been converted to Christianity by Egyptian Copts, and the Coptic Church strove for centuries to keep the Ethiopians in a dependent and subservient condition, which the Ethiopian emperors greatly resented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.44.181.12 (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kebra Nagast.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Kebra Nagast.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Handel[edit]

Didn't see a section to insert this nugget... "The Arrival of the Queen of Sheba" from Handel's oratorio Solomon is one of the best known instrumental pieces of the Baroque era.

Performed by the Advent Chamber Orchestra with Humbert Lucarelliand and Edino Biaggi on oboes

Problems playing this file? See media help.

Could this go here? Or is it too trivial?DavidRF (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

All depictions of her in art, should charted in chronological order.--24.57.59.196 (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Velikovsky[edit]

Citing to anything related to Velikovsky is not a way to produce reliable work. You should take it out until you find a separate source for the info and then cite that. 4.249.3.239 (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The entire section on "Possible Egyptian derivation" appears to be speculation and rubbish. HAt-Spsswt means 'foremost of the august [women]', i.e., foremost nobelwoman. How Spsswt becomes 'Sheba', I don't know. The rest of the section appears to be nonsense. I intend to delete it for now, chiefly because of the bizarre claims about Hatshepsut's name, and the fact that 'some scholars' in this case means 'Velikovsky and his followers'. Aside from it being a rather nebulous phrase, to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.215.130 (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why were these edits undone? They were reverted in a minute without any comment here, and by a user who does not even count Egypt within their scope, and who apparently has little to no knowledge of the subject. The claims relating to Hatshepsut are pure nonsense, while the equally ridiculous suggested etymology of 'Sheba' from 'sbA' is beyond parody. Maybe for an encore we can claim that Dido, Queen of Carthage is a myth relating to the Dodo? After all, they look the same, too! This kind of ridiculous claptrap only devalues wikipedia. 92.25.215.130 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Nefertum


Reliability[edit]

this article has serious problems in differentiating between historical evidence and legend. It needs a major rewrite.AMuseo (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sheba was not some "Jewish" kingdom. It was Aryan kingdom, also known as "Shiva", Sava, Saba... Ethiopia comes from "E'Shivopia - Thebe from Sheba as Shivait Aryan territory; this is the reason why so many Swastikas in Ethiopia and in near locations... Shiva's territory predates year 12 000 BC. And has nothing to do with Jews or whatsoever.

Modern Portrayals[edit]

This article needs information about the portrayal of the Queen more recently than the Renaissance, and also the various legends about her.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Birthday?[edit]

Can someone clarify (and source) the reputed birthday of January 5? She was born several centuries before introduction of the month of January into the Roman calendar, which probably didn't make it to that part of the world until much later anyway, so what does a it mean to say she was born on January 5? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.184.7 (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew biblical accounts[edit]

The title of this section needs to be fixed. The Qur'an is not part of the Hebrew Bible (which is usually called the Torah or the Old Testament), nor is the New Testament, nor is Ethiopian legend. Either we need separate sections for all the different cultural/religious views, or we need a neutral title (such as Religious Mythological Accounts). Umm huraira (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There's been no reply so I'm going to go ahead and change the title of this section to be more in line with what it's discussing, which is Mythological Accounts. Umm huraira (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't revert my changes again without bringing something to the discussion. Umm huraira (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The term "mythological" is highly contentious, and often seen as polemical POV according to numerous RSS. It is best avoided in the name of neutrality. What exactly do you mean to say by "mythological"? Critics have enumerated at least 12 conflicting "definitions". If you mean "false" or "fictional", you are expressing your own subjective POV about texts that other widespread POVs regard as factual. If you mean "a narrative to explain how the world was created", as wikipedia ostensibly has defined it, it doesn't fit this account. No two scholars seems to agree exactly which parts of whose sacred scriptures ought to be defined as "mythological". The idea you expressed on my talk pages that ALL religion's scriptures are a priori the same thing as "mythology" is the POV expressed by certain Marxist-Leninist handbooks, not by a neutral encyclopedia. For fairly obvious reasons, there is no consensus on wikipedia to go around to all Bible or Quran articles and label them with the POV title "mythology". If you continue to make a mockery of WP:NPOV against consensus, this dispute is surely going to escalate. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
So what do you suggest I do? As it stands, this section has a hierarchy that lists the Qur'an and Ethiopian cultural accounts as being part of the Hebrew Bible. Do you not see an issue with that? I'm merely trying to pick an academic title that reflects the nature of all documents listed in this section. "Hebrew Bible" certainly fails in that regard. Mythological is the word of choice in social science academia here in America. Find another neutral term that doesn't suggest the superiority or inferiority of any religion/culture and we'll change it to that. Meanwhile, listing other texts underneath the heading of Hebrew Bible is offensive to the adherents of those religions/members of those cultures, so it is not satisfactory. If anything, it's an argument for Judaism as a superior religion. Umm huraira (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
And I'm not making a "mockery" of WP:NPOV as it states specifically that "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of... concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." Frankly, I find it insulting that you claim to know exactly my intentions and what I'm thinking. Mockery never even entered my mind. For further evidence regarding the usage of mythology, see the page titled Christian mythology and note how it refers to hero myths. The Queen of Sheba is a part of the hero myth of Soloman. Umm huraira (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopian legends about Alexander[edit]

