Talk:Cleopatra

There is Still Vandalism

There is still a bit of vandalism on the page. For example, under the Caesar and Caesarion Section the last line reads: "i can not beleave that she merriead her brother and had kids". It'd be good if this got fixed. Minathequeena (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also nonsense about Isaac Newton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.217.194 (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleopatra

"Cleopatra" should be directed to the disambiguation page. If you search for "Henry" you don't get redirected to say any of the "Henry III", so what makes this any different? There were many women with the title/name Cleopatra.

Cleopatra I of Egypt Cleopatra II of Egypt Cleopatra III of Egypt Cleopatra IV of Egypt Cleopatra V of Egypt Cleopatra VI of Egypt Cleopatra VII Cleopatra Selene I Cleopatra Selene II Cleopatra Thea Cleopatra of Mauretania Cleopatra of Macedon Cleopatra Eurydice of Macedon Cleopatra of Pontus —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanderVK (talk • contribs) 12:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Family Tree Is Wrong

There are serious mistakes in the "Family Tree" section. First of all it lists her sister Arsinoe before Cleopatra VII, in fact Arsinoe was her youngersister. It lists both her youngest brother Ptolemy and her son Caesarion as "Ptolemy XV". Both brothers of Cleopatra were younger than the famous queen. Where is the older sister Cleopatra Tryphaena? She isn't mentioned at all! It would be also a good idea to list each King or Pharaoh Ptolemy by their popular given names, such as the founder of the dynasty as Ptolemy I Store (the Saviour) or Cleopatra's father as Ptolemy XIII Auletes (the Lute Player). 76.124.107.18 (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)buddha

Actually the Idea that Cleopatra had an older Sister named Tryphena is a historical misunderstanding. The only Ptolemy named Tryphena was an Aunt of Cleopatra's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleopatra Tryhane was her Mother, Cleopatra V and VI are the same person.

HBO content

this article needs further review because of some parts were taken from the TV series "Rome". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.175.139 (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant

Was she a redhead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.72.25.210 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of her physical appearence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.242.8 (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Pharaohs kept their heads covered at all times. Very few actually ever witnessed their natural headdresses. (Fraaaaaaaank (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC))

Cleopatra VII

Cleopatra(Philopator)Has been very popular throughout the entire world.She has been known to have three sisters.Berenice IV and Tryphaena.Her father was an honored pharoah of Egypt.Cleopatra lived in Alexandria,Egypt.When she was around 16 to 18,she married one of her brothers.then Julius Caesar,then Marc Antony.Cleopatra was last of the Ptolemies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.59.40 (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

how old was cleapatra when she became ruler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.173.76 (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

She was seventeen or eighteen when she first ruled Egypt on her own. Tathunen (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Body

What happened to her body after her death? Burial, cremation...? A-G J-J L-C (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Octavian supposedly allowed Cleopatra a traditional burial to appease the Alexandrians. She was said to be interred with Antony, but the location of the tomb (and likely that of many other Ptolemaic monarchs) was lost over time. A popular theory is that the tomb sunk to the bottom of the Alexandrian harbor with the majority of the royal quarters during a series of earthquakes centuries ago, but no one truly knows for certain.Tathunen (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleopatra and Julius Caesar

The "Cleopatra and Julius Caesar" section of this article has been vandalized to read, "hi hi hi hi hi hi hi." Is there any way to revert back to the previous, un-vandalized text? Deadbeat 007 (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

the information about the assassination of Pompey comes directly from the TV show Rome, and includes a few inaccurate facts, as well as subjective opinions which are based on the television series portrayal of the event.

