Talk:Cleopatra/Archive 3

Clepatra's true race
According to the program Cleopatra the face of a killer (Discovery Channel), scientists found the bones of her sister and have determined that they were of a mixed race. Possibly ancient Egyptian/African not Greek as thought before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.14.194 (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see the section on the talk page above. This issue has been thrashed out before, so let's not reinvent the wheel. In short, skull shapes prove nothing, since the local people of that area (West Asia) and the Greeks themselves had similar skull and body characteristics to Egyptians and other North and East African populations. Secondly, Arsinoe was a half-sister of Cleopatra, and whatever race her mother may have been has no bearing on Cleopatra because the two maternal bloodlines were different. Thirdly, there is only vague speculation that the tomb was that of Arsinoe to begin with - it is much more likely that the remains are those of a local princess. Wdford (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cleopatra was not Greek? Are people crazy? That program being mentioned by by 67.182.14.194 is based upon nothing but fiction. No historical facts or scientifict evidence to back it up. There is no proof that either Cleopatra or her sister Arsinoe were of 'mixed African/Egytpian' origins except in the minds of some Afrocentrics and pseudo modern 'scholars' who'd say anything to get money that would keep their projects going. Nicely put, Wdford. (Angar432 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

A phenomenal queen and I am doing her for my project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.141.199 (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

She was part Egyptian if we are to believe that we have found the bones of her sister. Since the family tree is something of a mystery, anyone who states she was Greek and nothing but is guessing. Gingermint (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. There is no evidence that she was part Egyptian and the bones of her sister, IF that is her sister, do not show any evidence of racial make up. Even if those are the bones of her sister they do not prove that she had any Egyptian ancestry. Some based that dubious 'Egyptian' ancestry claim on nothing but the crania index alone. Any credible anthropologist will tell you that you can't tell a person's 'race' based upon nothing but the crania index alone. (Angar432 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC))


 * Judging by the bust and statue made of her, I don't think she was a great beauty. Not by today's standards anyway.71.238.14.254 (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if that is Arsinoe, Arisnoe was probably only a half Sister, Cleopatra VII was likely a daughter of Cleopatra V/VI, But Arisnoe and the rest where born after Cleopatra V/VI was removed as queen.


 * The Macedonian dynasty in Egypt kept itself "apart" from the native Egyptians and married and bore children within Macedonian or other Greek peoples and ruthlessly exploited the native Egyptians. Remember, the Successors totally rejected Alexander III's so-called belief in the equality of "barbarians" and Greeks, and almost to a man divorced their barbarian wives shortly after his death. They also, at least through Ptolemy III, kept a steady recruitment of Macedonians for the army to dominate Egypt, and also other Greek mercenaries.  With this tradition of national superiority, it is HIGHLY unlikely that they would have acknowledged any offspring as official unless they were of Greek parentage.  While Egyptian mistresses would undoubtably play a part in the sex lives of the Ptolemies, any children by them would never have been acknowledged as legitimate.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move no. 3

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Cleopatra VII → Cleopatra – I'm leaning more towards using common names, she is the clear primary meaning of "Cleopatra" which already redirects here, she is normally just known by this name and her regnal number is not often used. See e.g. our decision to strip all adornments and just go for "Napoleon". PatGallacher (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Sometimes we can justify using slightly less common names when consistency is deemed a virtue (as is the case with monarchs).  But Cleopatra is a bit of a special case, like Napoleon; the regnal number is so rarely used that it inhibits understanding to include it in the title.  Powers T 00:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. If I come here looking for Cleopatra and find this page with the reginal numbers, I'm gonna wonder if I've got the right one or a distant relative... Anyone actually looking for Cleopatras 1 through 6, indeed, anyone who even knew there were others, is not going to be confused by a "Cleopatra" page... -- Cooper 42 (Talk)(Contr) 02:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose She is not the primary use of the name. The list in Cleopatra (disambiguation) makes clear that the name is shared by several significant historical figures. Dimadick (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually she is the primary use, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, though that does not automatically clinch the argument in cases like this. PatGallacher (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Though there are other Cleopatras (duh - she is the 7th) I am comfortable with the idea that she is the "primary" one.  Go out and ask 100 people who Cleopatra was and I'm guessing 99 (or more) will pick this queen. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as she is overwhelmingly the best known bearer of the name. Most works on her or Caesar, Antony etc refer to her as "Cleopatra", and "Cleopatra"redirects here already. Any regnal naming & numbering can be dealt with in the article header. Constantine  ✍  20:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as pernom Tiggerjay (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Statement about parents wrong
Hi all, based on the genealogy given, her parents were not brother and sister (as the text reads right now) but they were first cousins.

The article only lists that as one of several possibilities. The bottom line is that Cleopatra's mother's identity is uncertain, and is likely to remain so. Tathunen (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect picture
Cleopatra was black. There is proof that she was black. Please stop posting pictures of a white lady thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.96.5 (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We cannot control how artists throughout history have depicted her, but we do have a responsibility to present their views. If there are any notable public-domain depictions of Cleoptatra as a black woman, please feel free to add them to the article.  Powers T 19:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I would love to see this proof.Tathunen (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As would I. Erobinson55 (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the Death Section of the Article
The last paragraph of the Death section of the article reads, of the death of Caesarion, that, "This ended not just the Hellenistic line of Egyptian pharaohs, but the line of all Egyptian pharaohs". This is inaccurate. The Egyptian throne, we must remember, passed through the female line and Cleopatra left at least one daughter, who married into another royal family. This daughter's husband would, by rights, be the next pharaoh of Egypt.

To conclude that the line of all pharaohs has ended is also dangerous for another reason. If the remains of Cleopatra can be found, then her mitochondrial DNA, which also passes only through the female line, could be compared with modern DNA databases for a possible match. The husband of such a female alive today, would be de facto pharaoh of Egypt.