There's an Ethiopian Alexander romance. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I had never read it, but I looked it up and am reading Budge's translation online now. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sheba & Solomon, text moved from article[edit]

There is a serious discrepancy in the dates of either King Salomon's time or that of Queen of Sheba. According to another article "The conventional dates of Salomon's reign are from circa 970 to 931 BC" So how did the two meet in 10 BC is quite mind boggling.I have searched all over en.Wikipedia and internet but do not find any amicable date to see how they met. Only one fact does remain and undisputed from accounts in Genesis to Quaran that they did meet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎AwesomeDIY (talkcontribs)

I moved this from the article as it belongs here. Do you mean 10th century? 970 is in the 10th century. I removed January 5 as I couldn't find any suggestion of that date. Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Queen of Sheba and Lilith[edit]

Facts[edit]

Both the article and this discussion are pretty crappy, as expected for this forum. This reflect the modern trend, as this wiki is really only for basic and trivially simple things. The authors are unqualified as they are not researchers or gifted with insight. The comments regarding I. Velikovsky, whose research abilities, language skills, and basic common sense dwarf those writing and commenting on this topic do not belong here. If you want to remove rubbish, remove all references to him.

xx[edit]

Article would be enhanced by inclusion of a piece about the connection between the Queen of Sheba and Lilith legends. See, for example... http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0013_0_12540.html http://www.timelessmyths.com/mirrors/lilith.php#Biblical

makeda[edit]

we know that she was queen of a land called sheba(ethiopia). but her name was makeda. it would be correct if it's written in the article.89.205.2.29 (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

deliberately misleading[edit]

