Talk:Queen of Sheba

deliberately misleading

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)

File:Yemeni girl.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

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)

Sheba

Some of the text was quite incoherent. At least one passage was also original research, misattributed to one Steven L. Danver (ed.) [1]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I am happy about improvements to my wording, however the article should include the rastafari movement and more current political content. Danver is not misinterprted, I provided page entries and the story is neither controversial nor fringy. Serten (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the original traditional Ethiopian depiction of Makeda/Sheba to the relevant section; image(s) of Beta Israel individuals are WP:OFFTOPIC. A more neutral image or no image at all should go at the top given the dispute above about Sheba's identity. Regarding Rastafari material on Sheba, it can be represented but in its own section as it has nothing to do with traditional Ethiopian beliefs on Sheba. Also, the material attributed to the Steven L. Danver (ed.) book is original research since it is not indicated on the cited pages 10-13 [2]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with the changes. Danver is quoted correctly, I checked in google books. Pnina Tamano-Shata is not "any" beta, but a moP often named as for the Sheba role model and much better as the nazarene campy figure before. Last the rastafari and afrocentric studies material is in the narratives, not ethiopian section and right there. Serten (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Danver is evidently not correctly represented. Here is a pdf of his book and nowhere does he mention anything about Sheba and Rastafarianism, let alone on pages 10-13. It also makes no difference who the Beta Israel MP is. That is not the topic of the article; the mythical Queen of Sheba is. Per WP:OI, the original research policy applies to images and their captions as well, not just to text. I'm not sure what makes you believe that the Makeda/Sheba painting is Nazarene, but I've removed it for the sake of argument. I've also fixed the foregoing again and neutralized the image at the top and the original research in the lede. Please do not re-insert this without prior discussion and agreement. Middayexpress (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I receive a malware warining with that sort of pdf. Danver is quite outspoken in his book, but I think I got your point now and corrected it. The afrocentrism / black athena issue is selv evident but has more sopurces now. The narrative respeczivel the role model issue is important. I dont get why you erased the lede picture as well, its not neutral, but erased. Serten (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I already explained that a more neutral image or no image at all should go at the top given the dispute above about Sheba's identity. That said, the pdf link is certainly not malware. I'll reupload it shortly on a free server to demonstrate once and for all that Danver does not indicate this anywhere. Middayexpress (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Middayexpress, I dont need an upload, as I think we had a misunderstanding. For me the reference to afrocentrism and rastas are selfexplaining, now we have a separate source for that. I think that case is closed. With regard to the pic in the lede, I am not sure why The Queen should not have a pic in the entry. Waht would you reagrd as a "neutral" pic? Is it about her black or whiteness? I suggest to use Berta Golahnys sculpture with an hint on the controversy. Regards Serten (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. The material attributed to the Danver book is original research since he doesn't appear to say anything of the sort. As promised, I've re-uploaded a copy of his actual book on this other server. It can no longer be claimed that one isn't aware of this because of malware or whatever since the book is now available for verification on two separate servers. Similarly, as can be seen here, the Conyers Jr. and McFarland book does not indicate that "Afrocentrism applied as well an image of a people being chosen and prefered on black respectively African people and included the Queen in their realm". That wikitext also makes no sense and no page number from the book was provided to support this incoherent claim. Additionally, I already explained above that the Ethiopian Sheba tradition has nothing to do with the newfangled Afrocentric one. For starters, the Ethiopian tradition is several centuries old and, though essentially legendary, is based on actual historic relations with the Levant, not on modern Afrocentric notions of who Sheba was. Lastly, I already explained above that per WP:OI, one cannot add original research captions to images. Given this, I've also removed the claim regarding Golhany's portrait of Sheba. Additionally, I've contacted a regular on the Africa WikiProject for input and to see whether he too has problems accessing the Danver link due to malware. Middayexpress (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstood the edit. I have used McFarland book to indicate that Ethiopian people used e.g. the Kebra Nagast to claim possession of the Ark of the Covenant respectively to have replaced the Beta Israel and the Israelites in general as chosen people. I havent assumed that the rastas and "Afrocentrism applied as well an image of a people being chosen and prefered on black respectively African people and included the Queen in their realm" needs any sourcing, itsevident. but I provided that as well. Afrocentrism Insoafr I would prefer to have the imprved version restored. Again, would you be please so kind to answer my questions? Serten (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The edit was not an improvement. On the contrary, it was largely original research, as shown above. The historical Ethiopian Kebra Negast tradition has absolutely nothing to do with the modern Afrocentric beliefs surrounding the Queen of Sheba. Conyers Jr. and McFarland certainly do not indicate anywhere in their book that it does, nor obviously could they given the fact that the Ethiopian Kebra Negast tradition is several centuries old. That said, please quote the pasage in their work that you are referring to so that I have an idea what exactly it is you are trying to convey. It is linked above. Middayexpress (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Afrocentrism is just a branch of science, which of cause uses and deals as well with the Sheba legend. Serten (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing ...