216.232.108.144 (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

After Cleopatra's death Egypt became a Roman province, ruled by Roman rulers. The line of pharaohs was in fact ended completely in that pharaonic rule was effecively abolished by the Romans after Cleopatra. Even if there were living ancestors of the Ptolemaic dynasty their claim to the throne of Egypt would be invalid because the throne of Egypt no longer exists in any capacity.Tathunen (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Except, of course, that it could always be restored, particularly if it should come to be considered that a Constitutinal Monarchy might have a part to play in stabilising Egypt in the light of the many coups which it constantly suffers. 207.47.210.182 (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And if that highly unlikely event comes to pass this article will reflect the change. Tathunen (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Pregnancy c.44BCE?
I'm having trouble locating a reliable source but it seems Tullius Cicero wrote a later, dated May 44, remarking "I am grieved to hear of Tertia's loss of an expected child...(but) I should be glad of such a loss in the case of the queen (Cleopatra) and that [expected] scion of the breed of Caesar." There is also a coin of Cleopatra suckling a child, generally assumed to be Caesarion but not necessarily; there seems to be some dispute over when exactly Cleopatra acquired Cyprus, but if she only acquired it c.43BC this would rule out Caesarion and provide evidence for the pregnancy of 44BC coming to term. It seems hard to explain why such a child would have been ignored at the Donations of Alexandria, but it would perhaps explain the origin of dear Thermusa (in keeping with Augustus' known policy regarding Cleopatra's other confirmed daughter). Wonder if perhaps this should be mentioned in article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantini (talk • contribs) 00:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Cleopatra Queen?
was Cleopatra the only actual queen meaning like she atually was the only one ruling on the throne and not the co-ruler? I checked some other egyptian queens but not all of them but none of them I have seen so far has been the ruler as queen and not a co-ruler. Do you know any other egyptian queens who were the sole ruler of egypt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.11.217 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hatshepsut. Tathunen (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Cleopatra was never sole queen: she shared the throne successively with her brothers and then her son. She was, however, the senior partner in these co-regencies. Some of Cleopatra's own ancestors likewise exercised the senior role in co-regencies: Cleopatra I, Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III. Another ancestress, Arsinoe II, seems to have co-ruled Egypt on equal terms with Ptolemy II and been one of few women to have been recognized as pharaoh with full titular in her own right (as Cleopatra was).(Fantini (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC))

Proper title: Regina regum, et filiorum regum
"Regina regum, et filiorum regum" means not just "Queen of Kings" but also "and of Sons of Kings" 76.126.232.191 (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"Roman Province of Aegyptus" in Introduction and elsewhere.
Strictly speaking Aegyptus was a Roman prefecture, outside of provincial system and personal property of Augustus (and successive emperors) and not in fact a province per se. You might say this is a purely semantic gripe, but after skimming through this talk page I can see that that is no obstacle to complaint :P

Seriously though, it's incorrect (or at least misleadingly over-simplistic). 124.149.106.44 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if this is a problem, it's one shared with Egypt (Roman province). A bit of wiki archeology shows that this was originally covered alongside Greek rule in Egypt under History of Greek and Roman Egypt, which had the Roman period split off, then went through a litany of moves Aegyptus Province -> Aegyptus (Roman province) -> Ægyptus -> History of Roman Egypt -> Egypt (Roman province).  Laura Scudder &#124; talk 22:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Unpublished Original Research
Hi editors, this looks like a bit of OR to me:

Under Death, text starting with "In 2010, the German historian Christoph Schaefer..." to the end of paragraph references only a CNN story on a unpublished theory. I checked over the university and personal pages of Schaefer (Prof. Dr. Christoph Schäfer) and couldn't see any revelent works other than the noted video (on Youtube, in german, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGf5hKb4kSE).

Regards, Bennobaggle (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Female suicides
Can someone add her to the category? There is probably no more famous female suicide than hers, so it's kind of ridiculous she's not in it. Thanks in advance! 71.191.95.5 (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Image of Cleopatra VII - see link
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1095043/Sorry-Liz-THIS-real-face-Cleopatra.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.17.100 (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Sally Ann beliefs about Cleopatra's race are not supported by the available evidence about Cleopatra and her family, as was amply pointed out by one of her former classmates and fellow archaeologist Dr. Dorothy King. http://phdiva.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-did-cleopatra-look-like.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.63.36 (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, both the arguments are somewhat weak. The "mixed race" argument is based on the 300-years stay of the Ptolemaic dynasty in Africa, the "caucasian" argument is based on the typical endogamy of the Ptolemaic rulers. Neither discusses the surviving images of Cleopatra's ancestors, nor the possible hereditary traits of the dynasty.

And there are two main uncertainties on the genealogy of Cleopatra, which leave room for speculation. Her father Ptolemy XII Auletes is thought to be an illegitimate son of his father, so the identity of Cleopatra's paternal grandmother is uncertain. Second, his own wife Cleopatra V of Egypt is a rather shadowy figure and much of what is "known" about her is conjecture. For example, she is generally believed to be a kinswoman of her husband. But whether she was a sister, half-sister, cousin, or even niece is uncertain. All these theories have been proposed. Dimadick (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Dates of Importance
There is a very very bad error in the first sentence of this wiki. She was not born in January! There is no evidence supporting that, in fact many researchers believe she was a Libra, and therefore probably born in early October. There is no possible way she could have been born in January, this is awful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercubz (talk • contribs) 18:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

referring to starsigns does not add authority to your comment 202.36.179.81 (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that the original poster here was coincidentally also born in early October. Tathunen (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
" In 2010, the German historian Christoph Schaefer challenged all other theories, declaring that the queen had actually been poisoned and died from drinking a mixture of poisons. " could you change that to " In 2010, the German historian Christoph Schaefer challenged all other theories, with the theory that the queen had actually been poisoned and died from drinking a mixture of poisons. " It took me a while to figure out that it was a theory. 117.216.24.119 (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)scrutiny

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2014
Caesarion, Ptolemy XV Philopater Philometor Caesar (illegitimate)

122.150.217.1 (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 16:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Death of Cleopatra
Although Plutarch is writing some time after the events, he quotes the story of the death of Clepoatra by snake bite. A little further on in his works he seems to be emphatic that the snake bite story was only the common gossip in Rome at the time and that he personally didn't believe it.

Was the story of the almost painless and rapid death by snake bite a propaganda story put out by the Octavian party? An honest,if duped Roman, like Anthony did the honourable thing and fell on his own sword. This was a painful death but the "exotic" Egyptian queen took the easy way out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