This article is shameful. it talks about Africa and kenya and takes what it is in the kebra negast as a given truth! There is no mentioning whatsoever about modern scholarly researches and it gives undue weight to certain points, like the location of Havilah! How did the editor know that she was born in Marib and died in Ethiopia? Aksum was founded in 1st century AD! Something has to be done about this article --يوسف حسين (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Haven't looked into this deeply yet but we really should not be using Wallis Budge for this. Nor should Wikipedia assert where she was born and where she died. Dougweller (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Removed Wallis Budge for now. Way more work needs to be done.
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 01:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
How is the above being taken as sufficient pretext to remove all mention of Budge's viewpoint when we have a "needs MORE (nor LESS) viewpoints tag"? Is this tag ostensibly calling for MORE viewpoints some kind of sneaky way of eliminating altogether the opinions associating her with Ethiopia? Is this your true agenda? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Til re-instated my edit. Might have to go through this by majority I guess. I won't revert because of WP:BRD and courtesy to Til, whom I have encountered before doing some good work around here.
Here is my reply to you Til: here is another viewpoint, why not include it as well? While we're at it, let's also say she is an alien -I mean, we do need MORE, not less viewpoints, right?
Budge is hardly worthy of mention in the lede- maybe somewhere else in the article. To equate his viewpoint (based 19th century understanding of the world) with a major faith and modern scholarship is mind-numbingly stupid that no one but a hardcore Ethiopian nationalist will even entertain it.
No one has a devious plan against Ethiopia, but we do against inaccuracies (say, linking Ethiopia with coffee for instance).
Cheers,
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 03:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
There are tons of books linking Ethiopia with coffee and you indeed have a strange opinion if you consider Ethiopia's link with coffee to be an "inaccuracy". This seems to confirm that you are opposed to including any pro-Ethiopian opinions anywhere regardless of how widespread or easily-found elsewhere they may be. Anyone who has actually been in the region of Ethiopia, which you evidently never have, knows better than the dry nonsense you seem to be spouting from some armchair. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
That's a tangent. This article is about the Queen of Sheba. Please explain why you reverted something 3 editors agree with.
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 22:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
PS. I have been to Ethiopia to help around on a medical trip. It was good, but I'd never go back, to be honest. This has nothing to do with it. The coffee link is historically inaccurate. Let's agree to disagree on this one.
Sure, it's you disagreeing with literally tons of sources that coffee's home is in Ethiopia, strongly suggesting you have an agenda of cultural theft here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that someone added her father name according to Ethiopian traditions,Arab traditions say otherwise and claim her father name was Il-Sharah. Why isn't that included? I think that section should be left blank because nobody knows the queen's name to begin with --يوسف حسين (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. Cheers. Λuα (Operibus anteire) 22:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be a separate section discussing her portrayal in art, why did some Europeans in the middle ages portray her as a black women? was it because the Ethiopian Kebra negast was the only source available for them regarding the queen? The featured article in Russian is discussing this matter stating the fact that the Sabaeans were Semites --يوسف حسين (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you are inviting us to engage in some original speculation, but we desperately need opinions found in published sources, not yet more of our own original wisdom. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to add that section with reputable sources, Yousef. I'd be happy to help around.
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 15:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, i'm currently expanding the article about Yemen though --يوسف حسين (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Europeans were displaying her as a "black woman", but rather as a dark arab woman. The arabs from the lower half of the Arabian Pennisula have darker features. Blonde hair and dark skin is quite norm in Yemen, Oman, and Saudi Arabia so the image of the queen is not as outlandish as it seems. I feel the image is very accurate.Abdelrahman93 (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Is not what you feel or don't feel, how is posting an image of a black girl prove the skin color of the queen of Sheba? I don't want to discuss the Al-Akhdam class here or posting images of tribesmen from the highlands, but the population of Tihama tend to have a darker complexion than the rest of Yemenis for several historical reasons and slavery is one of them. That does not mean by any chance that the biblical queen of sheba was black. The Ethiopian Christian kebra negast was the only source available for Europeans in the middle ages.. --يوسف حسين (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Besides, the picture you uploaded is from a forum discussing blondism in Nubia!! --يوسف حسين (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
If you think the purpose of the image is to "prove the skin color" you are badly missing the point. The picture was painted in Bohemia (Modern Czech Republic) around 1500 out of someone's imagination, as how the artist depicted her in his mind's eye some 2,500 years after she lived. It doesn't "prove" a thing, nor is it intended to. Compare articles such as Moses, there you will see various significant cultural depictions of Moses, bearing in mind nobody is certain how he looked, but the ones showing him with horns do not "prove" he had horns! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
which is exactly my point, there should be a section discussing her portrayal in art. I don't see a picture of black Jesus in the info box about Jesus! selecting one photo portraying this queen as a black woman out of many portraying her differently only serves the deceitful content of this article --يوسف حسين (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


