Talk:Cleopatra

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2023
Fix a typo: Change “Assassinations of Caesar” to “Assassination of Caesar” Elbuod (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 07:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * enjoy guys... 110.37.39.207 (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's all junked up somebody please fix Platinum6363 (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Only One Sentence Available?
The page has been edited today to only state one sentence: "cleopatra was a girlboss and pretty slay (sic)" I'm unable to re-edit the article back to what it was. Can someone else resolve this? 76.179.12.16 (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @76.179.12.16 needs updating, apparently it's been like this for almost a full day 136.55.53.153 (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it was like this for less than a minute. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's fixed when I go on the website but it still shows that sentence on the app. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Tap icon sed 76.77.161.145 (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

clarifying "he" in the third paragraph
> He carried out the execution of Arsinoe at her request

In the third paragraph there is a lot of Cleopatra and Antony except this sentence. Something about how it follows the previous one makes it a bit confusing in the flow, perhaps because there are 3 he's in the previous sentence, although on re-reading (and confirming at the Arsinoe article) Antony is the correct he here. Improving it might involve editing the surrounding sentences too. JustGaro (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is poorly written, and poorly researched
Articles on Wikipedia or in any encyclopedia should not deliver an overindulgence of references, notes, and have a clear undertone of bias. Whoever wrote this article is trying to make Cleopatra fit their image of a 'Ptolemaic Greek' that lives in 'Greek Alexandria' and is 'unabashedly not Egyptian'. They support this by cherry picking sources, usually from the first 10 pages of a book (literally check almost any reference) and then supplementing these with notes to pile in more bias and references that are cherry picking again. It is not a matter of debate on whether the bias is true. It shouldn't be there to begin with.

In an article, a factual encyclopedic statement should have one or two references. Not three or four, and a note with even more in included, that reference the first 10 pages of each book. This makes someone curious about Cleopatra lost in your need to cherry-pick through literature to fit your spin. It's worthless references, plain and simple. This article is encumbered with someone's passion project to turn Cleopatra into their image.

I'm sorry that I don't ever comment on here. But this has to be said. This article is uniquely horrible. Please fix it. 98.109.137.129 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Have you considered helping those of us who have done Cleopatra research and been trying to improve this article, or just complaining? Part of the issue is almost all scholarly sources discuss Cleopatra in a Greek context. I have tried to counterbalance this with Shelley Haley and Joyce Tyldesley, but sometimes it is what it is in regards to ancient data and the availability and nature of scholarship. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Firstly, this is a Featured article vetted by the Wikipedia community of editors, and that includes its referencing; radical changes to the article should be avoided or discussed among the community of editors here, not just executed at the impulsive whim of an anonymous commenter.
 * Secondly, there's not a single place in the article that says explicitly that Cleopatra was, quote, "unabashedly not Egyptian." That's just a false statement, as is this claim that only the first ten pages of any cited book were consulted, when the article is littered with references from the entire length of Roller's biography, for instance. If anything the article, in the very first paragraph of the lead and later in the prose body, immediately distinguishes Cleopatra from all other Ptolemies, noting how she was the only one who cared about Egyptian culture enough to learn the native Egyptian language. The ancestry section includes a lengthy discussion about the modern hypothesis regarding her possible (yet unproven) partial Egyptian ancestry via her uncertain mother.
 * Thirdly, the only section of the article that speaks at length about her ethnicity or Greekness is the 'Ancestry' section at the very tail end of the article. Before that, the only parts that even mention or lightly explore this topic are the first paragraph of the lead section providing the most basic biographical details and definition of the topic, the etymology section that naturally should talk about the Greek origins of her name itself (duh), the first paragraph of the background section talking about her upbringing and spoken languages (naturally), the section "Cleopatra's kingdom and role as a monarch" which rightfully has to explain her patronage of Egyptian and Greek temples (again, making it clear she was a supporter of both Greek and Egyptian cultures), and some parts of the "Cultural depictions" subsection under "Legacy" that, surprise, naturally has to mention the Hellenistic Greek character of certain artworks depicting her versus Egyptian style ones, or the alleged literature she penned in Greek. This supposed bias that permeates the entire article is thus found in a handful of spots before it's given any kind of serious treatment in the ancestry section.
 * Fourthly: seriously now, just investigate this for yourself by searching all the places in the prose body of the article that the word "Greek" is even used. It's barely noticeable in the entire "Biography" section that forms roughly half the article, and really only included when it is utterly necessary (for instance, noting the only known possible writing of hers to survive in Koine Greek: γινέσθωι, ginésthōi, "make it so"). This complaint doesn't strike me as being very serious or genuinely concerned with the composition of the article, but by an anonymous editor who is primarily focused on the wording of the first paragraph of the lead section, which seems fine to me in pointing out that she was a Ptolemy (a fairly basic if not fundamental biographical detail, and removing it would be like removing the fact that the water cycle is a biogeochemical process, because...reasons! That's why!). Pericles of Athens  Talk 05:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to echo what Pericles said above, this is a featured article, which means that in order to reach this status it had to be carefully examined and approved by top wikipedia editors, so it can't be poorly written. Besides, that there is a note with 5 sources and a comment every few sentences, if anything, shows that it is not, in fact, poorly researched. Piccco (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, a logical fallacy there indeed. ;) That about sums up this conversation. Pericles of Athens  Talk 15:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For some reason I thought this was the Cleopatra race talk page lol Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * LOL. No worries! I was slightly confused by you bringing up Haley and Tyldesley, but then I just figured you were talking about the Cleopatra ethnicity sub-article in relation to this one. I think it's safe to say this article does a decent job balancing talk about Cleopatra's ethnic origins as a Macedonian Greek with her being a ruler of Egypt who embraced Egyptian culture more than the average Ptolemy. I'll leave it there and consider this conversation to be over, since our anonymous commenter seemingly has no desire to return or respond in earnest. Pericles of Athens  Talk 07:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a wonderfully written and researched article, I don't know how you managed to make it, and I don't know how anybody could call it "poorly researched" or "poorly written". PericlesofAthens, the prose and the sourcing is honestly just out of the world, this is the perfect article. 750h+ 13:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @User:750h+, thanks for saying that! Much appreciated. I genuinely don't take offense, because the person above just came here to troll and leave without responding in earnest or making serious suggestions for improvement. Pericles of Athens  Talk 17:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Dude be mad all you want, but someone citing extra sources doesnt exactly prove them wrong. Anyway the information is true dispite you disliking it. You didnt even say what information you thought was true. Just an overall "NUH UHH" 204.116.232.223 (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Image description
In the section "Reign and exile of Ptolemy XII" the first image has the description: "Most likely a posthumously painted portrait of Cleopatra with red hair and her distinct facial features, wearing a royal diadem..."

What exactly is distinct about her facial features? - Rooiratel (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Rooiratel Hello. That's a judgment call made by the Egyptologist Joann Fletcher (2008) as well as Susan Walker and Peter Higgs (2001), two classicists who study this sort of thing for a living. It's a comparison made by examining her standard iconography issued on coins minted during her reign, as well as the surviving marble busts that have also been identified as her based on the same coinage. The use of a diadem crowning the head signifies royal status in classical antiquity, and was not depicted on any sort of random woman. The painted head at Herculaneum was even accompanied by motifs of Egyptian crocodiles, if the apparent link to the most notable Ptolemaic queen wasn't obvious enough to viewers without the anonymous artist scribbling her name underneath the head with big exclamation marks and arrows pointing at the head. Pericles of Athens  Talk 17:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So what are her distinct facial features? - Rooiratel (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)