Talk:Cleopatra

clarifying "he" in the third paragraph

> He carried out the execution of Arsinoe at her request

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

@JustGaro@ 2601:589:5180:9AE0:B069:5140:349B:E195 (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@JustGaro 2601:407:8500:B350:19F6:A5F0:AA4D:85A5 (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

redundant formulation

the "Egyptian" look similar to the queens Cleopatra and Nefertiti -- this phrase is redundant because, for popular purposes, Cleopatra and Nefertiti "look Egyptian". -- Melchior2006 (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Cleopatra was not of Egyptian descent thou?. Neither was Trajan, and he can be seen in Egyptian murals decked out in Pharaonic attire. 2A00:23C8:A72F:4A01:190A:97D7:47CF:38ED (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes! Adding to that, Cleopatra and Nefertiti wore very different attire and royal headgear per their surviving portraits (with some obvious similarities and symbolism like the uraeus that was a mainstay in Egyptian culture). And of course Nefertiti (who lived during the Bronze Age) never wore a Hellenistic Greek style diadem that Cleopatra was often seen wearing. I personally don't find the quoted statement in the article to be redundant. Sometimes it is preferable if not necessary to use clear examples to avoid ambiguity, especially if it is a point being emphasized in a cited scholarly source by an academic expert on the subject. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Illiterate

This article is almost unreadable with too much detail and subsidiary stories crammed into what passes for a narrative. It’s an important subject. Could someone with a grasp of English please rewrite this from scratch? 213.18.182.0 (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh sure, I'll get right on rewriting this article from scratch.

While you're making reasonable requests, could I make one that you point to particular problem passages that illustrate your point? Remsense ‥ 论 18:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Change in infobox image

Current image

Proposed replacement

I don't feel too strongly about this, but I do feel another image for the infobox probably would be better. Basically the same thing but a more front-facing view. Zinderboff(talk) 21:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2024

Word usage. In the "Downfall and death" section, "Meanwhile, Horace collaborates the..." should be changed to "Meanwhile, Horace corroborates the..." etc. Tmdecelles (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. LizardJr8 (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing style

Hello, this is part of edition I had made at the end of section 'Relationship with Julius Caesar': It is suggested, based on Cicero's letter, that Cleopatra might have been pregnant at that time with her and Caesar's second child; if so, this potential pregnancy ended in loss of a baby[source]. A few months later, Cleopatra allegedly [source] had Ptolemy XIV killed by poisoning, elevating her son Caesarion as her co-ruler.

I highlighted on bold things written by me.

Piccco complained on this and wrote that 'Sourcing style was also inconsistent with the rest of the article'. I provided sources according to template from wikipedia. For first sentence: Tyldesley, Joyce (2009). Cleopatra: Last Queen of Egypt. Profile Books. p. 144. ISBN 978-1861979018. For word 'allegedly': Tyldesley, Joyce (2009). Cleopatra: Last Queen of Egypt. Profile Books. pp. 145-146. ISBN 978-1861979018."Josephus, consistently anti-Cleopatra and prone to seeping statements, offers no proof in support of his allegation. (...) it is important to remember that estimated average life expectancy for men who survived infancy in Ptolemaic Egypt was only thrirty-three. To die at just fifteen years of age was sad, but it was by no means unusual".

I do not really know how exactly have the sourcing style that would be preffered. But if someone is kind enough, please correct those notes how you wish. I only wanted provid informations - I do not know yet all wikipedia's styles and editing of templates is something I have to yet work out. Sobek2000 (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I have responded at my talkpage regarding the reverts of the recent changes. As I said, the main reason for the revert is the fact that this is a featured article and too many fast new additions, especially by newly created accounts, need to be checked, in order to maintain the article's high quality. Besides the quality of the sources themselves, the additions also need to be checked not only for their truthfulness, but also for simpler things that do matter in a high-quality article, such as where they are added, in which paragraph, context? (they can't be a standalone paragraph on their own), are they repeated anywhere else in the article? is the information WP:DUE? (for example, the original content appeared well-sourced; how should the new additions be worded appropriately?) etc. The source itself seems WP:RS, the rest may need to be examined. It also needs to follow the standard sfn/p template for sourcing, as it is used all over the article for consistency. Finally, you made several smaller changes, some of which are not necessarily bad, but they are not improvements either. For example, the Ptolemies were represented as Pharaohs to the Egyptians, but as Basileus to the Greeks (see Ptolemy I Soter), so the introduction needs to keep the English title Queen which translates both. Closing, I just felt it was right to restore the version that has long-standing consensus, at least until more older editors examine the additions, and mostly because this is a high quality article. Piccco (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