FWIW, the reasons for my revert are: 1) Many stylistic errors, typos and chatty language, as well as distortion of sources by paraphrasing them wrongly and badly, all being justified with "somebody else's copyright". 2) Far-off and weak sources, probably substituted for the real (and good) ones. 3) Pseudo-politically-correct suppression of the referenced term Falashas, without any objectively derogatory meaning. 4) Persistent imputing of a legendary (and ultimately racist) image of "blackness" to the Queen of Sheba, based on Senghor. That image probably originated sometime in the Middle Age, due to European Christian fantasies of the "exotic orient", possibly corroborated with a reference to a black (?) person mentioned in the Song of Songs. Another possibility is her allegedly Ethiopian provenance, but contrary to her depiction in the Ethiopian fresco showed in the article. The Russian Wikipedia article mentions it via Origen, but as a primary source. This may be pursued further, .... In general, the color of the Queen of Sheba's skin is unimportant in the many reputable sources provided so far .... --El Cazangero (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Try to start editing without offending those that do not share youre points. Calling Senghor a racist and Falasha non derogatory, is sort of fringy, erasing them based on a I-dont't-like-it perspective rather silly. Reverted. Serten (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@El Cazangero: This is a start. But the matter of how far to mention the theory of her having been black needs to be further discussed, as does the use of "falasha", which is a loaded term in the present day. The need to avoid copyvio is non-negotiable. What specific passages do you think are badly paraphrased, and what wording would you recommend, perhaps a short quotation or two? "Many stylistic errors, typos and chatty language" requires specifics: please give examples. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are some valid points, particularly where you appear to suggest (if I understood you correctly) that Senghor's rendering of the Queen of Sheba is not the same as the traditional Ethiopian rendering. Indeed, the traditional Ethiopian depiction of the legendary Queen is centuries older and not hugely different from that adhered to elsewhere (that one Czech mural notwithstanding). The prose and formatting could also certainly use improvement. That said, Serten has made a good faith effort, but I think there may at times be a bit of a language barrier (English may not be his first for even second language). Another thing for all to remember is to avoid any pejorative WP:LABELs, and especially to keep the focus on the Queen herself. Like all legendary figures, there are countless, and often quite weird theories on her, so it's important to avoid any fringy material. This can perhaps best be assured by relying as much as possible on the Classics and historical works. Middayexpress (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of being repetitive, copyvio is a red line you can't cross, and text based on sources must clearly be in your own words. Of course sources shouldn't be distorted, but there is no justifiction for violating our copyright policy and that has been made clear enough to El Cazengero in the past. I'll also point out that we prefer secondary sources - in this case normally academic ones, to tertiary sources, ie encylopedias.Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I see. I wasn't aware that there was a copyright issue with his/her edit. Core policies should definitely be adhered to. Academic sources are indeed also best, particularly within the relevant Middle Eastern studies and Classics field. Middayexpress (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Senghor and other current use are of importance for the overview on the narrative, I dont give much about DWEM. One might discuss the Black Egyptian hypothesis, but with regard to the Queen of Sheba, of cause she was most probably black - in nowadays terms - but these terms were different bevore the rather modern invention of racism. The S of S "I am black but comely" may refer as well to a tan of a lower social class, as in German "schwarzbraun". Serten (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I had to revert El Cazangero again, manually this time. Better actually start discussing - your edit comments don't signify any increased level of cooperation. Serten II (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Orient

The term "orient" is deprecated jargon. -Inowen (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Mistakes

