Talk:Ethnicity of Cleopatra

Created New Article
I created this new article as a spin-off daughter article from the Ancient Egyptian race controversy, because this section of that article was getting much too large. It is notable as part of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Please help to clean it up and build it up. Wdford (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

CLEOPATRA IS BLACK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.83.26.213 (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No, and it also WASN'T. And, in general, she was not even a good ruler or person at all. We have to made a list of the people she had killed... from his own family?
 * So, why do you want to appropiate her? Try it with better people, at least. Maybe a Socrastes was black will be a better idea. 79.158.220.188 (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Propose rename
Not formalizing a process before input, but I would suggest "Cleopatra race controversy" to avoid the controversial implication that Cleopatra had "race". --Calthinus (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree to the proposed renaming. Nobody else seems to care either way. Do you know how to do it? Wdford (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I ✅ too.  Mohamed  Talk 17:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Calthinus (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks :) Wdford (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Race is a discredited term when it comes to human beings. It should not be used that way in an article like this one. Just take a look at the Jena Declaration which is only the most recent statement on that topic. --45.91.22.60 (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Asante
I just wanted to explain why I edited the page. The way Lefkowitz and Asante were juxtaposed in the article came across to me something like this:

"Lefkowitz argues Cleopatra was probably white" <-> "Asante 'emphasizes' that Afrocentrists don't care if she was white"