200px BlackSheba-Text.jpg

The issue for wikipedia is not how likely the picture is to be accurate, but the fact that it is a cultural representation of the article subject. It could even be wildly inaccurate, but we would have no way of verifying its accuracy one way or the other without engaging in original research. It is a cultural representation and that is exactly what we use on such articles. Why are we seeing such unusual objection to this particular image of a black queen? Because the Queen of Sheba plays such a crucial role to Ethiopian historiography, it has always been an unfortunate fact that there are going to be agencies of other governments who are unfriendly to Ethiopia having any such tradition, who wish to attack it in any way possible. You can recognize the agents because they are the same ones who do things like strenuously deny that coffee has anything to do with Ethiopia. They despise Ethiopia so much they are known to go to ANY length just to deny her any credit for any thing whatsoever and try to force people to believe them. Therefore this is one of those articles that MUST continually deserve the very highest level of scrutiny to prevent these agents filled with hatred from making it one sided and in line with Mussolini's thinking, only to prevent as much as possible the Ethiopian side of the story from being heard by the rest of the world. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Again with your conspiracy theories! I do not hate ethiopia as a matter of fact i have been there and enjoyed my stay at Wondo Genet. I do not have anything against ethiopia and its people and culture. I have a problem with the Wikipedia article of Sheba and the queen of Sheba. You say that the queen plays a crucial rule in Ethiopian historiography, ignoring the fact that the 14th century kebra negast is the oldest Ethiopian source about the queen. The Ethiopian narrative of the queen appears to be an attempt to legitimize the political structure of Ethiopia (The Queen of Sheba: Legend, Literature, and Lore By Deborah M. Coulter-Harris p.142)
The Many Ethiopian storyteller who participated in the kebra negast construction demonstrated themselves to be rhetorical masters using mimicry to construct a unique identity and fabricating a bricolage of cultural materials into a national myth that resolved eternal conflict about Ethiopian identity. The Kebra negast provides a rational for why ethiopian christianty was so jewish, why the Ethiopians looked both african and Arab ... the goal of many inventors and re-tellers overtime was to construct a national narrative not to describe historical truths, but to represent them (Roberta Sterman Sabbath Sacred Tropes: Tanakh, New Testament, and Qur'an As Literature and Culture pp.446-447).. --يوسف حسين (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It is not a theory, it is a fact. First you call it a theory then you immediately prove it a fact by quoting anti-Ethiopian propaganda (of which there is no short supply) as if it were unassailable veritas. NPOV means we cover all the significant points of view, and the Ethiopian point of view is unequivocably one of the significant points of view - it was even enshrined in the 1930 and 1955 Constitutions, and is still maintained by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. If you have other significant points of view that contradict this, add them with attributation as is standardary - but don't delete other significant points of view that you disagree with, or it will become problematic and require further intervention. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
So digging into Ethiopian legends founded in the 14th century is Anti Ethiopian propaganda ? Kenya, yaroba people and ignoring modern scholarly work about the Sabaeans is not a significant point of view. You know better than anyone else that only an Ethiopian nationalist or an afro centrist would entertain this article. Just because an ethiopian empror added that he is the 225 decended of Solomon and the Queen of sheba, does not make it fact simply because there is no evidance to support such claim! i'm not against including that in the article but you do know that the tone is leaning toward favoring Ethiopian legends , ignoring many scholarly work about the kingdom of Saba and its influence on northern Ethiopia--يوسف حسين (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Like I said, you are welcome to add any attributable RSS you like for your point of view. It only gets to be a problem when someone goes deleting everything for the opposing point of view - see WP:NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Kenya and the Yaroba people of whatever should not be in the lead, there is hardly enough scholarly work about a Sabeean queen in Kenya to be included in the article in the first place! if a Pakistani said that Jesus was from Karachi, should that be included because it is a point of view? The new evidence about a south Arabian Sheba/Saba is far stronger than any other point of view. I am not against including Ethiopian legends and tales, but they shouldn't be in the lead or the info box. it should be in the section about the queen in Ethiopian heritage --يوسف حسين (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
When there are conflicting major points of view it is a violation of NPOV to give precedence to one point of view, yours apparently being that the Queen of Sheba had nothing to do with Ethiopia. May I remind you that a substantial number of scholars still think that Sheba at the time included land on both sides of the Red Sea including Yemen as well as Eritrea and Ethiopia. It's as if thought scientists are trying to build a mental chasm between Africa and Asia going down the Red Sea as if it were amazing that they had ever heard of each other. The fact of the matter is you can see one from the other. Yes, people knew there was land on the other side and yes, crossings in both directions were always frequent, and several states, including Sheba, incorporated territory on both continents at several points in history. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I never said the queen had nothing to do with Ethiopia. as matter of fact i tried explaining that the Sabaeans had contact with modern day Ethiopia in Sheba's talke page. Nevertheless, having a contact with Ethiopia is something and saying Sheba or its biblical queen was Ethiopian is something else. What you just posted should be in the lead, that many modern scholars believe that the queen might have ruled a territory including Yemen and Ethiopia today. But Saba was a South Arabian Kingdom --يوسف حسين (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we don't actually disagree that much then, but perhaps you knew that Ethiopian historians, by virtue of the Sabaeans ruling Ethiopia too, also consider the Sabaean dynasty as one of their own, notwithstanding its seats being on the Yemeni side... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