According to a Science channel program, it seems very unlikely that she committed suicide and it was much more likely that Octavius had her killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.23.112 (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it very unlikely that Octavius had her killed. In doing so he would deprive himself of the glory of walking her behind his chariot in his Triumph in Rome, at the end of which she would, by tradition, be publically strangled anyway. (204.112.61.78 (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC))
 * No. J. Caesar had Vercingetorix strangled after his triumph, but he was a barbarian chieftain and had also caused much trouble for the Romans in pacifying Gaul, especially after breaking what they considered binding treaties.  The King, Perseus of Macedon, although treated with ignominy in Rome after being brought there, was not put to death.  It is highly unlikely that a queen of Cleopatra's stature would have been executed, either - instead, she would have been given a very modest pension and put away someplace to be very carefully watched until her death.  Octavian was trying to put together a broken world, and killing her would have just stirred up bad feeling in some quarters of Egypt, which is not something he desired, as Egyptian grain was vital to the Roman Empire.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Plutarch is the sole reliable and credible account of the actual person, Cleopatra. Plutarch uses literary devices peculiar to describing lives of ancient Greek and Roman Noblemen. The embellishment employed can be quickly deciphered, and the literal history can be derived. There exists no accurate online information regarding the article. More current accounts are tainted by sensationalism, revisionism, feminist bias, fictional elements, nonsensical interpretation of historical literature, absence of common sense, agenda-driven motivations, theoretical archaeology, online researching, cultural-driven motivation, knee-jerk emotionalism, arrogance, nothing-to-lose mentality, and ignorance. I no longer contend against the juvenile insolence wikipedia is so famous for kindling in its writers. But so at least Truth be found somewhere, I'll put it here: Cleopatra was a skilled witch, so skilled that Antony feared to dine with her, without first having his food tested by a taster. She was perfectly capable of killing herself with toxins much more pleasant, effective and reliable than snake venom. It is unlikely she planned to kill herself, and was then coincidentally bitten by poisonous snake. The whole article looks like it was written by Homer Simpson. AwesomeMachine (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While accurate in parts, modern scholarship has shown neither Plutarch, nor Tacitus, nor Polybius, nor any other ancient historian is completely reliable. Historians have to balance all these ancient writers' works with each other, ancient inscriptions, Egyptian papyri (that recorded much mundane day-to-day affairs and are invaluable in spot-checking some apochryphal stories with what they recorded), and archaeology to render a general consensus in scholarship.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

HERE. http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/30/cleopatra.suicide/index.html?_s=PM:WORLD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.162.65 (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The Many Names of Cleopatra
Cleopatra went by many names during her time in power. She was known as the Queen of Egypt while serving as pharaoh. Her seductions of famous Roman leaders such as Julius Caesar and Marc Antony awarded her with surnames such as the mistress of Julius Caesar and both Empress and Queen of Marc Antony. Cleopatra’s character awarded her such names as the Serpent of the Nile, the Royal Wench, the Great Fairy, and the Wrangling Queen.

King, Starr. “Cleopatra.” Cosmopolitan Art Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Dec., 1858), pp. 42-43. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culbejess1023 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The Many Names of Cleopatra
Cleopatra went by many names during her time in power. She was known as the Queen of Egypt while serving as pharaoh. Her seductions of famous Roman leaders such as Julius Caesar and Marc Antony awarded her with surnames such as the mistress of Julius Caesar and both Empress and Queen of Marc Antony. Cleopatra’s character awarded her such names as the Serpent of the Nile, the Royal Wench, the Great Fairy, and the Wrangling Queen.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Culbejess1023 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackmcbarn (talk • contribs) 20:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Cleopatras death
In another book, it says Cleopatra died from drinking a combination of hemlock and opium. Can someone verify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missyjmcbee (talk • contribs) 03:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2014
Regarding Cleopatra being smuggled to meet Julius Caesar, the wiki page states that she was hidden in a carpet. This is incorrect and should state that she was hidden in a bed sack: "[...]took the queen in a small skiff, landing at the palace and hid her in a bed-sack, not a carpet as later became the tradition." from Cleopatra and Egypt by Ashton, Sally-Ann, Blackwell Publishing 2008

(signature lost due to messed up ref template)

(signature lost due to messed up ref template)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You gave me a book, which I can't access since there is no link. — cyberpower Chat Online 14:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Macedonian, not Greek?
Cleopatra was Macedonian and not Greek, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.63.222 (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

SHE WAS FUCKING BLACK! –


 * You're fucking probably thinking of Nefertiti. —Tamfang (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead What is this about
What is this about? who, being far better known than all others of that name, is known to history as Cleopatra without qualifications Of all grand opening statements regarding Cleopatra. The more I read the more I realize it needs a serious re-write, bad prose, and bad priority of info. Per WP:LEAD --Inayity (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Distorted Eurocentric Domination over images
I will not get into race, but these images are out dated representations of Cleopatra Sorry Liz. And we need some more accurate balanced representations of Cleo. All these Europeanized renders are totally inaccurate. I do not think it hurts to a. Discuss this issue, B. have some balance. If we can source a free image as shown in a more accurate rendering.--Inayity (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, it was not based on any evidence, but it was just the speculation about her mother and/or grandmother race. There are already some discussions in the archive about her skin color and race. For example this one Talk:Cleopatra/Archive_11 Kvantikos afros (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not surprised it was discussed so much. But this is the issue with archives, very hard to access. Anyway, I am only talking about images, like the one here Sorry Liz, I do not mind the Eurocentric renders as it is a rendering of her (albeit distorted) but we should include the more accurate one and maybe discuss the race issue in modern society. --Inayity (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Do not know how to add children to Info Box
Having issues adding children to info box. --Inayity (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Cleopatra's ancestry
In this article it states that she was Greek. This of course is wrong she was of Macedonian ancestry because Alexander the Great was Macedonian as was his general Ptolemy who was the ancestor of Cleopatra and who started that dynasty. The Greeks considered the Macedonians to be barbarians but only later after the rise of Macedon they wanted to share in the glow. She was also 1/8 Persian, I would have to dig up the reference (read it in the 1990s) but before they started marrying brother to sister in the Egyptian tradition, at one point a girl from Persia was married into the line. SO she was 87.5% Macedonian and 12.5% Persian.

To say she was Greek is not accurate, because the Greeks didn't consider the Macedonians to be their equals. In any case Macedonian is more specific than Greek and she in fact was 87.5% Macedonian.Chandraputra (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few references regarding the difference between Macedonians and Greeks:

" Ancient Quotes on the Macedonians as Distinct Nation

Macedonian or Greek?
The ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish historians, geographers, and orators, speak of the Macedonians as distinct nation, separate from their Greek, Thracian, and Illyrian neighbors. They are clear that Macedonia was never part of Greece and that the Macedonians conquered Greece, Thrace, and Illyria, and kept the Greeks, Thracians, and Illyrians enslaved, until Rome defeated the Macedonian armies and turned the country into its first province in 168 BC. The assertion of those modern historians that propagate that the Macedonians "were Greeks" which have "united" Greece, is absurd and is completely unsupported by the words of the ancients who clearly considered Greece subjected by the Macedonian foreigners. The Macedonians garrisoned the Greek cities (like the Thracian and Illyrian cities) to enforce their occupation, and later used the Greeks (along with equal numbers of the Thracians and Illyrians) for their conquest of Persia." http://www.ancientmacedonia.com/ancientevidence.html

If you go to this website http://www.ancientmacedonia.com/ there 16 links on the right side of the page dedicated to proving: "The Distinctive Ethnicity of the Macedonians" Chandraputra (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The Macedonians in the Hellenistic and Roman period were linguistically and culturally Greek. That's what we have to go on. If you want to make "racial" distinctions between different groups of Europeans, please be aware you are following a tradition that has been discredited for half a century. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm did you bother to visit the link I posted with information which is a lot more recent than 50 years ago? For example this article http://www.ancientmacedonia.com/badian.html "Greeks and Macedonians" by E. Badian, Department of History, Harvard University

"Studies In The History Of Art Vol 10: Macedonia And Greece In Late Classical And Early Hellenistic Times" By The National Gallery Of Art, Washington, 1980.

