Talk:Solomonic dynasty

Misleading content

This article is misleading with respect to some of the content. The article is written as if to represent the Dynasty's claims but cites facts and figures that historians, not the Kebra Negest states. While Historians may qualify the facts in front of them with what they can verify with secondary and other sources it is the claim of the Dynasty, backed by the Kebra Negest(Glory of the Kings), the Fetha Henegst(Justice of the Kings) and the much less known and esoteric Awde Negest(chronicle of the Kings) and Ethiopian Jewish and Christian hagiography that the dynasty begins in 100BC not 1270 AD, 2270 years later. Its founder is also Menelik I descended from The houses of David(Solomon) and Angabo(Makeda) not Yekuno Amlak who was Emperor of the Solomonic restoration with the Compact of Tekle Haimanot. All these are 'facts' cited in the Kebra Negest.

The way the page is a good beginning but it should be qualified or the name changed and a new one with the genuine claims as set forth in all the above records stated without qualification as the stated claims of the dynasty. Let the reader decide without the subjective editorializing of historians. It should be the historians qualifying their doubts not the source data itself to the extent now that incorrect dates and names are being cited.

Thank you Zabya (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC).

Historians' facts and figures are verifiable and appear in reliable sources. We can certainly notate what the Kebra Nagast says, as well (though this, too, should be formatted as a citation, e.g. of a particular edition). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Article is currently misleading

The article says: "The Solomonics continued to rule Ethiopia with few interruptions until 1974, when the last emperor, Haile Selassie, was deposed". This gives the impression that there was a single ruler of all Ethiopia for 800 years. It also gives the impression that the Solomonics ruled over the area currently known as Ethiopia for that time. This is clearly incorrect, as: 1. the name "Ethiopia" was not applied to the region until 1855 by Theodore II. Before this it was the Greek name for sub-saharan africa. 2. until the late 19th century the Solomonics ruled over (at their maximum extent) 25% of today's Ethiopia, an area which would be more correctly referred to as Abyssinia. 3. the area ruled over by the Emperors changed significantly over time, and during the Zemene Mesafint when the Emperor "was reduced to little more than a figurehead confined to the capital city of Gondar" 82.133.110.226 04:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There are definitely sources that dispute some of your points above, and so would I... I guess it comes down to what views can be verifiably cited to whom, as usual... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopia was the name for the country from the 4th century onwards, as adopted by Ezana (see Munro Hay 1991), and was used throughout the medieval period. As for 2, that's only for the post-Gragn period. Ethiopia's control was roughly the same area during the period 1270-1527, though much of the Ogaden, extreme SW & W, and extreme south weren't part of the Solomonic realm (see the well-cited article on Amde Tsiyon); the variation of borders doesn't mean that the Solomonic dynasty wasn't in control of a country called Ethiopia (though its true that during the Zemene Mesafint it was largely Ras Mikael Sehul and then the Yejju Oromo dynasty begining with Ras Ali that were the rulers of the country as regents to the largely figurehead emperor). Besides, there was little interruption in Solomonic rule during this period. The line from Yekuno Amlak to Haile Selassie is unbroken, as is Solomonic rule, even if at times limited geographically (e.g. during the invasion of Gragn only 1/4 of former territory was controlled at weakest point) or in power (e.g. during the Zemene Mesafint, when the Emperor relied on the regents for his rule) — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 05:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated by Yom above, the name Ethiopia has been used by Ethiopians at least since the reign of Ezana. The term Abyssinia was used mostly by non-Ethiopians until the modern age when Ethiopians insisted it be dropped as it was not a correct term since it excluded Ethiopians of non-Semetic ancestry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.203.158.141 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 June 2007

• I don't think that the statement that they are the oldest dynasty (alongside Japan) is really accurate, other houses lay claim to Davidic descent, and are their claims really all that much worse than this house?

Good source material

I have come across an interesting feature article entitled "LIKE ADDING WATER TO MILK": MARRIAGE AND POLITICS IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY ETHIOPIA" by Heran Sereke-Brhan published in The International Journal of African Historical Studies. New York: 2005. Vol. 38, Iss. 1; pg. 49, 30 pgs. It covers the post Tewodros era.

Abstract (Summary): Although not studied extensively, marriage among notable families has often been acknowledged as an important diplomatic and political tool of the Ehiopian state. Here, Sereke-Brhan documents the almost century-old presence of certain families in proximity to power, establishing their essential role in the forging of empire. The origins of national elite, intricately connected across geographical regions and over several generations, found its genesis in these marriage network that often provided critical continuity in the face of changing politics.

If you have acess to ProQuest, its ProQuest document ID: 868760511. Consuelo D'Guiche 18:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I had the opportunity to hear some of this material presented first hand by the author at Sankofa in Washington, DC in 2003. I believe she was still doing the research then. It was remarkable that generations of Ethiopians sacrificed to create their country. Remarkable research as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabya (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Male line descendants nowadays?