They are free to believe that Haile selassie was a god, but scholars have a different understanding. The fact that no material evidence regarding the queen existence has been found should be included. Some scholars believe she was a mythical figure created to glorify Solomon's wealth, while some others interpreted it differently and came to the conclusion that the Israelites were engaged in the spice trade.. Such works should be included in the article--يوسف حسين (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of criticism for Josephus accuracy regarding many topics including this legendary queen --يوسف حسين (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I like the stable version to which يوسف حسين reverted. Keep that until we agree on something. Til's 3RR warning on يوسف حسين's talk is just harassment and you should know that, Til.
Honestly speaking, I'm tired of the conspiracy theories. The only money I have seen any government ever spend on Ethiopia is in financial aid. There no ant-Ethiopia agents because honestly, who gives a flying flip?
Cheers,
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 05:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
With an attitude like that, I have little confidence in your editing of Ethiopia related articles. There are no anti-Ethiopia agents? Really? I'm sure you know a lot about the topic. Try reading some of Mussolini's propaganda from the 1930s, or some of Fidel Castro's from the 1970s, or look at the people who want to deny Ethiopia any culture whatsoever, otherwise known as cultural theft - I'm sure you know them. You can find people on the internet now swearing that the rock-hewn Orthodox Churches of King Lalibela had to have been built by visiting Knights Templar because obviously it is impossible that any African race could ever be so clever. To pretend "there are no anti-Ethiopia agents" is outright bunk and won't fool any Ethiopians whose point of view on Ethiopian culture you seek to deny as "insignificant" to the subject of Ethiopian culture. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
And if someone reverts 3 times in one hour, it is not harassment to warn them for 3RR. It is expected. Please do not be so liberal in your accusations. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
3RR from another editor engaged in the edit war is actually aggressive and can be viewed as harassment. A proper attempt to let the other editor know of 3RR is to write a personal message (a la what I did to you) than you use the template.
Either way, I like the middle ground I'm proposing for now.
Feel free to comment. Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 21:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Youssef has already stated that he objects to the image in the infobox, but would not in the appropriate section. So I added it to the appropriate section and you edit warred to prevent the image from appearing in the article at all, perhaps failing to comprehend that there are in fact no valid reasons whatsoever for preventing the mediaeval image of Queen of Sheba from appearing in the article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
If I'm going to be subject to your criticism because I used a template that is given for editors to use, you are playing me too close. Back off. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
OK User:Aua, how about you explain it to me then. What is the reason you say this image cannot appear in this article? (Other than "Because I thought that's what Youssef was saying, and I'm on his side" ??? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


(RI) I totally missed that; I thought you just reverted me. I really have no problem with including the image, but not in the infobox until we agree on something (as per what I wrote below). Oh well, my bad. Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 17:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, ok then. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Info box pic[edit]

Oops, got cut off while writing my edit summary, but instead of having one pic or the other, I removed both pending final solution (obviously, we can all play the revert game and eventually settle down on the non-black pic since it became the status quo, but as courtesy to everyone involved, I'm de-escalating). Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 21:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally I have no concern about the infobox pic. The Bohemian pic has a much better claim as "status quo" there I think, but it's irrelevant to me, I only ever objected to culturally significant pics being removed from the article entirely, and it seemed to be for apparently biased reasoning. It makes a better illustration for the Mediaeval section where I put it IMO, not really the Ethiopian section because it actually does not have much to do with the Ethiopian traditions. There are tons of Ethiopian depictions of her, but that's not one of them. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I, for one, agree with that. If her color is a big issue, then have a neutral image in the infobox, and add her depictions elsewhere. I also agree that image is best placed in the mediaeval section seeing that it's from...well..mediaeval times. If there are more depictions, we probably can throw them in as well for the sake of completeness.
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 19:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)