When I followed up on Asante's article (link was dead, I included archived version in the edit), I noticed his main response to her work wasn't given, and that the quote that had been pulled from the article was only addressing one of Lefkowitz' "three axes." I hope the edit better captures Asante's response to her work. If anyone else wants to read the article and characterize it better, that's cool too. Achanadianite (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Lock request
I decided to petition for a lock to this article, considering the enormous amount of vandalism and bad faitg additions lately. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Ancestry DNA test on her or her family member?
Are there any tombs that hold her body or family members bodies? 172.79.178.254 (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * None of her family have been found. They were all likely buried in the Soma, which was in the royal quarter of Alexandria, like Queen Cleopatra's tomb? Which is underwater / was destroyed over the many centuries. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Several (n=151) Egyptian mummies from before and after Cleopatra's time have had their DNA sequenced and cluster slightly more with populations North-East than modern Egyptian samples (who have recent Arab admixture), strongly suggesting origins in the Levant, not sub-Saharan Africa (see ) - so even if Cleopatra was 100% Egyptian she still wouldn't be "black" in the US sense, but more like modern Lebanese/Syrian/Palestinians with no more sub-Saharan DNA than Europeans or Asians. I think a brief section on ancient Egyptian DNA (a summary of Genetic_history_of_Egypt?) on this page might be warranted, as many people - including in lots of the quotes here - assume Egyptian = black due to it being physically in Africa. Tobus (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is already stated on here by Diana Preston that if her grandmother was Egyptian it does not follow she was Black. That study that you is also biased to a certain region and time in Egyptian history. Egypt then as now is incredibly genetically diverse (noted on this page as well by Daniel Nour) and has always included people who by U.S. Standards would be considered "Black." If Cleopatra had Egyptian ancestry, it is possible, although not certain, she would be "Black" by U.S. Standards, or at least Brown. But the point of the page is not the ancient Egypt race controversy, it is Cleopatra's ethnic and cultural identity. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The "certain region and time" that the study covers includes both the birthplace of Cleopatra and the time period in which she lived. More importantly though, similar results have been replicated in other studies using different samples (see, ) so it seems to be a robust finding.
 * I think you've misread Daniel Nour - the "diversity" he's talking about is North African and Greek, not black African ("since Cleopatra is an Egyptian queen of Greek ancestry, she is representative of the genetic diversity of modern Egypt"). Is there any physical evidence that Egypt "has always included people who by U.S. Standards would be considered 'Black.'" or is it just something that you assume because it's in Africa? Genetic evidence strongly points to there being significantly more of such diversity in modern Egypt than in ancient Egypt due to the Arab conquests in the 600s, well after Cleopatra's time.
 * Finally, I put it to you that the ancient Egypt race controversy is relevant on a page literally entitled "[ruler of ancient Egypt] race controversy".
 * Tobus (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Modern Sudanese people are considered black, and they are the descendants of ancient Kushites who lived in Nubia and Upper Egypt. Even a former president of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, was half-Sudanese and considered (mixed race) black African. Their presence in Egypt alone since at least the Middle Kingdom period (and certainly after the New Kingdom conquered the Kerma culture of Sudan) pretty much debunks this idea of yours that black people never existed in ancient Egypt. I think painted portraits of Fayum mummies from the Roman era are a good representation of ancient Egyptians; overall they look like olive or brown MENA people (Anatolia/Mesopotamia/Levant/Libya/Maghreb), but some look black with very frizzy Afro hair and facial features similar to an Ethiopian. Of course, none of this is relevant to Cleopatra unless we're talking about the hypothesis of her mother being possibly part Egyptian.
 * If you can find a reliable academic source that says Cleopatra would have looked brown/olive instead of black were she to be mixed Greek and Egyptian (with a bit of Sogdian Iranian ancestry), then by all means share it and cite it correctly in the article. Otherwise this seems like a waste of time and energy. The only thing I can find that even remotely spells out things like that is an Oxford University Press blog post by Duane W. Roller saying that if she was mostly Greek and only a quarter Egyptian per the hypothesis, then it left no room for her to have been possibly black African. Pericles of Athens  Talk 04:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think conclusions like this should be left to the reader (although there are cites from Bradford and Watterson already in the article drawing those conclusions). What I proposed (and wrote - now deleted) in the Genetics section is a summary of the ancient Egyptian DNA we have to date, intended to give an evidence-based baseline on what "race" might be expected from any purported Egyptian ancestry - I most consciously avoided drawing any conclusions about what Cleopatra would have looked like, and made no mention of which theories are effectively refuted or supported by these data... I deliberately left it so the reader can interpret and weight the DNA data as they see fit. Most theories of her ancestry were created before DNA was available, and it would be remiss of this page to fail to include genetic discoveries as a source of evidence just because they are at odds with some popular pre-DNA assumptions. Tobus (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see why that would be deleted, because that borders on WP:Original research, especially if it is only tangentially related to Cleopatra and a reliable source is not drawing that direct line between the two ideas. Again, Wikipedia is a reflection of scholarship and journalism on any given topic, not a place for us to publish or promote our own ideas. The bigger Ancient Egyptian race controversy sibling article covers this topic about native Egyptians more succinctly. The bulk of the Cleopatra article focuses on her Macedonian Greek lineage and hence the Southeastern European origins of her royal family, but DNA analysis or genomic studies aren't terribly relevant for the Ptolemies. This is explained as such in the Arsinoe II section, where it clearly states none of the Ptolemaic royal family's remains have been discovered (and perhaps lost forever given how much of old Alexandria is now underwater). Plutarch suggests Cleopatra might have been mummified like a native Egyptian, but it's also possible she was just cremated like most ancient Greeks in their funerary practices. Until we find the remains of Cleopatra and cite a work analyzing her DNA, a broader discussion about genetics isn't terrible relevant here. Pericles of Athens  Talk 12:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you look at the sources cited on this page about Cleopatra's ancestry, almost all of them are from after DNA testing became realized (save for Grant (1972) and he is quite clear Cleopatra was Macedonian.) For example, Roller (2010) speculates she was a quarter Egyptian, but says this does not mean she was Black. Diana Preston (2009) says the same. This topic is already covered, and since we do not have any genetic testing on any Ptolemy (which itself would not prove how Cleopatra SELF-identified), it is rather unrelated, as both PericlesofAthens and Wdford have pointed out. This article concerns historical scholarship about Cleopatra specifically, and absent any direct DNA testing on her, general studies on ancient Egyptian genetics will remain irrelevant. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What you seem to be invested in here is "proving" a complex and ancient culture was homogeneous when the reality of quite different, even going so far as attempt to cast modern Egyptians as Arab colonizers who have no claim to their history. Unless you are an Egyptian, you have no claim to it either. I suggest you read Nour's entire article, I am the one who cited it.
 * And it takes no rocket science to see there are Black Egyptians today and presumably always have been. As someone who has been to Egypt I can confirm to you Egypt does not conform to the narrow American point of view on race.
 * Conséquently, adding a section about proving ancestry of native Egyptians on the article of a Macedonian queen is irrelevant and unhelpful. If one does appear, however, I will happily buttress it with historical analysis explaining the racial complexity of Egypt. (Aka there are today and then Egyptians who are "Black.") Is Cleopatra a topic you are actually interested and study or are you here because of the Netflix show?

Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You are extrapolating about me erroneously. My intention is only to add factual information to the page - I don't personally care if ancient Egypt was homogeneous or heterogeneous, I only care what the data say about their genetic makeup. I don't care if modern Egyptians are cast as colonisers, or as survivors of colonisation, or even as joyous willing converters - I just care what the data say about their ancestry components. The politics doesn't interest me, facts do.
 * Your "presumably" might make sense as a null hypothesis in the lack of data, but we have data now, and that "presumably" turns out to be most likely incorrect and so will need strong evidence to support it. Based on the genetic data there does not seem to have been a particularly higher frequency of "black" people in Cleopatra's Egypt than in any of the other Mediterranean-bordering populations of the time. So again I ask, is there actual evidence that there have always been black people in Egypt, or is it just an assumption?
 * The section would not be about proving ancestry of native Egyptians, it would be summarising the existing genetics of Ancients Egyptians to give an evidence-based baseline of what degree of what ancestral component we would expect *if* there were any Egyptian ancestry in Cleopatra. At the moment there seems to be a lot of speculation and very little hard evidence in this article, a section of genetics would help to fill that void.
 * My interest is in science, particularly population genetics and evolution - I helped write the genetics parts of Human skin color, Dark skin, White people and Race and genetics as well as contributing to other genetics and human evolution-related articles (and some completely unrelated one too!). After seeing the Netflix kerfuffle on social media I came to Wikipedia, and thus this page, looking for a general overview of the current state of thinking (WP is great for getting a general overview of all opinions!) and was very surprised to see a lack of any genetic data here - especially since it's been around for over 5 years now, has an impact on some of the more extreme theories, and has robust support in scientific circles. I came here to the Talk page to see if there was discussion about it and found this section, which indicates at least some other people are interested in what the current state of DNA research on the matter has to say. Hence why I suggested a section dedicated to what we know about the genetics of Egypt at Cleopatra's time.
 * Science, and particularly genetics, often conflicts with the current popular opinion in history, sociology and the lay public, but some people like to have a bedrock of fact by which to compare and assess the potential validity of the various competing theories. If I end up creating a genetics section, it would be great if you let the facts speak for themselves and leave any "buttressing" for any particular viewpoint to the rest of the article.
 * Tobus (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you create a genetics section, I will buttress it with facts. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Facts related to genetics I hope. :) I've added the section and have tried to make it as factual and impartial as possible, while still accurately representing the very one-sided nature of the genetic data available to date. Tobus (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This genetics section has nothing to do with Cleopatra herself save for the line at the beginning. It has also been speculated by scholars like Alan Cameron (classicist) she had an Ethiopian grandmother, which would make her "Black."
 * We will need to reach a Consensus, but the genetics has nothing to do with Cleopatra herself. I moved the first line to the Arsinoe section, since she is actually the only family member some have claimed to be found.

EDIT: I have learned that my source for Cameron incorrectly stated that he claimed Cleopatra VII had an Ethiopian grandmother. His article actually discusses Didyme, the Egyptian mistress of Ptolemy II, who is discussed in article.


 * Which by the way, I do think Cleopatra's grandmother was Macedonian, but if the point is to prove Cleopatra is not "Black", then adding scholarly speculation on her possibly having undeniable "Black" African genes would be in order.