'so the introduction needs to keep the English title Queen which translates both' - What a nonsens. Then please why Ptolemy I still is reffered as pharaoh in first sentence? Sobek2000 (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

If this was 'high quality artcile' then it wouldn't be saying that Cleopatra 'usurped' Arsinoe. It statement wa sthere for months, if not years. If this would be 'high quality article' this nonses information would be deleted immiediately. Wikipedia enourage to be 'bold', so I am bold there. I will be edit any incorrect satemnt I see. As for title, every Ptolemaic Pharaoh was Basileus, yet I am seeing them described as simply 'pharaoh' in their respective articles. I think you should correct every article about ptolemaic pharaohs, if you care so much.

' I just felt it was right to restore the version that has long-standing consensus, at least until more older editors examine the additions' - I don't really understand what more examination you want. All I said were basic facts, and if something was uncertain, I said - if source is needed - I will be happy to provide it. Sobek2000 (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Approval of changes

Hello, aside from sourcing style, I made few changes in sentences that were NOT sourced before, so I also did not provided them. I want to explain them all in one place:

1) I believe first sentence should reffer that Cleopatra was Pharaoh in her own right. Word 'queen' is correct but ambiguous - some people I interacted both in real life and online still are confused wheter she was Pharaoh (aka: ruler of ancient Egypt in their own right) or 'only' queen (consort/regent), hence I wanted to make it clear from the first sentence of such wide source as Wikipedia, that yes, she was pharaoh in her own right.

As for that she was 'last active ruler' of Egypt, statement itself is correct and I kept this, but I extended this to clarify what it exactly means, since 'active' sounds very enigmatic. (One can make argument that if Caesarion was making offering to gods, then he was 'active' ruler, but I am sure it's no this 'activity; authors of this sentence meant.) And for that reason I explained: 'She reigned as dominant co-monarch in ruling unions with her two brothers and her son, Caesarion, and thus was effectively the last active ruler of her dynasty.' I incorporated original statement into my own. If this sentence has some grammar errors or is too complex, I can modify it. Just notify me.

2) I deleted from infobox information that Arsinoe was her successor and 'Cleopatra later usurped her power' because that is factually incorrect - Arsinoe claimed queenship against Cleopatra, but Arsinoe was never queen recognized by country nor included in dating protocols, nor she was crown as queen. Arsinoe was the one who tried to usurp Cleopatra, and Cleopatra merely regained her power back. I did not provided my source before, but neither was source provided for this claim about alleged usurpation. However, if someone needs, here is my source: Tara Sewell-Lasater, Becoming Kleopatra: Ptolemaic Royal Marriage, Incest and the Path to the Female Rule, University of Houston, 2020, p. 427. ("After Julius Caesar arrived in Egypt, Arsinoë was appointed as joint ruler of Cyprus with her brother, Ptolemy XIV (Dio Cass. 42.35), in an attempt to end the civil strife. Either she, her philoi, the army, or all involved were unhappy with this arrangement because she was proclaimed queen in place of Kleopatra VII and Ptolemy XIII in September of 48 BCE (Dio Cass. 42.39; Ps.-Caes. BAlex. 4). She was not crowned as queen, however, and it is likely she was acclaimed so by the army, rather than being officially recognized by the Alexandrian administration.") If Arsinoe was not legitimate queen, Cleopatra could not usurp her, as Arsinoe was usurper/rebel/claimant to crown herself and Cleopatra was legitimate queen.

3) I deleted information she was co-ruler with her father, because... article never says she did. At the end of section "Rule and exile of Ptolemy XII" there is sentence she was 'made regent for her father', not 'co-regent' (co-ruler/co-monarch). As for hipotetical co-regency, it depends on researcher. From what I see, consensus is that co-rule with her father were possible, but not confirmed, hence I do not think Ptolemy XII should be listed among her co-rulers, or that he should be listed as co-ruler with addnotation "(possibly)".