This sentence while other traditions say that he gave her in marriage to a tubba of Hamdan has an error but I cant fix it because the source that is given is offline and I can't check it. The true one that I found in Arabic books says he gave her marriage to a king of Hamdan(In the narratives its called Qel which has similar meaning to Sheikh).[3] According to traditions his name was (Tha Tuba) thats his name not his title it is somehow linked to Tubba of Himyar in this article and thats cant be true because Tubba kings came at the time of the second himyarite kingdom and thats too late. ِAlso Hamdan cant be part of Himyar it is a Sabaean tribe. So if someone has access to the offline reference that is given please tell us what it really says. Also this not related to Islam(another mistake) but to Arab traditional. I dont know why its under Islam section. IMO the only thing that section should contain is things that are related to Islam like Hadith or Quran. Also since there is a section called Ethiopian I think its okay to make a section called Arabs. I somehow understand why some people cant distinguish between Arab tradition and Islamic belief but this is not an excuse--SharabSalam (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Arab tradition

I know I am always in the talk page of this article but few times I make edits in here. I want to start a saperated article about Balqis(Queen of Sheba) but like in the Arab-Islamic tradition. I don't know what would it's name be. "Queen of Sheba in Arab tradition"?--SharabSalam (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay I have decided, "Queen of Sheba in the Yemeni folklore" or something like that. There are lots and lots of details from the Yemeni folklore that are missed from this article like her early life, how she became the Queen etc. I will mainly use an old famous book written by Wahb ibn Munabbih called "al-Tigan fi Mulook Ḥimyar".--SharabSalam (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, SharabSalam, I think that that is a great idea, and will definitely add to the scope of this article. A separate article treating on the Arab tradition surrounding the Queen of Sheba (Malkat Seba` = ملكة سباء) would be welcome here. When I was in Yemen, I often heard talk about the famous queen named Bilqis. Historically speaking, though, there are divergent views as to when this queen actually lived in Yemen, which may actually be the result of embellished traditions surrounding one or several women by the same name. At any rate, from a pure historical-geographical point of view, the ancient kingdom of Sheba (Arabic: سباء) is said to have been in Ma'rib, where the Marib Dam is now located.Davidbena (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Working on it.-SharabSalam (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect depiction of Queen of Sheba

The current depiction of Queen of Sheba by Edward Slocombe (1907) does not align with historical and cultural understandings of her identity. I urge the community to consider a change to this image based on the following points:

1. Historical Depictions: Ancient Roman art and other cultural representations from as early as the 15th century portray the Queen of Sheba as a Black woman. For instance, artworks such as those by Konrad Kyser in 1405 illustrate her with distinctly African features. This representation is supported by various historical texts and interpretations that recognize her as part of the African lineage.[4][5][6]

2. The Bible frequently mentions Cush and connects it to the identity of the Queen of Sheba:

Genesis 10:6-7: Lists Cush as one of the sons of Ham, suggesting its geographical and cultural significance.

2 Chronicles 9:1: States, "When the queen of Sheba heard of Solomon’s fame, she came to Jerusalem to test him with hard questions." The term "Sheba" is often associated with the region linked to Cush.

Ezekiel 30:4: Refers to Cush in the context of Egypt, stating, "A sword will come against Egypt, and anguish will come upon Cush." This underscores the connections between Cush and the broader ancient Near Eastern narrative.

Jeremiah 13:23: Uses the term "Cush" to describe the people of the region, further indicating the identity associated with the Queen of Sheba.

Edward Slocombe's 1907 depiction of the Queen of Sheba was likely influenced by the prevailing Eurocentric biases of the early 20th century. This whitewashed portrayal reflects a common trend in historical representations of non-European figures during this period. However, this contradicts earlier depictions of the Queen of Sheba as a Black woman, found in Roman and medieval sources. The shift towards a white representation likely occurred due to the growing influence of European colonialism and the desire to associate historical figures with European identity.

I encourage everyone to consider the implications of our visual representations. Updating the image to a more historically accurate depiction is vital for preserving cultural identities. Acknowledging the Queen of Sheba's true historical identity would be a step toward rectifying historical misrepresentations and ensuring a more accurate portrayal in our shared knowledge base. Thank you! Afrodiplomacy (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Citing 3 sources about the exact same picture isn't going to prove anything, I could use Edward Slocombe's painting as proof of her being of a lighter skin color. citing the bible for a historical figure that is important in other religions like islam is against WP:NPOV as it is a primary source and portrays only one side of the huge viewpoint. Abo Yemen✉ 19:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

While you cite Edward Slocombe's 20th-century painting to depict the Queen of Sheba with lighter skin, it’s important to recognize the colonial influence of his era, which often whitewashed African and Middle Eastern figures.