 * I think it is best to keep genetics off this page since we have none of the royal Ptolemies. The "general" genetics of native Egyptians says nothing of HER own genetic make-up. But we can certainly consensus on this!


 * Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't want to raise these concerns up front, instead of assuring me "If you create a genetics section, I will buttress it with facts" and then just blanket deleting the whole section?
 * The raison d'etre of this page is literally speculation that that she has native Egyptian ancestry, so scientific evidence as to the "race" of such ancestry has to bear some relevance. You will note that I also included Nubian DNA ("Aethiopian") as that is the other putative non-Eurasian source mentioned.
 * The existence of this Talk-page section (which was here when I came - I didn't start it) shows at least some readers are interested in what facts genetics can contribute to the discussion - even if they aren't as conclusive as her own DNA would be.
 * For these reasons I think a brief section on Genetics would be helpful and give scientific background as to what "race" might reasonably be inferred from the purported ancestries - especially where it's different to what most people might assume. If you really think an RFC is warranted before adding such a section I will start one.
 * Tobus (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The main issue is that we do not have any of Cleopatra's DNA to test - nor that of any of her close relatives. There are other articles where Afrocentrists speculate generally about the Race of the Ancient Egyptians, but this article is about Cleopatra specifically, and we have zero genetic evidence to report. Wdford (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for your responses. After taking a break for a few days and then re-reading the current article I'm happy to drop it. The article is more a discussion the "controversy" part (ie what people have said) than the actual "race" part (ie what are the facts) and so what I proposed isn't strictly relevant to that context. Tobus (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The facts regarding Cleopatra's race are unknown and unknowable, and will remain so until her physical remains are found and studied. That might never happen, but until then we are stuck with speculation from persons with racial and political agendas of their own. Wdford (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Recentism?
Has this article been created only because of the Netflix show? Might be a bit early to create an entire article and fabricate a controversy ad post.Guzzpacho (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * No it has been around a while. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "because of the Netflix show" What Netflix show? The article was created in August 2020, by splitting the article on the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Dimadick (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A new netflix programs that appears to depict Cleopatra as a Black African queen caused an insane overreaction and this page and the main page have become targets of deranged obsessives who are upset by it. I had to get an actual lock for this page. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Guzzpacho Others here have already answered your question, but to avoid pointless discussion in the future and if you are simply curious about the date an article was created, you can simply figure that out by exploring the article's "History" tab and seeing the list of revisions over time. Netflix is a blip in the radar and this is actually a split/sibling article of a larger one about ancient Egyptians more generally speaking. Pericles of Athens  Talk 04:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok Thank youGuzzpacho (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

half-sister
The article currently says that a woman was C's half-sister. Then, later, we read that they had the same father "but may have had different mothers." If we say they were(not "might have been") half-sisters and that they had (not "might have had") the same father, then I see no reason for saying "may have had"( as opposed to "had") different mothers. In other words, let's be consistent: either they were or maybe they were through-out. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:F89C:8F5C:A581:52F4 (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Typo
At one point ‘purposes’ is written without ‘r.’ Just do a text search… I would have fixed it myself, but I can’t. 2003:CB:F709:2F01:5C39:AC27:94C4:E13D (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ thanks FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Article title
There is no real "controversy" & the current title sensationalizes the subject in an unhelpful way. I think it should be renamed to Ethnicity of Cleopatra or something similar. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Carlstak (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed Wdford (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I will start a move discussion then FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Carlstak, @Johnbod, @Wdford just see below FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved by consensus (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Cleopatra race controversy → Ethnicity of Cleopatra – There is no real "controversy," & the current title sensationalizes the subject in an unhelpful way. I think it should be renamed to Ethnicity of Cleopatra or something similar. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed to change article title. Wdford (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per my comment above. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom—blindlynx 13:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, far more neutral title. Annwfwn (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the controversy was always ginned up nonsense. Carlstak (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support; while I understand the reasoning of the article's creator given that this whole thing is the result of a split from the original Ancient Egyptian race controversy article, the proposed title "Ethnicity of Cleopatra" is far more apt and neutral. Good suggestion. Pericles of Athens  Talk 18:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. A more encyclopedic title.  The present one could imply a disproportionate level of uncertainty.  P Aculeius (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The most scholarly sources behind the supposed "controversy" are found on Instagram and Facebook, so a more encyclopedic tone in the title is good IMO, even with the understanding the current title situation results from a mirror of the article it was forked from. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as there is no actual controversy, and “ethnicity” is a more meaningful term. --Syd Storm (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Lefkowitz as an authority, her video recorded debate with J. H. Clarke, and a "multiracial" Mediterranean
Lefkowitz wrote a book, "Not Out of Africa" (with racially offensive cover art and bad faith critiques of Martin Bernal's "Black Athena") that claimed that Afrocentrism was an anti-scholarly pursuit. That thesis alone should discredit her as an authority on this topic, regardless of her authority on Classics or Antiquities. To have a disagreement over conclusions is one thing, but to deny the purpose of that which she debates against is evidence of bad faith argumentation. I'm quoting her: "[African history scholars] don't need Greece..." As if the truth is governed by teleology! Basically, she is acting like an "agent," which is an understandable/ discernable claim to anyone who is politically conscious.

