text:
Talk:Queen of Sheba

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tiyyah18.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
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 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)  |  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]

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
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)

 * 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 (talk • contribs)

Also their language is most like the ancient language of the person in question lol (Aramaic)  Allanana79 (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2016 (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..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.201.186 (talk • contribs)

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 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)

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

Velikovsky
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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 (talk • contribs)
 * 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)

Facts
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
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
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
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, Λ u α  (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,
 * Λ u α (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, Λ u α  (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. Λ u α  (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, Λ u α  (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)

 * 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,
 * Λ u α (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, Λ u α  (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, Λ u α  (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, Λ u α (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, Λ u α  (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.). 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 . 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)

Chatterbox
El Cazangero, you have made some controversial edits ("Chatter..") and reverted my revert with the notion "Talk". I would highly prefer you came up with better reasons for that and if you ask for using the talk page, then do so yourself. As long as you don't provide any valid reason, I tend to ignore and restore, but lets see what you have to say. Serten (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC) PS.: No reaction from your side. I did some changes on the lede, but have restored the rest. As said, try to provide reasons for changes which are acceptable.

Again, start talkimg and refrain from further controversial edits. Serten (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

 * ??? Serten (talk) 07:03, 18 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)

 * 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)

mythology of Sheba's donkey foot
I came to this article because of a paragraph in African Myths by Gary Jeffrey book published by Rosen Publishing. Wikipedia article mentions "rumour that the Queen has hairy legs and the foot of an ass". The paragraph (on page 45) in the Gary Jeffrey book says Sheba (aka Makeda) was "A historical figure who also appears in Ethiopian myths, and in Christian and Islamic Stories. Shea ... was to be sacificed to the serpent-king, Arwe. Arwe is killed but as he dies, a drop of his blood falls onto Makeda's foot and changes it into a donkey's hoof. ..."

Another book The Queen of Sheba: Legend, Literature and Lore seems to have more details on page 162: "... By contrast, Ethiopian legend states her deformity was incurred by her by her being bitten by her pet jackal, and Eritreans say her foot became malformed as a donkey's hoof when dragon blood dropped on her flesh. ..."

Would it be ok to add (to the Wikipedia aricle) more detail about this mythology about Sheba? --EarthFurst (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

fertile cycles of legends
Are the editors sure they want to use fertile in "fertile cycles of legends"??? How about "many legends have arisen over the years."(PeacePeace (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC))

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

Her story isn't completed
Well since I am a Muslim I see that the presentation of the Queen of Saba' in the section of "Muslim traditional" isn't completed and not the full story and how she converted as its mentioned in Surat An-Naml https://quran.com/27 as there is no mentioning of the Hoopoe story SharabSalam (talk) 15:17, 27 July 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). 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)

Removal of unverified categories
Per WP:CATV ''Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.'' The article does not source the claim that the Queen of Sheba is any kind of saint. Therefore the categories Muslim female saints, Muslim female saints from the Old Testament have been removed. Per WP:CATDEF ''A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having".'' It is not a defining characteristic of the Queen of Sheba that she is an "Islamic figure" so this category has also been removed.Smeat75 (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Queen Sheba Myth and Orgin
Unraveling the Mystery of Queen Saba: A Closer Look at Psalms 72

Psalms 72, a poetic and symbolic text in the biblical Book of Psalms, has long captivated scholars and enthusiasts alike with its enigmatic references to various nations and individuals, including the Sabian, Arabian, and Ethiopian. Among these figures, one character stands out prominently: Queen Saba, whose origins and identity have sparked fervent debate and speculation throughout history.

In Psalms 72, the Sabian, Arabian, and Ethiopian are described separately and independently, igniting curiosity about the true lineage and background of Queen Saba. While some interpretations view these descriptions as referring to distinct geographical regions or ethnic groups, others delve into the realm of myth and legend, portraying Queen Saba as an otherworldly being—a figure of mystery and wonder.

One intriguing interpretation posits Queen Saba as an alien entity, a being who transcends conventional human understanding. According to this perspective, Queen Saba is depicted as half-human, half-faun—a hybrid creature embodying elements of both humanity and the supernatural. Such interpretations draw parallels with ancient mythologies and folklore, where beings of divine or extraterrestrial origin often interacted with mortal realms.