If there is issue with any of my statements, then please, explain why and I will try to modify it. I only care about providing people who want to know more about Cleopatra with clarity. Sobek2000 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

About point 1 - I think it would best if there was information that Cleopatra "was queen regnant[link to Basileus] and pharaoh". In this way it would describe both her Greek and Egyptian regnal roles. As I explained don't think current stare ('Queen' alone) is sufficient, but I do understand that acknowledging that she was Basilissa is as much important as her status of Pharaoh. Sobek2000 (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sobek2000 I maintained your changes at the infobox, because they are not necessarily wrong; I was not the one who wrote the article however, so if another editor thinks the old version should be fully or partially restored, they can do it. I restored the lead; @PericlesofAthens already explained how the first paragraph should be a short introduction to Cleopatra and not repeat what the other paragraphs say. Lastly, saying queen regnant and pharaoh is a bit unnecessarily lengthy and makes it sound as if these are somehow two different positions that need to be mentioned separately. She is Queen Cleopatra, this is how everyone knows her as. The infobox mentions that she is a Pharaoh. Piccco (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Piccco @Sobek2000 Correct, though I have no real problem with labeling her as "pharaoh" in the first paragraph of the lead section so long as "queen" is also mentioned prominently. Sobek2000 was right to get rid of the "usurpation" thing about Arsinoe, that was actually added well after the Featured Article candidacy, and clearly Cleopatra (along with her brother Ptolemy XIII) ruled as the legitimate heir to her father. I just think adding information about Ptolemy XIII and XIV to the first paragraph is totally redundant, because they are both mentioned in the second paragraph where they are relevant to the narrative about her reign. Mentioning them multiple times across different paragraphs in the already very long lead section is definitely something an FA reviewer would gripe about in the future. Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure whether those parts had been written by experienced users or not, that's why I waited for older users' feedback. Regarding her label in the introductory paragraph, I was just a bit reluctant with mentioning both words next to each other as if they meant something different; or I thought that besides Pharaoh, she styled herself as Basilissa too, which to them just meant the same thing, and both are now simply translated as Queen. If some consensus could be formed, however, I wouldn't mind that. For that reason, we also had a short discussion with Remsense below, where 'Q/queen regnant' was briefly considered. Piccco (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I would still very much like to emphasize she was Pharaoh. As I said, "Queen" is ambiguous word, whereas "Pharaoh" means "ruler of Ancient Egypt in their own right" regardless of other titles like nesu, hekau or basileus. Would you like for example "she was last active hellenistic pharaoh ruling from 51 to 30 BC"? Could be add some link or two, if you want, but neverthless, "hellenistic pharaoh" would emphasize both her reign in her own right, plus that she was hellenistic monarch. Piccco you brought Ptolemy I is named basileus on his page, but thing is he is named both basileus and pharaoh on his page - I think it would be okay to describe Cleopatra as "Queen and Pharaoh" or "Queen and last hellenistic active Pharaoh". Title Pharaoh is anachronistically used to cover all other, do also title of Basileus/Basilissa, but I am okay if you want to emphasize Greek part of heritage, so I am okay with describing someone as King and Pharaoh/Queen and Pharaoh.

Sobek2000 (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Queen regnant

Okey, but I will clarify she is queen regnant. I hope it's okay with you. Sobek2000 (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

We can just link the word Queen with the respective article then. Piccco (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

That's sounds! I will do it. Thanks. Sobek2000 (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

That is overlinking, and arguably an Easter egg. In my view, the prose is perfectly fine how it is, and just because we haven't explicitly specified queen regnant does not mean there is actual confusion, as one would not assume she was merely queen consort from the text as written. Remsense ‥ 论 22:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I was confused when I was reading Wikipedia for years, and I know mamy other people are confused too about her status. I do believe that it is good to clarify, as Wikipedia is intended to make people find clear answer, not make them confused. Word "Queen" sadly is ambiguous. In case of such ratę case as woman in Ancient times, who ruled im her own right, it's good to emphasize this. Sobek2000 (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, in my view we should state it directly if we're to state it. I am not sure the best way to do this. I am apprehensive about attaching a footnote, but that may be a solution. Remsense ‥ 论 22:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