The sources I’ve provided, including religious texts and older depictions, all predate Slocombe’s work. They represent a more diverse and historically grounded range of perspectives. Here is another example in Speculum Humanae Salvationis from the 14th century presents her as a dark-skinned figure.

While I understand concern about using Bible as a source, it’s a key document for understanding Queen of Sheba, as her story is shared across Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions. Examining these through multiple lenses provides a fuller understanding of her legacy. Your argument relies on a single, modern source, while I’ve cited diverse, historical ones that offer a broader, more nuanced view, enhancing our understanding of how she has been portrayed throughout/s>

an older source doesn't mean that it is more accurate keeping in mind that most of the stuff we know about her is relatively new.

also please read the previous discussions on this talk page, that has been going on for more than 10 years now, about the same topic that you decided to open today and if you have anything new to add then please do

see Talk:Queen of Sheba#deliberately misleading and Talk:Queen of Sheba/Archive 1 Abo Yemen✉ 20:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

thanks, but the talk pages don’t address my point. The debate around Queen of Sheba has been ongoing for years, and recent evidence shows her depicted as a black figure. That’s how history works—it's a conversation that evolves, and that's how we improve understanding.

It seems you're shaping things to fit a specific pro-Arab narrative without allowing all evidence about her to be included. I never removed your work on Yemeni connections. I simply added context from historians and scholars who have depicted her differently. I even provided two older illustrations from different time periods, that date back over half a century before the image you shared from the 20th century, and without further sources.

history shouldn't be about pride and ego, but about keeping the discussion open and inclusive, allowing room for all sides of the conversation, not just one Afrodiplomacy (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

typo correction: ... you only shared one image from the 20th century, without additional sources. this is a one sided perspective Afrodiplomacy (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The Talk:Queen of Sheba#deliberately misleading section clearly addresses what you're talking about. If you're going to ignore it then leave this wikipedia article alone. Also what you've added violated copyright issues. And no i am not pushing a pro-Arab narrative as i haven't deleted anything about the ethiopian perspective from the article and what you're doing now violates WP:AGF. Abo Yemen✉ 12:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen, it seems you’re the one ignoring legitimate sources just because they don't fit your narrative. You haven't even addressed the information I’ve presented; instead, you keep relying on intimidation and vague claims to push me away, which isn’t going to work. The Ethiopian perspective isn’t the only valid one here, and neither is your Yemeni-Islamic perspective. Also, what I shared doesn’t violate copyright, as it’s sourced from public domains.

Instead of strengthening your argument with facts, you're trying to use scare tactics. I'm well-versed on this topic, and as much as you think you can push my perspective aside, you can’t. My voice will be heard, just as much as yours. Afrodiplomacy (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not pushing your voice aside. The ethiopian perspective should stay in the Queen of Sheba#Ethiopian section the same way the islamic and yemeni perspective is in the Queen of Sheba#Islamic section and not in the lede section. Also your edits were deleted by an admin under RD1 (Violations of copyright policy).

and again please read Talk:Queen of Sheba#deliberately misleading Abo Yemen✉ 13:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah and The term "Sheba" is often associated with the South Arabian Kingdom and not cush Abo Yemen✉ 12:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

::Don't state your opinion. Provide citations and resources.

I have provided plenty of resources to back my argument, including the following:

Historian Josephus, for instance, identifies the Queen of Sheba as "the woman who ruled Cush and Ancient Egypt," and names her as Nikaulis. He also places Sheba’s capital, Saba, in the city of Meroë, located in modern-day Sudan. This interpretation aligns with biblical genealogies as seen in Genesis 10:7, where Sheba is listed as a descendant of Kush: "The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan."

Furthermore, Isaiah 43:3 places Sheba in a context closely associated with Egypt and Kush: "For I am the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior. I give Egypt as your ransom, Cush and Seba in exchange for you."

This could suggest a historical overlap in regions and peoples, further complicating the identification of Sheba with the South Arabian kingdom of Saba.

In the New Jewish Publication Society version, the text of Isaiah, renders Seba as Saba, which mentions Sabaites. This is relevant because the names Seba and Saba are phonetically similar enough to justify their close association. This can lead one to consider them possibly the same or closely related entities: "Thus says the Lord: The wealth of Egypt and the merchandise of Cush and the Sabaeans, men of stature, shall come over to you and be yours" (Isaiah 45:14).