Furthermore, the question of Queen Saba's true homeland adds another layer of intrigue to the narrative. While present-day Eritrea and Ethiopia are both plausible candidates for the location of Queen Saba's kingdom, proponents of each region passionately advocate for their respective claims. Despite the lack of conclusive historical evidence, the debate continues to fuel scholarly discourse and popular imagination.

In considering the possible origins of Queen Saba, I am inclined to align with the belief that her kingdom likely resided in Eritrea. This assertion is based on a combination of historical context, cultural heritage, and geographical factors. Eritrea's rich history, marked by its ancient civilizations and strategic location along the Red Sea coast, provides a compelling backdrop for the legendary reign of Queen Saba. Moreover, Eritrea's cultural ties to ancient Ethiopia, coupled with its distinct identity and traditions, underscore its potential connection to the enigmatic queen.

However, it is essential to acknowledge that the true identity of Queen Saba may forever remain shrouded in mystery and interpretation. As with many figures of antiquity, her legacy transcends historical fact, weaving a tapestry of myth and symbolism that continues to inspire fascination and inquiry.

In conclusion, Psalm 72 offers a tantalizing glimpse into the world of Queen Saba—a figure whose origins and identity defy easy categorization. Whether viewed as a mortal monarch, a celestial being, or a mythical archetype, Queen Saba remains an enduring symbol of power, wisdom, and enigma. As we continue to explore the depths of scripture and legend, the mystery of Queen Saba will undoubtedly endure, captivating hearts and minds for generations to come. 82.139.134.200 (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

BC years go in reverse, right?
I'm confused by this sentence:

"Since there is no mention of the Fall of Babylon in 539 BC, Martin Noth has held that the Book of Kings received a definitive redaction around 550 BC."

No document existing in 550 BC would have mentioned something happening in 539 BC, since 539 BC is 11 years after 550 BC. So how is that an indication that something was redacted? Caseyroberson (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The phrase means that there were no significant changes in the Book of Kings after 550 BCE, which would explain why there were no mentions of the Fall of Babylon. Dimadick (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The sentence still isn't 100% clear that that's what it means. A "definitive redaction" indicates to me only that it was the last redaction, not the last change. Caseyroberson (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Balqis/Bilqis: pls clarify
The jump between i and a is not very common. Arminden (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Queen of Sheba


text:
Talk:Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion

Subsections of section 2
The subsections of section 2 make it sound as if the subsequent deliberations of the Communion concerning the issue of homosexuality were prompted by the consecration of Bishop Robinson. This is untrue, as the content of the subsections indicate. I think that a general section dealing with the precipitating causes of these deliberations would be in order, with the Lambeth meetings and Windsor Report, etc. following in a subsequent section. Thoughts anyone? Fishhead64 17:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Update request
This article should be updated with information about the recent primates' meeting in Tanzania and the ultimatum sent to the Episcopal Church USA, as discussed here and here. I'd do it myself, but I'm not entirely clear on the precise details of the communique, and it's important to be precise about these things. Anyone up to the challenge? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