Furthermore, during the 1996 debate between John Henrik Clarke/ Martin Bernal vs Lefkowitz/ Guy Rogers (recorded and available on YouTube), Clarke makes his position clear: "I think you have emphasized too much the word "Black"... I did not say Cleopatra was Black... my defense of Cleopatra is not on her Blackness, but on - no matter whatever she was - she was born in Africa, she defended, her manipulation of Marc Antony and Caesar kept the worst aspects of Roman rule from the backs of Africa. I defend her as an African Nationalist..." (this quote comes at the 1:03:17 mark in the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmei-hUQUWY retrieved at 23.01.2024). Basically, Clarke unambiguously denies making claims as to Cleopatra's ethnic origins.

(The preceding is supported in this very article, with the following: "In response to the book Not Out of Africa by Lefkowitz, Molefi Kete Asante, Professor of African American Studies at Temple University wrote the article "Race in Antiquity: Truly Out of Africa", in which he emphasized that he "can say without a doubt that Afrocentrists do not spend time arguing that either Socrates or Cleopatra were black.")

Basically, the lede for this article should not include someone so biased on this topic (Lefkowitz). And it absolutely should not include Dr Clarke as a strawman for the indigenous African ethnicity of Cleopatra, because her claim as to his argument is not properly cited and is denied by Clarke himself. In fact, in the body where this information is repeated (in a more appropriate place in my opinion) she notes that J.A. Rogers' published claim as to Cleopatra's "blackness" had incorrectly cited Britannica. The lede should not include Lefkowitz's refutation of a strawman argument which is not cited, for the very reason that she claims that other published works on this topic include incorrect information which were not properly cited.

I suggest removing any mention of Lefkowitz in the lede, despite her prominence in Classics (because of her obvious bias regarding this topic). Furthermore, Clarke's scholarship should not be straw-manned anywhere in the article, without citations, and certainly not by Lefkowitz, and absolutely not in the lede. A more proper introduction would not favor certain scholars, rather it would summarize the generally accepted conclusions of the totality of the scholarship. The following sentence in the lede is much more appropriate in my opinion: "Scholars generally identify Cleopatra as having been essentially of Greek ancestry with some Persian and Sogdian Iranian ancestry, based on the fact that her Macedonian Greek family (the Ptolemaic dynasty) had intermarried with the Seleucid dynasty." I would add the word "Currently" to the beginning of the sentence to make explicit that scholarship is still on-going.