So I stand my ground.Chandraputra (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes I did. It is concerned with the Macedonians well before the Hellenistic/Roman period, when Cleopatra lived, and when they were linguistically and culturally Greek. Please note that one website of uncertain provenance does not trump all the cites already provided, and that you are edit warring against consensus, and you might want to calm down before you get blocked. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The article says "a family of Macedonian Greek origin" what does "origin" mean? It refers to what it was at the beginning not some later time period. Just like in various biographies of people on this website it will say that so and so was of Italian "origin." Even though they don't speak Italian. For example for Madonna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_%28entertainer%29#Life_and_career it say she is of Italian and French Canadian ancestry but she doesn't speak Italian or French. So what is the point of speaking of her origins if she only speaks English?

And that website had links to a host of citations from ancient sources including quotations from 22 ancient Greek and Roman historians http://www.ancientmacedonia.com/ancientevidence.html. So if it had been on 22 different websites it would have been more credible, but because they saved us a lot of work and put them together on one website they then lose credibility! Uncertain provenance! They at least used more than one citation and they went to original sources not writers separated by more than 2000 years from the facts.

Britannica says that this is not a dead issue as you claim but an ongoing debate http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/354266/Macedonia

And here as well http://www.livius.org/maa-mam/macedonia/macedonia.html

And another http://historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia.html Chandraputra (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Nick has a point, I think Wikipedia is big enough to often accommodate multi-positions. IF those positions are notable. I have always been a advocate of broad representation of topics, over narrow ones. But when you edit war, you lose all credibility resolve at TK page first, there is no deadline as Cleo is long dead.. --Inayity (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding edit war, I didn't start it. I made one change and explained why. And I have since provided evidence as to why. If there was a disagreement then instead of just undoing my edits over and over again why not talk. In fact I was the first one to talk about it not anyone one else.

I am not going to do any more on this you decide what to do. This is why I don't have much trust in what I find on WP.

As for credibility I spent the last 25 years studying ancient history especially connections between India and the West. I went through all first hand sources not 2nd and 3rd hand sources (I was working in a research institute and was recruited to work there for my extensive knowledge of ancient history). It is obvious that who ever put this article together has done no extensive reading of 1st hand sources to be able to discern which references should be cited. I should have known better than try and help correct an error made by non-experts (murkha-upadesha). I just deleted my log-in credentials so that I will no longer feel tempted to help out where it is not wanted.

Chandraputra (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While I am sure you have a nice background please note that on Wikipedia the talk page is WP:TALK for discussing the article and the specifics of the dispute only. Nick has said this POV is not represented so you cannot go against so much evidence and alter reality. Little hard to believe all those ref to her being Greek are by non-experts. I would suggest (and I am just throwing this out). Using the TK page to establish that this Macedonian claim is notable and accepted by multi-scholars, and that the work is peer reviewed. Then I am sure a footnote could be added to accommodate this new POV. --Inayity (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Chandraputra, too bad has he has left. But his experience is not new, this article written 10 years ago about wikipedia is as true today as it was then. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/24/wikipedia_letters/ people with expertise in a subject are actually driven away from wikipedia by those without any. I have had the same experience and stopped wasting my time. van Lustig (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He was driven away by WP:EDITWARRING--Inayity (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, an edit war between someone who knows the subject (Chandraputra) and someone who doesn't. But since the non-experts heavily outnumber the experts then guess whose opinion becomes the consensus viewpoint? And guess why experts don't want to waste time when someone who with no real knowledge in the subject can wipe out all his work with a click. I recently was reading that because of growing demand search engines are now planning to make it easy to filter out wikipedia results from the SERPs.van Lustig (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I rather we discuss improvements to the article. If someone is an expert they should be familiar with the editing process at Wikipedia. B/c expert or not, we work by rules in the interest of articles. There is no rule where an expert is allowed to edit war without building agreement for major changes.--Inayity (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Cleopatra's nose
No mention of her famous nose at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.177.76 (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2015
Please remove the large space in the 'Etymology of the name' section.

86.14.120.33 (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  12:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Language of Ptolemies in Lead is a
To have this in the lead, and so high up in the lead is a problem. i think it belongs in the body, input appreciated. The Ptolemies, throughout their dynasty, spoke Greek[3] and refused to speak Egyptian, which is the reason that Greek as well as Egyptian languages were used on official court documents such as the Rosetta Stone.[4] By contrast, Cleopatra did learn to speak Egyptian[5] and represented herself as the reincarnation of an Egyptian goddess, Isis.--Inayity (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2015
The sentence
 * Nevertheless, Cleopatra sailed with her fleet from Alexandria to the west along the Libyan coast to join the Caesarian leaders, but she was forced to return to Egypt because her ships were damaged by a violent storm and she became ill.

has no comma separating its last independent clause; could it please be changed to
 * Nevertheless, Cleopatra sailed with her fleet from Alexandria to the west along the Libyan coast to join the Caesarian leaders, but she was forced to return to Egypt because her ships were damaged by a violent storm, and she became ill.
 * Yes check.svg Done Altamel (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

98.19.57.54 (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2015
The sentence
 * But he could not execute an invasion of Egypt because at the end of 43 BC, Brutus summoned him back to Smyrna.

seems to want to set off its prepositional phrase, but it's missing one of the necessary commas; could it please be changed to
 * But he could not execute an invasion of Egypt because, at the end of 43 BC, Brutus summoned him back to Smyrna.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Short prepositional phrases do not need to be set off by commas . In my opinion, "at the end of 43 BC" is a pretty short phrase, and adding a comma would disrupt the flow of the sentence. Altamel (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, and without commas is how I would have written the sentence, but then the comma after "43 BC" is spurious and should be removed. 50.96.11.173 (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (I have now separated the request below from this one since Orduin set the answered parameter here to yes with the edit summary "already done" despite there still being one comma where there should either be zero or two; I assume their comment was in reference to the request below, which has been completed thanks to Altamel. Sorry for the double reactivation; I'm not trying to be disruptive.) 50.96.11.173 (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