Saba is also the name of ancient Arabian Kingdom identified with Sheba, and it is also cited as capital city of Ethiopia (or Aethiopia) by Josephus, who wrote in Greek. In genealogies of Genesis 10, Seba is recorded as a son of Kush: "The kings of Tarshish and of the isles will bring presents; the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts" (Psalms 72:10).

These genealogical references tie Sheba directly to Cush, reinforcing her connection to Nubian heritage, specifically regions that were historically identified as Aethiopia, which, in ancient times, referred to a much broader area that included present-day Sudan and parts of southern Egypt. Afrodiplomacy (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Did you not read the second paragraph of the lead sections which is supported by british non-yemeni sources?

Your bible sources should stay in the bible section of the article and not the lead section. I wouldn't be surprised if you're a puppet of Til Eulenspiegel because of the way you're talking about being misrepresented Abo Yemen✉ 15:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems this type of aggressive behavior is a common practice for you. I won’t engage with personal attacks or insults. My focus here is on presenting facts and evidence-based information, not on emotions, national pride, or ego. I didn’t bring up representation; my aim is to discuss historical accuracy. There’s no need for insults when we can intellectually debate facts and offer constructive criticism. For the record, I’m not approaching this from a nationalistic perspective, and I’m neither African nor Black, so this doesn’t affect me in the way you might think. I’m educated in ancient history, and I expect a respectful, well-informed discussion. If you can’t engage in that, I suggest stepping back from the conversation. Afrodiplomacy (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop making assumptions about me and also stop adding your afro-centric bs to the lead section of the article. If you want to improve the ethiopian viewpoint of the article then you're welcome to do that in the Queen of Sheba#Ethiopian section of the article as long as you're using reliable sources and only reliable sources. Otherwise stop adding your mostly original research to the lead. Abo Yemen✉ 06:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Afrodiplomacy Mind telling me why are you still adding and entire article section to the lead section? Abo Yemen✉ 06:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy to work together to incorporate both of our well-sourced contributions effectively. Will keep improving the article and ensure sections are organized in a way that makes sense for everyone. But I’d appreciate if you could stop deleting my contributions without merit. Afrodiplomacy (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not adding anything to this article by the way and there is no need to reorganize the entire article's section. Please remove all of your original research and move the sourced stuff that you've added to the ethiopian section of the article Abo Yemen✉ 06:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, even though I don’t agree with it. I’ve kept the main illustration by the medieval British artist and added original illustrations of her from notable ancient figures of the 15th century in a separate section to give a more complete view of her depictions throughout history. None of the research I’ve contributed is my own; it is directly sourced and quoted from foundational texts of the Hebrew Bible and Christianity. Additionally, there are several cultural and geographical inconsistencies in the article that needed clarification, which is why I included more information to provide a well-balanced perspective. Afrodiplomacy (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not my opinion. Your own interpretation of the bible is called original research. If you've read the talk page section of the article that ive been telling you about, you would have already realized on your own that a 15th centaury piece of art depicting a person who lived 2500+ years ago is not a reliable depiction. Also you did not fix the so called "several cultural and geographical inconsistencies", you've made it worse by adding 4.5 new paragraphs that leans towards the ethiopian POV and you have tried to discredit the south arabian side by removing the sources that prove that sheba was in south arabia. This is just vandalism Abo Yemen✉ 06:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen agreed. The Bible isn't history, and we do not know the identity of the Queen of Sheba. Doug Weller talk 08:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller he's back at it again even tho i explained everything to him below Abo Yemen✉ 11:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we don’t know her exact identity, but the article selectively includes one perspective and disregards reputable evidence from ancient historians/text.

Also if the Bible isn't considered history, then the entire premise of this article is undermined, since the Queen of Sheba is mentioned only three times in the Bible and once in the Quran. Her existence became part of historical discussion because of these texts.

The illustrations I added from the 15th century are properly credited and sourced from notable museums and academic institutions. So, why is it that your 20th-century depiction is valid, but those aren’t?