Frankly, this whole article, on English language Wikipedia, is not in proper context considering the audience. Nearly all English-speakers understand what "Greek" means, and they have a passing understanding of Greece in antiquity. But very few English-speakers understand the historical significance of Upper and Lower "Egypt" (which is a European word for Kemet), or the region of Nubia, including "Ethiopia" (which was the Greek word for Kush). The audience (and obviously some editors) is preoccupied with race, when the people of antiquity had no concept of race. And the people of antiquity certainly did not flatten diverse African ethnicities into "Black," and therefore any citation as to Blackness is devoid of pertinent information on the topic of Cleopatra's ethnicity. This problem is, unfortunately, reflected in the Eurocentric scholarship. So Wikipedia doesn't really have a solution. 2601:5CF:8000:6B60:3946:594E:902D:429C (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "A more proper introduction would not favor certain scholars, rather it would summarize the generally accepted conclusions of the totality of the scholarship." We can not do that. Manual of Style/Lead section specifies that the lead should be "a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" And Fringe theories specifies that we have to "summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence". In other words, the most prominent opinions get most of the space, fringe theories should be covered in less detail or not at all. Dimadick (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The style guide you reference does NOT provide any justification for including specific scholars in the lede. In fact, it requires an overview. Lefkowiz's ideas do NOT meet any of those criteria: "a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Like I said, and like the style guide suggests, very specific points belong in the body and NOT the lede. In fact, the article already completely repeats itself and the redundancy is improperly placed in the lede. 2601:5CF:8000:6B60:71F4:E113:2023:BD03 (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * also, John Henrick Clarke is much more prominent than Mary Lefkowitz. Despite the yearnings of the Ivy League and reactionary political science publications 2601:5CF:8000:6B60:71F4:E113:2023:BD03 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Clarke is a fringe theorist. I read his nonsense about Cleopatra and he did claim in his book that she described herself as Black in the New Testament, which is embarrassing.
 * I do not know who is "more prominent," but when it comes to ancient history, Lefkowitz, who has been the target of obsessive antisemitic Afrocentrists, has the upper-hand. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "she described herself as Black in the New Testament" I do not remember any references to Cleopatra in the New Testament. Dimadick (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct, she is not. Clarke directly claims so in his book, I have read it. Why he would deny it according to this anon user is pretty embarassing, instead of just admitting that he was wrong.
 * An earlier Cleopatra, Cleopatra Thea, is mentioned in Maccabees, and another early Cleopatra, but not Cleopatra VII, obviously. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * He specifically said that Black is being misunderstood. He specifically said he defends Cleopatra as an African Nationalist. Clarke isnt "fringe," rather the English-language Classics departments is obsessed with their own misunderstanding of the word Black in afrocentrist study. This is not to imply that his scholarship was perfect. But this does sufficiently answer Lefkowitz, and it is unsurprising that English language wikipedia is just as obtuse about this language as Lwfkowitz herself. (All of this was in my first comment, and the fact that people do not address it, is further proof that this entire subject is misunderstood within a culture of white supremacy) 2601:5CF:8000:6B60:71F4:E113:2023:BD03 (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And i didnt suggest removing Lefkowitz. My suggestion was to make the lede more in compliance with Wiki style guide, which requires SUMMARIES and does not ask for specifics and the scholars who maintain those views.
 * Again, I'm not suggesting editors deny Lefkowitz (although that would be proper in a just world). Im suggesting editors follow their own style guide. 2601:5CF:8000:6B60:71F4:E113:2023:BD03 (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. Create an account and sign-in, if you hope to be taken seriously as an editor here.
 * 2. You claim "John Henrick(sic) Clarke is much more prominent than Mary Lefkowitz." Reality disagrees with you. Lefkowitz earned her BA from Wellesley and her PhD from Harvard (Radcliffe) as well as having been selected for Phi Beta Kappa.Clarke didn't finish high school, and later in life bought a "degree" from an unaccredited diploma mill ("Pacific Western University", California). Lefkowitz is a professor at Wellesley, one of the top universities in the US. Clarke was a professor at a minor, low-ranking college (Hunter College). Lefkowitz is recognized worldwide as one of the leading experts on Ancient Greece, and her books are published by such as Yale, Johns Hopkins and Oxford University Press. Most of Clarke's writings seem to be self-published. Just one of Lefkowitz' ten books ("Not Out of Africa") has sold more copies than all of Clarke's books combined . There are 1,721 copies in public libraries within a 200-mile radius of San Francisco, according to WorldCat. According to GoogleScholar, that book has been cited 841 times in other publications. Clarke's most widely-held book in public libraries -- "African People in World History" -- has just 239 copies, and has been cited just 54 times.So there's really no metric you can cite to support the claim that "Clarke is much more prominent than Mary Lefkowitz". Bricology (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Clarke so brazingly unable to confirm that Cleopatra in the Book of Acts called herself Black is an embarrassing claim and extremely poor scholarship. It also demonstrates his lack of engagement with ancient sources, since we have no first-hand accounts written by Cleopatra, and the New Testament was written so long after she died to have even contributed to it. In any case, you seem far more interested in defending Clarke's "honor" than contributing to wiki editing, which is what the talk page is for, not for debates. Mary Lefkowitz has an extensive understanding of ancient history that warrants her inclusion here, including her criticism of Clarke's poor and bizarre claim he refused to retract. Cleopatra was of primarily Macedonian descent as far as we know, and the concept of nationalism is only about 200 years old, so claiming her as a nationalist figure for any culture at all is highly anachronistic. This page is not for the Afrocentric or Eurocentric debate but for discussing Cleopatra in her ancient context. If you have suggestions on that, feel free, but since Clarke's only comments on Cleopatra are the section in the book of his I read, which also has other glaring claims/errors, then this discussion is moot. EDIT: Apparently Clarke never was trained in history and in fact did not have a college degree at all until the 90s, from an uncredited university, but strangely worked as a professor at Hunter long before that. This lack of historical training explains very much his poor scholarship on Cleopatra, the New Testament, and ancient data generally. Interesting, but again, not the point of the article's talk pagem

Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Kleopatraisyra - I know this is months old, but I'm confused as to what the "controversy" began from the now apparently blocked IP OP user even is? They mention "The audience (and obviously some editors) is preoccupied with race, when the people of antiquity had no concept of race", when this is actually noted in the background section of the article. There's a citation from professor Rebecca Futo Kennedy discussing how debating over an ancient figure being "Black" or "White" (or "Brown" or whatever term) is anachronistic. I mean, we're talking ancient times, when being "Asian" usually referred to the Roman province of Asia. It did not to refer to the modern American constructs of being "Asian descent", which typically refer to East Asians (see terms like "Yellowface") and perhaps ironically exclude people from Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) and adjacent regions from being "Asian" descent or "Asian American".
 * Personally, I find no reason to include any mention of modern debates which apply modern racial constructs to a woman who was born over 2000 years ago and lived in a kingdom which no longer exists. But the page has citations and opinions from reliable sources and/or actual professors/experts focusing on the ancient world and so on. And the idea of her being "Black" by our modern standards has been a persistent topic around her. I see no contemporary sources written from Cleopatra herself on whether she identified as being "Black" or "White" or "Brown" the same way a modern-day American may say they're such. And even if we apply modern  concepts of "race" to antiquity, I see nothing confirming why Cleopatra, a royal woman of Macedonian descent, would see any supposed "racial affinity" with say, the Germanic tribes of Northern Europe who were considered "barbarians" by the contemporary Romans. Despite all three peoples being considered European ethnic groups/cultures and thus, (by our modern eyes) the same "race". But alas, modern sources/debates have retroactively applied labels to her and discussed this.
 * Clarke is obviously not a reliable source for this topic but, I don't see why his fringe theories and claims should not get at least the briefest of mentions (like in the opening section). It's my understanding that Cleopatra was not from the modern-day countries of Egypt or Greece, and although her ancestors were not ethnically natives of Egypt, they're still considered rulers of Ancient Egypt. As has been discussed in the page. But his bizarre and anachronistic ideas of Cleopatra being some sort of of pan-nationalist symbol as the OP of this discussion seems to assert is just odd?
 * Also, Mary Lefkowitz seems like a generally reliable source for topics pertaining the ancient world and IDK why the OP seems against citing her. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)