COTM nomination
The nomination of this article for Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month for March was unsuccessful. The COTM is William Wilberforce. It has been automatically renominated for April. Thanks! Fishhead64 16:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The renomination of this article for Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month for April was successful. Editors are invited to begin assessing the needs of this article and improving it. Fishhead64 02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Structure
The introduction to this article seems far too long- nearly a whole page before the contents box. Shouldn't most of the discussion in the introduction be elsewhere? Epeeist smudge 10:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I think four paragraphs of LEAD may be a little longer than average for an article this size, but probably not ridiculously long. At any rate, it should be a summary of everything that follows in the rest of the article. —Angr 10:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Stance of churches" section
A lot of the information in the "Stance of churches" section seems to come from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/3226753.stm. I'd rather this section be rewritten as regular prose paragraphs highlighting the contrasting views in a general way rather than a list of churches and what they may or may not have said officially. We can still provide a link to the BBC article for further reading or as a reference. —Angr 18:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing unsourced statements
I am removing some statements that have been tagged "[citation needed]" for several months and for which I have not been able to find supporting sources: Once sources for these statements are found, they can be reincorporated into the article. —Angr 19:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) These different standards have led Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and current leader of the Communion, to call them contradictory. He has also noted in his interpretation of the Bible there are no passages condemning monogamous same-sex relationships. However, Williams has become increasingly cautious in his viewpoints in relation to this issue since his appointment to the English primacy, although he has a history of engagement with the liberal Affirming Catholicism movement and has consistently stated that the Anglican Church needs to engage with gay and lesbian people.  (the last statement here is sourced, but without the rest of the paragraph, it makes little sense to include it)
 * 2) As of 2004, other provinces such as the Episcopal Church in the USA, the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil, the Anglican Church of Mexico, the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Southern Africa permitted the ordination of non-celibate gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex unions, with similar reactions. (I'm only removing the "with similar reactions", as I believe that's all the source was requested for. Sources for the statements that these provinces permit ordination of gay clergy and bless same-sex unions don't belong in the lead section of this article.)
 * 3) Underscoring the divisions within Anglicanism, 14 of the 35 Primates present [at the meeting in Dromantine] refused to take Communion with the group because of their provinces' decisions to partially or completely break communion with the US and Canadian churches.
 * 4) A number of Anglican provinces, including the second-largest in membership (but largest in church attendance), the Church of Nigeria, threatened to leave the communion if a non-celibate gay man were allowed to be consecrated a bishop. In addition, a minority of priests and congregations within the Episcopal Church were also considering leaving the communion as result.
 * 5) Archbishop Peter Akinola has been one of the most outspoken critics of ordination of gay clergy and of blessing same-sex unions within in the Anglican Communion.

 * I'm also removing the unsourced statement that the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil is "originally Low Church, but now migrating to a Broad Church/High Church style of liturgy", as it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant anyway. —Angr 14:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Text that needs to be included
If the following is not already spoken to in this article, can someone please incorporate it? It was removed from the lead of Christianity and homosexuality because it is too denomination specific.

 * Within Anglicanism, which still officially regards homosexual sex as sinful, there are theologians who do not regard homosexual acts as sinful. Anglicanism has, therefore, experienced deep divisions over this topic, the most notable example being the consecration of Gene Robinson as a bishop in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, who was the first openly gay bishop in the Communion. It should be noted that the Episcopal Church in the United States, as of a recent Bishops' convocation in Texas, determined that homosexual Episcopalians were full and equal participants in the life of the church, and that "If that means that others reject us and communion with us, as some have already done, we must with great regret and sorrow accept their decision." It should also be mentioned that the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams has argued that "the scriptural text conservatives use to argue against homosexuality is misread." These two examples demonstrate significant acceptance of homosexuality by Anglican clergy and also point to additional movement on this issue for the denomination in the future.

Thanks!LCP 20:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No more gay bishops in the US
This seems rather important. A.Z. 04:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

LGBT box
Is there a serious reason why someone keeps removing the LGBT/Queer Studies box? It was taken out as "vandalism", which is really a wildly inappropriate accusation. I wasn't the one who put it in, but if there are no objections raised, I'll put it back in. Carolynparrishfan 19:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Church in New Zealand
The Statement regarding the Church in New Zealand is incorrect:

''Official policy remains that of the Lambeth Conference (all homosexual activity is sin). The Maori and Pasifika tikanga are committed to this. Any participation leads to immediate summary withdrawals of any Bishop's licences, tantamount to immediate Excommunication.''

Bishop's licences are granted to clergy, not laity, therefore withdrawing a license isn't excommunication. If a priest loses his/her license, he/she is "inhibited" from celebrating the sacraments. They cannot celebrate communion, marry or bury.

Excommunication means that someone cannot even receive the sacraments. These are entirely two different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.232.164 (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

2nd openly gay bishop
I also notice that Bishop Terry Brown of the Diocese of Malaita (Solomon Islands)of the Church of the Province of Melanesia isn't mentioned. He is openly gay and attended the 1998 Lambeth Conference long before Gene Robinson was consecrated.

See:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.232.164 (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Arguments - The Texts..
Could someone in the know add a section in which the decisive arguments are specified; including any texts referred to, along with interpretation(s)? It is surprising, to say the least, that such a section is not already included. As it stands this article only lists a "summary of issues" followed by indications of who stands where; yet is without indication either as to why these are considered to be the 'issues', or why these are the stands taken.