98.19.57.54 (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I have restructured the sentence so there should be no more grammatical ambiguities about comma placement, prepositional phrases, or (in)dependent clauses. Altamel (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

10 August or 12 August?
The article has 12 August 30 BC for the date of Cleopatra's death but no sourcing until yesterday. A source has been added from 1953 but Cleopatra: A Biography by Duane W Roller published in 2010 has 10 August on page 148 and Cleopatra:  A Life by Stacy Schiff published in 2011 has the same date on page 287. What evidence does the 1953 source provide for the 12 August date? 5.150.92.20 (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * According to Skeat's reconstruction of the events Cleopatra died on 17 Mesore in the Egyptian reckoning – 10 August in the Roman calendar as it was then applied (with an intercalary day inserted every three years ) or 12 August in the proleptic Julian calendar (i.e. if the calendar had been regulated by an intercalary day in every four years as Julius Caesar had originally decreed). AstroLynx (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Appearance
This section should be corrected to show that Cleopatra was NOT regarded as a great beauty by ancient authors; quite the opposite. She was later depicted as a voracious sexpot because she was a danger to Rome -- and female.

Only Augustus Caesar gave this impression and they were at war... I believe most historians agree this was a propaganda requisite. 90.220.157.192 (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to add cleopatra's estimated birthdate....
The following link showed the best summary and would be used;

http://www.tyndalehouse.com/egypt/ptolemies/cleopatra_vii.htm#Cleopatra.04

Next to the link I'd add the section; (hit control F and enter the text below to find it)

Month: Plutarch, Antony 73.3 describes the contrasting feasts that Cleopatra held for her final birthday, followed by that of Antony. H. Heinen, Röm und Ägypten von 51 bis 47 v. Chr. 190 reasonably argues that this contrast only makes sense if hers was held a few weeks before his. Antony's birthday is given as a.d. XIX Kal. Feb. (14 January) in the Fasti Verulani (C. Scaccia-Scaforini, Notizie d. Scavi 20 (1923) 194ff & G. Mancini idem 203f, J. Carpocino, CRAIBL 1923 67ff). Therefore her birthday was in early January or December, or at worst between September and early January. Ý

With the birthday added as;

"Est. Between September - 13th January."

The estimate makes full sense; Reading the sources... Cleopatra was looking for different poisons and snakes (spring/summer time is when snakes are most active)... between then and Marc Antony's birthday (14 of january) was Cleopatra's birthday.

I hope this was of valid help :)


 * The link can't be used because it's self-published bybthe author. See WP:RS. Best to use Google Books for something like this. DeCausa (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

hmm, I would have used those german articles but can't access them after searching but I'll try to find something on this. Would be approvable here?

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Antony*.html#73.3 shows the actual accounts but I know this is OR and didn't cite... you can check 71.4 for the collection of poisons/snakes and can see 73.3 for the birthday relation to mark antony's. As historians write, each new paragraph purports further in time unless stated otherwise. I'm suprised there isn't already a source pointing to this.
 * Per WP:NPOV and specifically WP:UNDUE we should not cherry pick something from the sources that we think is right. "Wikipedia is behind the ball" - we follow we don't lead. A look at the published sources, the consensus is vagueness and ambiguity . That's what we should reflect. DeCausa (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me, but with due respect, it's unfair to affirm that I was intending to cherry-pick against NPOV since had the cite been valid, I picked the widest range of dates presented and was only asking if cn is approvable. - We're allowed in some circumstances when writing an article to form simple examples of something we expect readers to understand (ie; let's say a wikipedia contributer uses this within a context "2+2=4"... would they need a source for this?) Had Cleopatra's birthday been before Antony's... there would be a natural inference just as simple to say that cleopatra's birthday ranges any from the day before Antony's birthday to six months before as it is since the alternative would stand contrary to "before" and her birthday would instead be coming "after".

The first reference you've sourced hasn't specified a relationship with the "month but the year"... The second reference also does not mention anything to do with the "month"... Cleopatra's birthday year is worked out from her claimed age when she died... the conclusion to be drawn here is that the month and year are worked out on seperate sources with regards to Plutarch. (on the proposition that the month can be worked out.)

I guess I made the inference myself that september is a more than reasonable date due to the "poison collection which the link I addressed mentions nothing about"... so it was an easy mistake for me to assume here that it was fine to cut off those other couple of months, but in my defence, when I can reach the same conclusion as the author of that link it does seem too confirmable to question whether if it's okay to add for a citation being there based on those dates.

I mean let's give me the benefit of the doubt for 1 second... the only people who couldn't estimate this date are the people who don't know that cleopatra's birthday is before antony's... So I saw more harming in leaving there being "no estimate" than adding that estimate personally and leaving a citation needed since I was looking for a source didn't seem like something on "non-consenting grounds"... it's not that I'm looking on why I think is right personally but on absolute deductions was the objective here. (without mentioning that mistake though.)

However I always believed NPOV applied only to situations whereby someone has made a dissagreement or counter-claim... I've seen thousands of articles; religious and political where they're structured towards a doctrine/agenda. As a result however... a 6 month estimate doesn't seem worth noting... despite it is half it's still a little too bulky especially within context to the Plutarch's sources anyway it would do too much harm to state. If you find however, disagreement with the rational I was using then I can understand... but as far as I was aware, there are some instances where bandwagon doesn't come to Tedious editing. Based on the 2 month inference though I'm standing down on that as OR. My advise would be careful with accusing people though please. *assume good faith* :) After-all to accuse partisan is partisan in itself. :S That rules a little too dud to relate to NPOV.
 * I'm not acusing you of anything. NPOV isn't just about controversial issues. It's about reflecting proportionately what sources say about any topic. The correct approach on this one is to work out what most reliable sources say about it, not work out what is actually "right". That's all. DeCausa (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we remove the lock? I'm not sure how long it's been but I'm fairly sure the bots will take care of most situations.
There are still some errors on this page... atleast, some sources are direct links to historical authors for example...

here's another error;

Cleopatra also had executed her strategos of Cyprus, Serapion, who had supported Cassius against her wishes.

No account specifies this at all... this is dubious, Marc Antony ordered that he be brought to her. That's all that is said here. This is OR.

