Talk:Queen of Sheba

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

I redirected the Bilqis article to this one as the debate seemed to be dead. I think it makes sense bei love you you love me were a happy family with a ^{Superscript text}she was king of dog townand a asjkdg from LSDJAFIL;SDFcause 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) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Modern Theories needs source or sources

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]

The Axum Kingdom and the Arabian Peninsula

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?

"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

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)

Old Vandalism

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.....

Queen Sheba: NO Queen of Sheba: YES

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

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

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.

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