WigglyWoggly (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Blessings for homosexual unions allowed
Epicsopal bishops can bless gay unions. GLGermann (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WashingtonPost:Episcopal Bishops Can Bless Gay Unions

Very poor, misleading, unnecessarily inflammatory article, rewrite earnestly encouraged
Article contains no link to "Lambeth I.10" of 1998 - the resolution of the Communion which, at this last 10-yearly Lambeth convention, was clearly maintained as the mind of the Communion. It would seem that since the most important source document is not even mentioned, editors are explicitly dodging the bullet regarding the mind of the Communion on this matter, and trying to highlight those provinces dissenting with the rest of the communion, leaving a very skewed article indeed. Even though the resolution is not referenced, it is said that "it contained a line saying that this would not be the final word ..." or something like that - there IS no such line, or this is a very pointed re-interpretation - a "listening process" is indeed stipulated, but it is nowhere implied that the point of this listening process is for the eventual modification of the Communion's teaching regarding human sexuality. The point of the listening process is to better serve gay and lesbian people amongst us.

Lambeth resulutions ARE "binding" on all churches in the Anglican Communion - there simply is no legislative means of enforcing them. You would need to source this, and also beyond someone's mere opinion, since things have been exceedingly murkied with the activism taken on by a small vocal minority (The Episcopal Church and some other areas & organizations). I fear that this article's writers may be more acquainted with such activist sources and be missing the broader picture.

The article is also riddled with rather explosive language - e.g., Jeffrey John "succumbs," it is presupposed that those who objected to his consecration were "traditionalists," no evidence is given for the various churches cited that they allow same-sex blessings - the Church of Scotland makes clear that it does not explicitly permit such things, it simply has never had a resolution on the matter - inspiring someone to add it to this dubious list. In the long list of "minority groups" (note: language attempting marginalization of such groups), no evidence is given that they are minority groups, and in the case of Australia, very likely that this is a majority group (the Diocese of Sidney being so large, combined with whatever other groupings are there, may well represent a majority of the Church of Australia).

It's added that Jeffrey Johns became canon of a see which was the cite of England's first martyr (are we trying to implicitly associate martyrdom with him? Has anyone even hinted that the man should die? Do you know what martyrdom is?), and it's conveniently left out that Johns claims to be celibate, making his appointment to this post non-controversial if it is regarding his orientation alone - his views, on the other hand, which are not mentioned here, may have contributed to the controversy.

The "debates": Homosexual members of the church/communion: "may they exist?" Likely to prompt hatred amongst gays - has it ever been debated whether homosexual members may "exist" in any part of the Anglican Communion? This also plays into the fear of gays that they are "not allowed to exist" and church-bashing rhetoric that it refuses gays the "right to exist."

Likewise ordinations: the question has to do with ordination of people who engage in homosexual sex, and not people of homosexual orientation (who, if they remain celibate, may be ordained).

The article states at many points that the Anglican Communion is "diverse" or "widely diverse" but takes no account of the fact that Lambeth 2008 made exceedingly clear that Lambeth I.10 remains the "mind of the Communion."

It is claimed that Rowan Williams denounced bishops, when the sourced article only says that he denounced gay bashing in general, and his words were not explicitly aimed at bishops. This is blatant defamation of the Communion in stating that a denunciation of this stature has occurred.

I would encourage a complete re-write with more impartial writers and editors.

The issue of homosexuality in the Communion is a tough one. We do not want actively gay people to feel that it is MORE accepting of the position that gay Christians should be engaging in same-sex intercourse, more than is actually the case - because they could be in for major life disappointment. And we also do not wish to slander the Anglican Communion, no matter how low our own view of its teachings on human sexuality may be.

 * The resolution of the 1998 Lambeth conference is mentioned in the second sentence of the article, and again in the body of the text, so I don't understand what makes you think it's ignored in the article, but claiming it's "the mind of the Communion" is absurd – any implication that the Anglican Communion is of one mind on this issue is absurd. It's amusing how you object that the term "minority groups" marginalizes them, but you yourself refer to the Episcopal Church as a "small vocal minority". And the Anglican Church of Australia has 23 dioceses, of which the Diocese of Sydney is but 1; 1/23 is 4.35%, which is a small minority. (The number of members in each diocese is irrelevant as the bishop can speak only for himself, not for the opinions of rank-and-file members.) +Angr 20:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

 * ANSWER -

 * It is never mentioned by name, so people can't find it.