See for contrary perspective on the matter; (Last 2 lines of the page.)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XIFUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA325&lpg=PA326&dq=Serapion+helped+brutus+and+cassius&source=bl&ots=ERQf8-1zNT&sig=yeqFGjTSlPdf0Wnwz2vI0H5bpqM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjB9JXt-MzJAhUGox4KHQ9dA0wQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q&f=false

This page isn't perfect and I'd like to add "dubious" at different sections of the article to sources aswell as other stuff please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.157.192 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You can submit edit request. You are welcome to create an account.
 * After four days + 10 edits, you will become autoconfirmed user. The   Aven gers  16:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia won't email me when I request for a new password on a new account and I'm 90% sure the one I try to do is it. Apart from this... could the request be forfilled atleast temperarily. I know this page has been locked for atleast 2 weeks. It's surely fair to presume the people vandelising the page won't be returning till much later.

Also, you can't ask for a new password again for atleast 24 hours and have tried this atleast 3 times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.157.192 (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The article was protected for five years, unprotected in August to test the waters, and re-protected by me in November because of the constant vandalism. It won't be unprotected any time soon. --Neil N  talk to me 20:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Cleopatra also had executed her strategos of Cyprus, Serapion, who had supported Cassius against her wishes. -> Cleopatra also had executed her strategos of Cyprus, Serapion, who had supported Cassius against her wishes.
 * Please bring WP:RELIABLE sources for edit requests. The   Aven gers  01:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Appian/Civil_Wars/5*.html

9 1 Straightway Antony's former interest in public affairs began to dwindle. Whatever Cleopatra ordered was done, regardless of laws, human or divine. While her sister Arsinoe was a suppliant in the temple of Artemis Leucophryne at Miletus, Antony sent assassins thither and put her to death; and Serapion, Cleopatra's perfect in Cyprus, who had assisted Cassius and was now a suppliant at Tyre, Antony ordered the Tyrians to deliver to her. He commanded the Aradians to deliver up another suppliant, who when Ptolemy, the brother of Cleopatra, disappeared at the battle with Caesar on the Nile, said that he was Ptolemy, and whom the Arcadians now held. He ordered the priest of Artemis at Ephesus, whom they called the Megabyzus, Anonymous 573462i (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Actium
Battle of Actium was year 31BC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picador75 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Customs
I had no idea that it was Greek custom to marry your brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julex1524 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"Only"
Can anyone explain why removing the word "only" before "thirteen years old" is an improvement? I suspect it's because GeoSwan is doing this just to yank my chain.That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with that either. Emphasizing on Ptolemy's age at the time is basically WP:EDITORIALIZING as it tends to express a subjective viewpoint.
 * Apparently, you reverted 's reversion of another user that was recently blocked for socking; I assume GeoSwan's intention was just to revert contributions by the aforementioned user considering they could be disruptive. --  ChamithN   (talk)  19:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * GeoSwan is well aware that I lost my password for that account and basically went through my edit history, for reasons I stated above. I've no problem with removing something if it is editorializing, however I do have a problem with someone reverting for spite.That man from Nantucket (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you got what I was trying to say. What I actually meant was that I don't see a problem with the removal of "only", because, to me, it is an unnecessary assertion. I got confused by your phrasing as you initially asked why removing the word "only" before "thirteen years old" is an improvement? instead of asking why it isn't. I figured that it must have been a typo; otherwise, it sounds like you're questioning your own motive. On a different note, if the blocked account is indeed yours, then your current account will most likely be blocked as well per Sock puppetry. You should have just reset your password instead of creating a new account. -- ChamithN   (talk)  21:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The "only" part is fair, reverting to get a rise isn't. As for the accounts, the admins noted I wasn't using both of them at the same time, nor could I reset it do to not having an email on the account.That man from Nantucket (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I find that the sentence reads better without the "only." Carptrash (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Geo Swan here.
 * asserted that retaining "only" was WP:EDITORIALIZING. What?  I don't think that even makes sense.
 * 's original edit summary for justifying the excision was "thirteen was an adult at the time". However, the article on Ptolemy explicitly says: "Ptolemy XIII was promoted to senior ruler along with her, although the eunuch Pothinus acted as regent for him."  If Ptolemy's powers are carried out by a regent, then the entire justification for the edit was mistaken.
 * Yes, I was aware that Which Hazel and That man from Nantucket were practitioners of sockpuppetry. I did decide to spend some time looking at Which Hazel's contribution history, to see if they showed any higher quality than those made by their alter ego.  During that review I did revert some edits I thought were problematic.
 * I reverted 's excision of the word "only" because I think it serves a useful purpose. The inheritance habits, and marraige habits, of Egyptian pharoahs were notably different, not only different from our own, but different from that of almost every time and place in human history.  The children of pharoahs both married their own siblings, multiple siblings, they did so when they were very young. , I suggest the question we should consider should not be which version "reads better", but which version is more informative.  Couldn't it be argued that the reader who is paying close attention, will notice how young Ptolemy was, and realize there was something unusual about Pharonic inheritance.  But I was influenced by the advice of experts at Bell Labs about tehcnical writing.  One of the wonderful products that emerged out of the UNIX group at Bell Labs was  set of wonderful tools called "The Writer's Workbench".  One of the tools in the Workbench could give the author readability indices.  The author could request readability indices for each sentence.  The workbench was wonderful..  The readability tool was wonderful.  The documentation was wonderful.  And a key point that documentation made was, even the PhDs at Bell Labs preferred to read material that was written to be easy to read, so long as it effectively conveyed the point.  This passage about Ptolemy should be written to be easy to read.  IMO, that meant, that means, including "only".
 * That man from Nantucket asserted above that I was motivated by "spite". I resent that.  I resent the several other occasions where they explicitly challenged my good faith.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  I should do my best to refrain from responding in kind, and challenging Which Hazel/Man from Nantucket's motivations. I think, however, that I can note that I think they have been routinely misquoting and misinterpreting our policies -- several policies.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess i don't see how "only" adds more information. Carptrash (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please re-read point two above? Which Hazel/Man from Nantucket's offered his original justification -- "thirteen was an adult at the time" -- while overlooking that Ptolemy was considered a minor, who required his tutor Pothinus to act as his regent.  Wh/TmfN incorrectly thought "only" was wasted wordage because he incorrectly thought Ptolemy was considered an adult.  No offense, but if you don't offer further clarification, I am going to assume you didn't notice the original edit summary was based on a serious misconception.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering that Which Hazel/Man from Nantucket mistakenly said "thirteen was an adult at the time", I too think "only" would actually serve a purpose in this situation. Still, even if "only" could be used to highlight the discrepancies between ancient Egyptian and contemporary culture, it would be ineffective, provided that the point can't be summed up by merely a word; so, it's not "more informative" per se. It'd be more useful to separately state that in a note along with "only". -- ChamithN   (talk)  14:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I am more-or-less on your side in terms of what seems to be the big picture with what is going on with you and these other editors. I do not have much, if any control over what you choose to "assume." The great Sam Cooke choose to call his song Only Sixteen so perhaps there is some precedence for your stance after all. However, "age thirteen" is stating a fact. "age only thirteen" is implying that there are other issues involved that are not being discussed. Carptrash (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