It's important to note that modern-day Ethiopia and ancient Kingdom of Kush are not the same, which is why I clarified the distinction between them. Finally, the citations you claim I removed, which were supposed to support the connection to southern Arabia, simply led to the British Museum's homepage, without providing any specific reference to the content in question. Afrodiplomacy (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Afrodiplomacy We can quote what the Bible says but can not treat it as factual. Just as we do with Moses. Doug Weller talk 09:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

No, the article does not "selectively includes one perspective and disregards reputable evidence from ancient historians/text", you clearly haven't read the article and are making blatant claims.

They Ayat used in the islamic section are not interpreted by the person who added them (like what you're doing) but are interpreted by islamic scholars. AND GUESS WHAT? The Quran doesn't mention where the kingdom was! You just made a fool of yourself.

If the link led to the home page then that means it is now a redirect and used to be an actual source backthen. See WP:KDL Abo Yemen✉ 09:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Also the islamic version of the story does not appear outside the islamic section of the article Abo Yemen✉ 09:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

And regarding the pic, Jesus was middle eastern but he is depicted as white and this is the case with every religious article like Noah, Abraham, Lot, and even Moses. Want to know why? because almost every depiction of them shows them that way and only a few does otherwise. And here on wikipedia we show the most popular thing as a fact but that doesn't mean we don't include other viewpoints where they should be Abo Yemen✉ 09:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Afrodiplomacy, It is not an opinion, @Abo Yemen said it is often said, which is correct if you bothered reviewing the article and its references, for references and citations, the article is filled with those. Your additions mostly of your own interpretations of the bible (WP:OR) and Afro-centric sources in the lede does not only lean to a POV (WP:NPOV), but is giving it undue weight (WP:UNDUE). Also stating the obvious, the Bible can't be used in the lede because, as it was previously said, is a POV and should be placed in its respective section. If you feel that the Ethiopian or Christian views were misrepresented, please feel free edit them there while being in accordance to Wikipedia's policies, instead forcing them onto the lede giving them undue weight. |MK| 📝 09:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You're claiming that I’m interpreting the Bible in my own words? That's simply not true. I’ve shared direct interpretations from ancient biblical scholars, who wrote in Latin and Greek. Nowhere in my contribution have I inserted personal opinions, unlike what you're doing. Every statement I made was cited to original documents. For instance, when quoting the Bible, it mentions Kush several times, and ancient historians clearly referred to the Kingdom of Kush, which is not modern-day Ethiopia.

Also, why should your pro-Yemeni Arab perspective hold more weight than others? This is clearly a biased point of view.

If the issue is with the placement of my paragraphs, I'm happy to rework the structure to fit better within the article. But you do not have the right to discredit the credible sources I’ve included. Ironically, the same sources and wording are already present in the article, just not elaborated in enough detail.

Also, please address the concerns I shared with you about the citations in the intro. They lead to vague web pages like British Museum with no specific citation. If you don’t fix this, will remove again. Thanks Afrodiplomacy (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

you are replying to the wrong guy.... I have explained myself above MK's edit Abo Yemen✉ 11:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Afrodiplomacy What do you mean no specific citations? They back the text. Doug Weller talk 12:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Afrodiplomacy

"Also, why should your pro-Yemeni Arab perspective hold more weight than others? This is clearly a biased point of view."

It holds more weight because, as Abo Yemen said, it is the most common one that historians suggest, not because of bias.

"If the issue is with the placement of my paragraphs, I'm happy to rework the structure to fit better within the article."

No one has a problem with you placing those under their appropriate sections in accordance with WP's policies.

"But you do not have the right to discredit the credible sources I’ve included."

Well, in fact most of the "credible sources" you've mentioned is the Bible or interpretations of the Bible, It does not matter if it was from ancient, current, or future scholars.

"Also, please address the concerns I shared with you about the citations in the intro. They lead to vague web pages like British Museum with no specific citation. If you don’t fix this, will remove again."

There are a lot of citations in the body about the information in the lede, adding them to the lede would make it redundant as per the Manual of Styles. Hence please, as I said, bother to read the article and review its citations. |MK| 📝 12:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I see the likely Til sock won't be around this page or the article for three months, page blocked Doug Weller talk 13:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Doug really appreciate it. Get better soon bro Abo Yemen✉ 13:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

But not by me. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

oh my bad Abo Yemen✉ 15:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Til sock permanently blocked now. Struck through a few but it was too tricky to do them all. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah just saw it today morning. I'll try to strike the remaining Abo Yemen✉ 10:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

References