 * You may find it "absurd" that something can be expressed as the "mind of the communion" but this is how the Anglican Communion tends to express itself, you will find the phrase frequently in the writings of the Archbishop of Canterbury and elsewhere. Perhaps you dissent to this terminology, but if so, this article should make clear how it dissents from this phrase, since Lambeth I.10 has clearly remained the mind of the Communion according to the Instruments of Unity of the Communion - I don't have a quick link available, I know it was expressed as such at Lambeth 2008, but you could look at the Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent Letter of 2007 for reference, and then try to find a statement made at Lambeth from him which clearly shows a changing of such mind.

 * Regarding the Diocese of Sydney - I was speaking in terms of members - I guess you are speaking about power. What I was referring to is not what I propose for publication, this is a talk page, not the article page. As you'll read in the wikipedia article on the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, about 50% of Australian Anglicans live there. TEC has about 700,000+ that attend church weekly, so I can indeed demonstrate that it IS a minority compared to the rest of the Communion - whereas I haven't seen your numbers yet.

 * You have not addressed the issues of inflammatory language, why Lambeth I.10 is never referred to by name (how Anglicans refer to it, and its proper designation as a Lambeth resolution, nor that it is never linked to in this article), nor the issue of defamation of the Communion. I respectfully await your reply.

=
== MORE regarding "the mind of the Communion
 * Strangely enough those who like to sow doubt regarding the authority of the Lambeth Conference in the church often accuse others of "literalism" which is a charge I haven't quite understood given the complexity of hermeneutics - N.T. Wright suggests we refrain from using the word "literal" and "literalism" on some occasions, and use the word "concrete," as in a word's "concrete sense" - more frequently.

 * Regarding the phrase, "the mind of the communion," obviously this is not intended to be used in its most "literal" or "concrete" sense. The Communion does not have a brain, it is composed of many individuals who all have different minds. Since Lambeth is not a legislative body, what it expresses is more issues of doctrine, core values, and directions, rather than the "If you don't do this than this is the consequence" type thing. The crisis here is regarding the exceedingly explicit violation of the values and directions set out by the Lambeth Conference; however, in the end, TEC can really only be asked to comply with the directives, with the only possible recourse of the rest of the Communion in issuing further directives. So these resolutions are not laws, or canons, as dioceses and churches have. The term we tend to use for this is thus "the mind of the Communion."

 * See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3054277.ece (about the Advent Letter); http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1889 ; It should be added that the "mind of the Communion" is also expressed through the other Instruments of Unity - the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, the Primates' Meetings, and the Anglican Consultative Council - but the Lambeth Conference being the first and foremost.

 * The situation is very confusing since there is a great deal of controversy in the Communion surrounding the issue of homosexuality - however, it is not about what the Communion believes about human sexuality. The controversy is, rather, what the proper way is of dealing with provinces, dioceses, parishes, and individual clergy members who contravene the expressed mind of the Communion on these matters. One can look through the history of the last few Primates' Meetings to see the various proposals, and also how, in particular, The Episcopal Church has reacted to them. There is controversy surrounding the proposed Anglican Covenant; the controversy is not, "is same-sex intercourse a good thing in the eyes of God?" - it is rather, "what should be our reaction to parts of the communion which continue to insist on teaching this, in contravention of the expressed mind of the Communion?" Indeed, since some whole provinces have come out vehemently against the Anglican Communion's teaching on sexuality, many would have cause to doubt that this is the "mind of the communion" - and that this would be more important than what has been decided via the Instruments of Unity. However, this is not how Anglicans refer to things.