her throne name
Why only list Horus Name and Birth name of Cleopatra VII? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.16.167.30 (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Family tree could use cleanup
Due to royal inbreeding are several identical branches on Cleopatra's family tree. It would make the diagram clearer if it were condensed to have single entries for Ptolemy the seventh and Cleopatra the third, with a single branching descendent line showing Ptolemy the ninth, Ptolemy the tenth, Cleopatra the fourth, and Cleopatra Selene the first and then reconverging from there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.6.113 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * While I have not participated in creating or editing this particular article, as a genealogist I can tell you that a standard pedigree chart of a family that has some inbreeding will show all the different positions on that chart that the inbreeding occurred.  If you look at most of the pedigree charts in Wikipedia articles on royal families you will see the same format.   I understand that a simplified chart is desired by many simply to take up less space but usually to a genealogist it is considered best to show the full pedigree regardless of how many times inbreeding may have taken place.   It's also easier to calculate the degree of inbreeding by viewing the full chart.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.191.251.196 (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cleopatra. 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/20060811000057/http://www.discoverychannelasia.com/ontv_egyptweek/death_cleopatra/index.shtml to http://www.discoverychannelasia.com/ontv_egyptweek/death_cleopatra/index.shtml

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) 10:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Persian ancestry
It's not right to declare Cleopatra's ancestry as "Macedonian". The Ptolmeic dyansty had a fair degree of Persian ancestry. Because of the degree of inbreeding this ancestry was maintained up to the time of Cleopatra (Cleopatra VII). Reasonable estimates have suggested between 1/4th to 5/8th Persian, depending on what model of reconstruction is chosen.2601:882:101:17E6:8C06:7391:DDC9:B9AE (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * please provide a source for that. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

"Scholars generally identify Cleopatra as of Greek and Persian ancestry, based on fact that her Greek Macedonian family had married with the Persian aristocracy of the time" Joyce Tyldesley: Cleopatra, Last Queen of Egypt, Profile Books Ltd, 2008.

Nice source, though I would like to see a specific Persian ancestor mentioned. It is far easier to track down lines of descent if you know where to start. Dimadick (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The Persian ancestry is the Ptolemy III married a daughter of Antiochos I and his wife Straonice named Apamea II who was 1/4 Persian. Also Ptolemy V married Cleopatra I of Syra, who was the daughter of Laodice III and Antiochos III, now the Persian ancestry of the Seleukid dynasty at this point was very low, as after Antiochos I's marriage the dynasty was marked for the time with marriages to Greek women, however, Laodice III was the daughter of Laodice II who was the daughter of Antiochos II, and Laodice I, and King Mithridates of Pontus, who would thus have a fair amount of Persian ancestry. Meaning that Cleopatra I would have been roughly 40-50% Persian. At this point no further outside marriages occurred. So there are two sources of Persian blood, one of whom was 1/4 Persian and the other of whom was ~1/2 Persian. Doing some rough math there are 8 Principal people who are responsible for the Ptolemaic column of whom 6 were greek, one was half Greek, and one was a quarter Greek. So... not getting in to the intricacies of how the intermarriages worked, the total percentage of Persian blood would have been low. Which is all, frankly kind of irrelevant, because their culture and language were Greek, and that is what is important, Ptolemaic Egypt is a successor state, and was a Hellenistic Kingdom, these are two of its main contributions to history. But anyhow, there you have it. 79.158.167.31 (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You're right, it seems pretty tangential to me considering her inherited culture was Macedonian Greek. Of course, Cleopatra was a deep admirer of the native Egyptian culture and nation the she lorded over, but that doesn't make her an Egyptian either. One could argue, though, despite the small percentage of Persian ancestry, that she was more "Egyptian" than "Persian" simply because there is no evidence she embraced Persian culture to any sort of degree. I'd say it's therefore pretty irrelevant and if someone wants to track down the ethnic origins of some of her distant relatives, they can do so via her family tree. -- Pericles of Athens  Talk 07:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

That's incorrect, because we know after Cleopatra I Syra and Ptolmy V, the bloodlines were incestual. From the available genealogy we know Cleopatra I Syra was ~11/32 Persian and her husband Ptolemy V was ~1/16 Persian. That means there children were 13/64 Persian, the rest Greek. However, after that point, the bloodlines of Cleopatra's ancestors were, in fact, incestual. So Cleopatra was, 13/64, or about 20% Persian, by descent. And for the latter post, whether Cleopatra "embraced Persian culture" is irrelevant towards the matter. 09:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2017
I would like to request an update for the picture of Cleopatra. This painting is said to actually represent Cleopatra. You can follow the link and read the whole article itself. Not only would this educate the public and put an end to some of the controversial discussions such as the Beauty of Cleopatra but it would also be exciting that people would finally get a concrete idea of what Cleopatra looked like. With Wikipedia's popularity, this knowledge would soon be all over the place.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/oddnotes/cleoinencaustic/cleopatraencaustic.html Lhopshe (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: A reprint from a 19th-century article on a supposed correct image that just happens to match contemporary standards of beauty is not really a reliable source on what Cleopatra "really" looks like. The current page image is better-documented.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

a comment
"The great Lady of perfection, excellent...." not so "great" "perfection" "excellent"

"The goddess...." she was not a "goddess" for God shake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8201:EE00:ACAA:822E:8949:4F90 (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * These are parts of her royal titulary. As a pharaoh, she was a daughter of Ra, thus effectively a goddess at the eyes of ancient Egyptians. Khruner (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2018
Please delete duplicate "as" in sentence: "she would be depicted as as the naked goddess". 2A01:388:289:150:0:0:1:291 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Favonian (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Tyre link
change ((Tyre)) to ((Tyre, Lebanon|Tyre)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:218:8BFF:FE74:FE4F (talk • contribs)


 * ✅ Hrodvarsson (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

request to delete pictures
I would like to propose that all of the pictures depicting Cleopatra be removed from the webpage. None of them are historic and almost all would appear to have been painted as pornography rather than as a serious work of art. They can be moved to the webpage about cultural depictions of Cleopatra where there are more appropriate.