If I simply write "queen regnant of the Ptolemaic Kingdom" is this be okay? Sobek2000 (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sobek2000 It would be better if you waited until there is explicit agreement when we are discussing, instead of always rushing to edit. Stop being in a hurry! Piccco (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Remsense, as I didn't think there would be much confusion about this. Remsense, what do you think about: was Queen regnant of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt? Personally, I'm neutral, I guess. We could wait a little in case PericlesofAthens, or another experienced editor, expresses an opinion too. Piccco (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry! I think "queen regnant" should be from small letters, if you approve this option, or you go back to Queen alone. I have done all and explained all my arguments. There was confusion indeed - "Queen" might be consort or regent, and I wanted to emphasize she ruled in her own right, not simply in name of her brothers/son. I have nothing more to say. Now I leave decision to you. Sobek2000 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Help with sourcing style

Hi, I was already asking for help with this few weeks ago, but I think my request was somehow lost and forgotten, so I want to ask again. I had made this addition at the end of section "Relationship with Julius Caesar": It is suggested, based on Cicero's letter, that Cleopatra might have been pregnant at that time with her and Caesar's second child; if so, this potential pregnancy ended in loss of a baby[source]. A few months later, Cleopatra allegedly [source] had Ptolemy XIV killed by poisoning, elevating her son Caesarion as her co-ruler.

[I highlighted on bold things written by me.]

This edition was reverted because 'Sourcing style was also inconsistent with the rest of the article'. I had provided sources according to template from wikipedia.

For first sentence: Tyldesley, Joyce (2009). Cleopatra: Last Queen of Egypt. Profile Books. p. 144. ISBN 978-1861979018.

For word 'allegedly': Tyldesley, Joyce (2009). Cleopatra: Last Queen of Egypt. Profile Books. pp. 145-146. ISBN 978-1861979018."Josephus, consistently anti-Cleopatra and prone to seeping statements, offers no proof in support of his allegation. (...) it is important to remember that estimated average life expectancy for men who survived infancy in Ptolemaic Egypt was only thrirty-three. To die at just fifteen years of age was sad, but it was by no means unusual".

I wish to brought those changes back however, I still don't know how add source properly, so they would "align" with sourcing style of article. Could someone be kind enough to help me with them? Sobek2000 (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you link the specific revision you're speaking about? I can't immediately identify it. (See Help:Diffs, and if you need more help let me know.) Remsense ‥ 论 16:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I think in this. Revision as of 18:17, 14 December 2024

I apologize if this is not in the format you wanted. Sobek2000 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That works just fine, thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 16:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This can sometimes be unintuitive for people learning the ins and outs. This article uses a citation style where the works cited are all listed together in the "Sources" subsection, and the inline citations to pages of those works use short citation templates, listed right above at the bottom.

It seems you were citing Joyce (2008), which we already have in the Sources section. I am not exactly sure of the steps on Visual editor, but instead of the full book information like before, you would just need to insert {{sfnp|Joyce|2008|p=144}} etc., which would link down to the full citation. I hope that mostly makes sense, and let me know if you need more help like I said. Remsense ‥ 论 16:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I had small issue, because edition I cite is from 2009 - ISBN is different and pages might be bit different. Should I add this edition in list of sources as individual position or should I added additional year to present position? Sobek2000 (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

If it's only the following year it's almost certainly just a reprinting or online release difference or something. I wouldn't worry about it. If you really want to be sure, you can look at the existing citations to the book and make sure they line up. Remsense ‥ 论 17:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I went all references and even copied them to office program to search for Tyldesley - but looks she was never cited, even if her book is present in bibliography. I once had situation when I looked up book who was same year, same place - and quotes did not match up; it could be original author mistake (one quote was found 4 pages later, but other was not); but it could be there were plural prints in different formats. I don't want to assume text matches. Sobek2000 (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I think it would be okay to replace the given edition with yours so you can add your citations. Feel free to do that if you want, and I'll take a look and tweak anything that needs it. Remsense ‥ 论 18:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for all your adivces - I implemented changes, I hope that all looks good now. Sobek2000 (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I completely forgot - one of those citations supposed to contains quote. I added quote, but if you wish change it into note, feel free - I was not sure if quotes should be in notes, or average citation is enough. Sobek2000 (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)