 * The problem with this article is, aside from the factual errors, the inflammatory language, and the unsourced claims, the general tenor which fails to acknowledge what the mind of the Communion is on the matter, and where exactly the controversy lies. The article strongly conveys the impression - and boldly states - that homosexuality itself is "controversial" in the Communion. It may be in provinces of the Communion which vehemently dissent from the mind of the Communion on this matter, but in the Communion itself, it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.246.175 (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The problem with this POV is that this is one understanding of the mind of the Communion, whereas others differ on this, and point out that historically the Communion has not had the type of structure and sanctions underpinning such authority in the way that the Catholic Church has. There is no one mind of the Communion - it is split, and of two minds (although some would like to think that where it accords with their view, that is the one mind that counts.  The Archbishop himself has acknowledged that he has no power by which he can impose his authority in a directive way that would be necessary to impose what some see as the mind of the Communion on those who are of a different mind within that Communion, and to do so would be a departure from Anglican tradition, particularly in the case of provinces that established a certain independence at the same time as gaining independence from the Crown.  The Archbishop has described his position as 'primus inter pares' (first amongst equals) in this respect, as he is not the head of the Communion, the only head being the English monarch as head of one part of that Communion - the Church of England, and he being her minister.  However, all you describe is actually WP:OFFTOPIC for this article, and in the context of this article is WP:OR.  The reality is that many (most?) Anglicans in the USA, UK and other countries simply do not see it this way, and regardless of any smoke-and-mirrors exercise that makes them magically disappear in a puff of smoke, they don't, and that is reflected in the article - whether you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT or not.  OK?  If some Anglicans don't like that, by all means describe that, but don't try and pretend it is not the case. Mish (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Mish, agreed here that the Lambeth Conference is not a legislative body - it is nonetheless involved in expressing "the mind of the Communion." There are Anglicans who dissent, but the article should make clearer that this is a position of dissent departing from what we in the Communion know of as the "mind of the Communion." The Archbishop of Canterbury is also one of the four Instruments of Unity of the Communion, which you would know if you had read what I wrote above. Provinces do indeed have a high degree of independence, but choose nonetheless to bind themselves to the Anglican Communion and to respect its Instruments of Unity. No one is making anyone go up into a puff of smoke.