The article isn't clear enough: are there male line descendants of the Solomonic dynasty now? The article seems to imply that yes, through the Shewan line. Is it still extant? --Lecen (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It says 'lineal descent' now. I am unsure what this means, but it could be patrilineal. I have added the {{clarify}} template. No More 18 (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There are still individuals alive today who are descended from nobles from the Solomonic dynasty. The "lineal" also indeed means patrilineal. However, as far as Haile Selassie is concerned, he inherited the throne through his paternal grandmother. Middayexpress (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I call bull.schit (Sorry for my language). This whole "Solomonic" lineage talk has come from "usurpers" trying to make themselves King-able(ie make themselves easily kinged) in the Axumite(Aksumite)/Geez/Orthodox Christian dominated religious-political regime, the closer one King claimed to being "Jewish" ie "Solomon", the more likely the Orthodox Christian Clergy will coronate the "King" to be "Emperor" of a "Ethiopia" based on a "Kebra Negast" book written by who knows who! honestly, this is alot of "Legends" and "tales" based on some slick reinterpretations of the "Bible" used by ambitious kinglets trying to be King of the Mountain called "Ethiopia"(ie modern-day Abysinnia). So Keep questioning until you prove this "legend" exactly what it is, a "legend". No historical facts.

1270 AD is the Start of the "Solomonic Dynasty" yet they claim a 3000 year Lineage to a King Solomon of Israel, which hasn't been proven either. You want to talk about Hoaxes, I call the Solomonic Dynasty one of the funniest if not ridiculous hoaxes of the 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Historicity

This article should really give some statement regarding the consensus among historians regarding the dynasty's claims of originating with Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. Obviously since neither one is currently verified as an historical person, such an assessment is bound to be incomplete, but basic facts like whether or not the Solmonics are attested to existing anywhere near 1000 years BC could be included. Trilobright (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. DeCausa (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Objectivity

Look i am not going to go into it, but simply look at pages like Imperial House of Japan, it has done exactly as what i did, added a verifiable historical date, while at the same time not shy away from the legend aspect. So the idea of adding on verified materiel, is completely not what you can call normal, i have explained this in the article summary. If this gets out of hand, i might ask admins to intervene because to my knowledge Imperial House of Japan does not violate any type of rules, so me getting inspiration from that page therefore does not. Just add the 980 BC (legend) so people can discern, and, add 1270 (confirmed) CtasACT (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

You have a number of misunderstandings about Wikipedia. This might help:

1. Admins in Wikipedia have no authority in a content dispute - there is no point "asking admins to intervene". We operate by WP:CONSENSUS and policy. If you can't establish a consensus on the talk page for a change that you want (and to be honest you've only just started by that post - there's often a lengthy debate and discussion) there are a number of opttions and processes. These are explained in WP:Dispute resolution which I suggest you read.
2. Did you read WP:OTHERCONTENT which I previously highlighted to you? It doesn't really matter what's in another article. What editors do on one page doesn't mean it has to be followed in another. I could go over to Imperial House of Japan and remove the myth date from the Infobox. I've already done that at the infobox for Japan. Anyone can edit any Wikipedia article. Have a look at WP:CIRCULAR - a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source.
3. What is the purpose of adding an unsourced legendary date? The Infobox is a place to summarise the main facts about the article. There is no reason to pluck an imaginary date out of nowhere. Here there is a difference with the Imperial House of Japan - in Japan the mythological foundation date is a legal public holiday - National Foundation Day (Japan). There's no equivalent in Ethiopia.

Although your edit is mistaken, I'm happy for you to pursue any of the dispute resolution processes. However, it is normally expected to see if it can be resolved on the talk page first. DeCausa (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove it then, if you remove it Wikipedia would be a much better source, all standards must apply to all articles, so if you removed it in the Japan page successfully with being reverted then i will be in peace CtasACT (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

without* CtasACT (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

So does the Public Holiday make the claim legitimate in Japan, the Imperial House Founding date according to your viewpoint should only have the confirmed date and should have nothing to do with public legal celebration, since that doesn't warp reality of the confirmed fact. So edit it out! Then this conflict would be resolved, that is if you are successful in doing so what being reverted back. CtasACT (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn't make the slightest difference. You're not listening. Have you read WP:OTHERCONTENT yet? Yes or no? DeCausa (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I am making this clear, apply the Wiki rule to all articles including Japan's Imperial House hold, if you do not, i will bring admins to stop you hypocrisy. CtasACT (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I have read the WP:OTHERCONTENT, although the Japanese Imperial Household article is not featured, i can see it as a high-quality article which does not necessarily need to be directly copied, but has some fundamental aspects which certainly have a value to them and putting such good value variables which ADD historical context to the article is better. CtasACT (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It's best to forget other articles. That's generally a dead end. We go by WP:CONSENSUS article-by-article. Now turning to this article, the first question I have is that the Infobox should be a summary of key points from the article. Nowhere in the article does it say that legend has it the dynasty was founded in 980bc. Even before discussing whether it should go in the Infobox that is a basic problem. DeCausa (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the Imperial House of Japan article is "start-class". You can see the rating on the talk page. That's the lowest grade. (This one is C-class which is higher - although that's probably generous). The sourcing in Japan article is poor in several respects - for example, it uses the International Business Times which is unreliable and not allowed - see WP:IBTIMES. It's not a very good article. But neither is this one. There are a lot of garbage articles in Wikipedia and both this and the one you want to emulate are in that category. What's disappointing is that you have fixated on this rather meaningless minor issue and are ignoring the truly massive gaps in the article itself. Have you not noticed that the "Later Years" section is horrendously written, with virtually no sourcing and very little valid information. Put your efforts into that instead of this absurd side issue. But that requires some hard work and research. Whereas it's easy just to zoom in on the Infobox and add a spurious date that you care about. Never mind that 80% of the rest of the article is garbage. DeCausa (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay if that's the case, thank you for being patient with my ignorance: I am really sorry! And will due to try to improve other articles with high rated sources! CtasACT (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)