It is inappropriate in this day and age for articles about historical women to be illustrated with second rate paintings of semi-naked white women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.49.174 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The pornography argument is gonna get nothing but "Wikipedia is not censored" in response, if not accusations of prudishness and Philistinism.
 * Some of the pictures are of statues, many of which date to her era.
 * Cleopatra has been a focus for artists long after her time. To ignore that is to deny a significant part of her legacy.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Again there is a specific page for cultural depections of cleopatra and such pictures should be moved there. There is no evidence that they are accurate and the fact that they are all white half-naked women is a good indication that they have no historical value at all. The one authentic statue should remain. There are plenty of contemporary images from coins etc that can be used but the use of irrelevant pictures painted by second rate european painters should be depreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:880B:7700:548E:C052:EC63:8C28 (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Paintings of Cleopatra from the 17th-19th centuries are indeed relevant to this article, because that is how artists of that period viewed Cleopatra. Your opinion of them aside, per Image use policy these images are fine in that they demonstrate the topics outlined in the adjacent text. I'm glad to see you've at least tempered your request so as not to include the ancient minted coins and the contemporary basalt statue, but you failed to mention the marble bust in the lead section of the article (which is thoroughly cited with academic sources). While I would agree that modern images of Cleopatra are best left to the article "Cultural depictions of Cleopatra", that does not mean we should expunge everything else for the sake of prudishness. As User:Ian.thomson has already outlined, Wikipedia is not censored. A similar issue came up with the article on the Islamic prophet Muhammad. I believe there are ways to censor all Wiki images in your own personal browser if nudity is too much for you to handle. -- Pericles of Athens  Talk 08:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat glad that you presented your opinions here, because I've decided to start a new little sub-section on ancient depictions of Cleopatra. I hope everyone enjoys it. Neatly, it makes direct comparisons between her image as presented in coins to that of her white marble bust in the lead section. Fascinating! -- Pericles of Athens  Talk 10:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Well now...look what I just did. A brand new public domain image on Wikimedia commons uploaded by yours truly is now in the article, within the section on ancient depictions of art that I just created today! You know, out of chaos comes order and from even the smelliest manure flowers can spring. This conversation here, while somewhat irritating, has nevertheless inspired me to search and find such a decent image. I'll try to do the same for the life-size statue of Cleopatra in the Vatican, along with the damaged portrait bust in the same museum (both dated to the 1st century BC). Pericles of Athens  Talk 15:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Response by Trilobite22
Pericles - how is a painting of Cleopatra from the 19th Century relevant to the historical person of Cleopatra. The article is about the person not how she was viewed. She was a major historical figure and contemporary pictures, statues and coins of her exist and can be used. There would appear to be no justification for using the picture by Cagnacci for example. Cleopatra was not white, did not dress like that and did not have white semi-naked women as her attendants. This picture has zero historical accuracy and so should be removed to appropriate page about depictions of Cleopatra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobite22 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Response by PericlesofAthens
For several reasons, I think it's funny and ironic that you singled out the painting by Guido Cagnacci. Yes, his 1658 painting does not accurately portray ancient Hellenistic Greek or Egyptian clothing, jewelry, or furnishing, but those are some seriously high expectations you have there for an Italian painter of the 17th century (even with their late Renaissance/Baroque-period access to and knowledge of many Classical-period works of art). The irony here, however, is that you claim it would be historically inaccurate to have Cleopatra or anyone around her depicted in a state of semi-nudity. Need I remind you of the 1885 steel engraving by John Sartain pictured at the bottom of the article? You know, the one that represents the now lost encaustic painting of Cleopatra discovered in Hadrian's Villa in 1818, but which still existed in private hands at the villa of Baron de Denneval in Piano di Sorrento, Italy when Sartain published his steel engraving of it? Cleopatra is clearly shown with her naked right breast as the asp bites her. For that matter, scholars still debate whether or not the Esquiline Venus depicts Cleopatra VII, with some very strong evidence that it does given the melon-style haircut and bun, the facial features, and the Egyptian-style dress draped over the vase plus the royal Egyptian uraeus/cobra wrapped around the vase at her feet. The Esquiline Venus is entirely in the nude, if you hadn't noticed:

"In either case, she wouldn't be the first time that ancient Macedonian Greeks were depicted as having red hair."

Possibly relatively common for people descending from the Balkans.
 * Xenophanes claimed that humans attributed their own physical traits to their gods, and used the satirical phrase "Ethiopians say that their gods are snub–nosed [σιμούς] and black./Thracians that they are pale and red-haired."
 * Neoptolemus, the legendary progenitor of the Molossians was nicknamed Pyrrhus (red) due to his red hair.
 * "In the Iliad, Achilles' hair is described as ξανθῆς (ksanthēs ), usually translated as blonde, or golden but sometimes as red or tawny. His son Neoptolemus also bears the name Pyrrhus, a possible reference to his own red hair. "
 * Depictions of the goddess Persephone from the Kasta Tomb (4th century BC) in Amphipolis, Macedonia depict her with red hair, possibly to match how the Macedonians of the era viewed themselves. See the images here: http://redhairmyths.blogspot.gr/2015/07/another-redhead-from-ancient-world.html

I have also seen a few sources mention that Cleopatra could simply have been using a hair dye. Henna was used in antiquity as a hair dye, for women who wanted their hair to be red. "Henna has been used since antiquity to dye skin, hair and fingernails, as well as fabrics including silk, wool and leather. Historically, henna was used in the Arabian Peninsula, Indian Subcontinent, parts of Southeast Asia, Carthage, other parts of North Africa and the Horn of Africa. The name is used in other skin and hair dyes, such as black henna and neutral henna, neither of which is derived from the henna plant. ... "In Ancient Egypt, Ahmose-Henuttamehu (17th Dynasty, 1574 BCE): Henuttamehu was probably a daughter of Seqenenre Tao and Ahmose Inhapy. Smith reports that the mummy of Henuttamehu's own hair had been dyed a bright red at the sides, probably with henna. "Dimadick (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I meant to thank you earlier for bringing up all these references but simply forgot to do so. Your point about the Egyptian use of henna is a good one and may very well explain it, though it wouldn't quite explain the native Macedonian artistic coloring of the hair as red in mosaics like the Stag Hunt one I demonstrated above. In either case Fletcher (2008) is the only source I've seen even mentioning this topic, so apparently it's not one that academics care to talk about very often. Pericles of Athens Talk 19:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)