 * The controversy does indeed need to be accurately represented, including the viewpoints of those who dissent from the "mind of the communion" as I'm describing here. Much admirable work has gone toward this end. But it has been much too enthusiastic and insinuates controversy at a level where there is none - at the level of the Communion, there is resounding agreement. This last Lambeth Conference made this quite clear. The controversy at Communion-level is how to respond to provinces, dioceses, parishes, and individuals who dissent and teach and act contrary to Lambeth I.10 (this would include excluding people of homosexual orientation from pastoral care, by the way - excluding people in such a way is forbidden by Lambeth I.10). Other controversies do rage within other provinces, as in North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.246.175 (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I understand, but it would be best if you could draft what you would like inserted/replaced - preferably re-writing the section concerned - and present it here for review. Although people are supposed to write from a NPOV, if people have occupied a framework for 30-40 years where they understood the mind of the Communion to be different from what has been asserted over the past ten years or so (and seemingly endorsed by bishops and clergy), I can understand how it would be difficult to write in a way that this was not the case.  OK? Mish (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Mish, thanks. Don't quite understand you with if people have occupied a framework for 30-40 years where they understood the mind of the Communion to be different from what has been asserted over the past ten years or so (and seemingly endorsed by bishops and clergy), I can understand how it would be difficult to write in a way that this was not the case. OK - makes me think you have a rather monolithic view about "what has been asserted" - but I think I can guess ;) - and yes, I can empathize that writing this type of article could be difficult for those who aren't much aware of the happenings at Lambeth, the acts of the other Instruments of the Communion, and a knowledge of the Communion's recent history which somewhat goes beyond what usually hits the press. Many in The Episcopal Church are also rather busy in "revisioning" history and reality on these matters, which tends to mold opinions in a manner which ... ignore some of the most central facts here, and tend to present viewpoints as facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.35.165 (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 * No, what I mean is that for many Anglicans, the message they were receiving was this was not a problem. Gay priests were being ordained, bishops seemingly approved, I met one (recently retired) at an LGCM conference, fully supportive, gay and lesbian priests were (and still are) living together with partners, and only in some diocese was this a problem, most priests I knew outside of Conservative Evangelicalism certainly did not consider being gay an issue amongst the laity.  This was not recent, it goes back at least forty years.  Then came 'Some Issues' which threw many people.  Now history is being re-written to say that this never happened, that the church has never been this way, and because the policy was one of ensuring this was kept in the closet (don't ask, don't tell), a kind of deniability operated.  Sure, Lambeth says one thing, but many bishops didn't seem to go along with this, and what changed was Carey, who shifted the balance in the House of Bishops towards Conservative Evangelicalism.  Before that there had been a balance between CEs, Liberals and Anglo-Catholics, and within that diversity was unity.  What was lost was unity in favour of uniformity, and because the communion always was diverse and not uniform, ny trying to impose a uniformity that is only understood that way by one section of the Communion, it has fragmented the Communion.  I cannot approach this from any other viewpoint, because I have witnessed it for myself, and I can see no other understanding as anything other than partisan.  This led me leaving the church myself, and having lost my faith is something I will never forgive - because I am no longer called upon to forgive.  Instead, I can hate the people who did this to the church I once loved - people tainted by pentecostalism and fundamentalism, and other doctrines alien to the communion presenting themselves as 'truly Christian' and wiping away generations of theology and biblical scholarship in favour of a literal understanding which elevated an English interpretation/translation of the bible made in the late 20th century to 'the Word of God'.  I don't buy it.  We have about six words known to have been spoken by Jesus, the rest is all in translation - from Aramaic to memory, from memory to Greek, and from Greek to English, and nowhere does he discuss the issues Lambeth have spent the past few decades wasting time over (while the churches themselves lost most of the people who attended), nowhere does he discuss turning faith into fund-raising projects for church roofs, halls, lighting systems, etc.  So, simply write what you think should go in, and other editors can have a look at it. Mish (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Mish, it breaks my heart to hear how you lost your faith, and certainly the other things which you must have gone through in your experience in church. Ideas do have consequences, and they're sometimes tragic. I wish I could say more and wish I knew your situation better. I was hoping someone else would take up the task of writing this (a different matter - but the evolution within the CofE will be a somewhat different history from the Communion at large - it sounds like part of what might have happened here is simply the response of the Church to the neo-orthodoxy of Barth et al, and hermeneutics of Thistleton & Gadamer etc..), there was a lot of pretty naive stuff going on in the "liberal" branches of many churches at that time, but none of this is directly applicable to the issue of human sexuality (though certainly would have had implications). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.35.165 (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Election of anglican bishop Mary Douglas Glasspool
In December 2010 open lesbian anglican bishop Mary Douglas Glasspool was elcted in Los Angeles. 92.252.105.2 (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Boston
Reverend Mally Lloyd and the Reverend Katherine Ragsdale, two high-level Episcopal priests, married in Massachusetts on New Year’s Day 2011.
 * Advocate:Two_Lesbian_Priests_Tie_the_Knot 89.166.206.35 (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Church in Wales
Gay clergy is in Church in Wales allowed. In 2011, Church in Wales gives pensions for gay partners of anglican clergy. The Church of England General Synod approved the change in 2010.
 * (Wales)

 * Pinknews:Welsh clerics to consider pensions for gay partners 188.118.130.100 (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Far too short a time period
This article fails to go back before 1990, whereas the issue has been rattling around the CofE since the 1950s, and there were various crises over the years that informed the present situation: the response to decriminalisation in the 60s, the attitude of bishops then and since (Don't ask / don't tell). As a result this article is much less than encyclopedic and need a radical reworking. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Needs updating
Could somebody familiar with the issues update this part please? It is now after 2008.

 * Homosexuality, specifically the consecration of Gene Robinson, is anticipated to be a major issue at the 2008 Lambeth Conference. A group of conservative bishops opposed to homosexual ordination and marriage, including most of the "global south", will be gathering in June 2008 at the Global Anglican Future Conference.[1]

(no WP account so posting as anon) 86.147.118.13 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Church of England
In 2013, Church of England plans blessing of gay couples.

188.96.190.196 (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Advocate.com:Church England plans blessing gay couples

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_99260_ENG_Print.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090628104434/http://www.acnaassembly.org/index2.php/acna/page/109 to http://www.acnaassembly.org/index2.php/acna/page/109

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304160958/http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/church-wales-looks-pension-rights-1811046 to http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/church-wales-looks-pension-rights-1811046
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160319234444/http://www.changingattitude.org.au/welcoming-congregations/ to http://www.changingattitude.org.au/welcoming-congregations/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312203933/http://www.anglican-nig.org/PH2006message2nation.htm to http://www.anglican-nig.org/PH2006message2nation.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070606000650/http://www.anglican-nig.org/glbsouthst.htm to http://www.anglican-nig.org/glbsouthst.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151211203604/http://thewire.in/2015/12/09/a-theological-challenge-to-christian-homophobia-16685/ to http://thewire.in/2015/12/09/a-theological-challenge-to-christian-homophobia-16685/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170413153151/http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/27677/civil-union-2005 to http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/27677/civil-union-2005
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140119053031/http://www.anglicanessentials.ca/wordpress/index.php/2012/11/01/statement-from-the-ruperts-land-house-of-bishops/ to http://www.anglicanessentials.ca/wordpress/index.php/2012/11/01/statement-from-the-ruperts-land-house-of-bishops/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320001928/http://www.americananglican.org/province-of-southeast-asia-breaks-communion-with-episcopal-church-usa to http://www.americananglican.org/province-of-southeast-asia-breaks-communion-with-episcopal-church-usa
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928150558/http://irishangle.net/nuacht/node/358 to http://irishangle.net/nuacht/node/358
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160412194318/http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/dundee/dundee-cathedral-hosts-historic-same-sex-marriage-1.894036 to http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/dundee/dundee-cathedral-hosts-historic-same-sex-marriage-1.894036
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060526161339/http://www.anglican.org.sg/bishop_gene_robinson.html to http://www.anglican.org.sg/bishop_gene_robinson.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927142829/http://www.duomo.ac.nz/RonAshfordsThesis.doc to http://www.duomo.ac.nz/RonAshfordsThesis.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604064919/http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/printer_3751.php to http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/printer_3751.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160512113658/http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/article_18259.php to http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/article_18259.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040923104749/http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%2FForeignBureaus%2Farchive%2F200306%2FFOR20030630a.html to http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%2FForeignBureaus%2Farchive%2F200306%2FFOR20030630a.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214071412/http://www.siriol.net/StAndrew/home.htm to http://www.siriol.net/StAndrew/home.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108005623/http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/01/06/Two_Lesbian_Priests_Tie_the_Knot/ to http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/01/06/Two_Lesbian_Priests_Tie_the_Knot/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160803042733/http://globalmedia.mx/noticia/45093/que-dios-bendiga-a-pareja-gay-que-se-caso-arzobispo to http://globalmedia.mx/noticia/45093/que-dios-bendiga-a-pareja-gay-que-se-caso-arzobispo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/archdeacon-speaks-unholy-row-priest-s-service/story-22937990-detail/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150930180327/http://www.contemplativefire.org/guide.htm to http://www.contemplativefire.org/guide.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160821090722/http://europe.anglican.org/news/news/post/1127-long-standing-synod-member-benefits-from-a-porvoo-partnership- to http://europe.anglican.org/news/news/post/1127-long-standing-synod-member-benefits-from-a-porvoo-partnership-
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160821123911/http://www.lichfield.anglican.org/ournews/new-lgbti-congregation-in-lichfield-diocese/ to http://www.lichfield.anglican.org/ournews/new-lgbti-congregation-in-lichfield-diocese/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928150505/http://www.irishangle.net/nuacht/?q=node%2F229 to http://www.irishangle.net/nuacht/?q=node%2F229
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160325155349/http://www.coigazette.net/coi-gazette-5th-june-2015/ to http://www.coigazette.net/coi-gazette-5th-june-2015/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150928182828/http://www.anglicanink.com/article/australian-bishop-backs-same-sex-marriage to http://www.anglicanink.com/article/australian-bishop-backs-same-sex-marriage
 * Added tag to http://www.anglicanjournal.com/nc/other/news-items/c/sliders/article/same-sex-blessings-available-in-ruperts-land-11301//abp/141.html
 * Added tag to http://www.diomass.org/diocesan-news/silvestre-romero-elected-bishop-coadjutor-diocese-guatemala
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160220091332/http://www.episcopalcafe.com/another_gay_bishop/ to http://www.episcopalcafe.com/another_gay_bishop/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Dove and Cross. Stained-glass window at Church of Our Savior MCC (Metropolitan Community Church, Church), 2011 South Federal Hwy, Boynton Beach, Florida 33435, USA.jpg

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/