It was not Gaius Iulius Caesar who erected a golden statue of Cleopatra, but Octavian to present it as loot. Appianus confused the two Caesars, as Dio Cassius did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.238.146.36 (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Dates of Importance

There is a 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)

She is African (race)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/also_in_the_news/7945333.stm --144.122.250.146 (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

She may be part African, no one is suggesting that she is only African. A better article is at [1] but there are a number of 'ifs'. Is it definitely her sister's skeleton? Even if it is, they had different mothers, so how relevant is Arsinoe's parentage? What we have is that it appears that someone who may be her sister might (note "it could suggest a mixture of ancestry") be partially African. I wouldn't be surprised, but so what? dougweller (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No she was not 'African' nor 'part African', as these pseudo scientists are trying to claim. What is up with these people bound and determine to make the Ptolemies 'mixed' origins all of the sudden? They are basing their whole theory on the shape of a skull, methods that not only are outdated in the field of anthropology but on a skull that they DO NOT HAVE, and on suppose measurements taking in Turkey in the 1920s. Their whole claim that her sister Arsinoe was 'African' and therefore Cleopatra is their claim that the skull, which they DON'T have, is long shaped. How ridiculous stupid is that. Last time I checked determining a person's 'race' based upon the shape of skulls has gone out a long time ago. Not to mention the fact that long shaped skulls, the "scientific" term is dolichocephalic is also common among many other races including Southern EUROPEANS, what Cleopatra, Arsinoe and the inbred Ptolemaic Dynasty actually were in origin. So no, having a dolichocephalic shaped head does not mean she or her sister were of 'African' origins. As the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia by Charles George Herbermann shows, dolichocephalic, or long head shaped people were not viewed to be only Africans but Europeans, Middle Eastern, Asian too. [2]; The Framework of Human Behaviour By Julian Blackburn [3]. Bones By Elaine Dewar; Essentials of physical anthropology By Robert Jurmain ; The New international encyclopaedia edited by Daniel Coit Gilman; The rise and fall of the Caucasian race By Bruce David Baum; But like I said modern science does not determine a person's race based upon on such terms and on their skull anymore. Angar432 (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A bit more on this can be found at these sites: [4] [5] [6] dougweller (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

They are so desperate to make this Dynasty 'mixed' origins that they would say and do anything. For the record the skeleton is between 5 ft 1 in - 5 ft 3 in, typical of Greek long-headed crania that representative of the bulk of the Mid-Helladic population familiar in Crete and Anatolia that were of short stature. There numerous things wrong with their dubious claims:

1) They give the skeleton remains a vague 200 year date range with that kind of dating she could be just about anyone from the Anatolian region.

2) No inscriptions identifying the "inhabitant" as Arsinoe.

3) No DNA to compare the skeleton to for identification.

4) No skull to conduct facial reconstruction and those they used based upon measurements from a century ago any professional would tell you are bogus. You need the actual skull or at least cast of the skull to conduct facial reconstructions.

5) An "unusual" tomb shape that wasn't SO unusual in the ancient Greco-Roman world; see Tower of the Winds an octagonal marble tower located in the city of Athens, Greece, near the west gate of the Roman Market by Andronicus of Cyrrhus around 50 BC; might or might not refer to a lighthouse that also no longer exists are evidence of pretty much nothing.

6) Lastly, people are forgetting the fundamental rule as to WHY her mother COULD NOT have been of 'African' or native Egyptian origins: because the only way a Ptolemy inherits the throne was if the mother had a direct bloodline to the Ptolemiac Dynasty, and a phantom 'African' or native Egyptian woman would NOT have a direct bloodline to the Ptolemiac Dynasty because she would NOT be of Ptolemaic royalty. The Ptolemaic Dynasty followed the matrilinear nature of succession, a system in which one belongs to one's mother's lineage; inheritance of property or titles through the female line. This is why extensive inbreeding matings occurred in the Ptolemaic Dynasty to prevent pretenders to the throne when they tried to bolster their claims by marriage to a sister. Such marriage though lead to amphimetric among different male relatives over the blood related female relatives of the Greco-Macedonian Dynasties.

Given this Dynasty's inbreeding habits, I very much doubt either Cleopatra or her sister Arsinoe were of 'mixed origins'. Plus inbreeding was a common practice among the inhabitants of Greco-Roman Egypt. There is unequivocal evidence of legally condoned and socially favored brother-sister and parent-child marriage among COMMON people from Roman Egypt, and people seriously question this practice was not widely spread among the Royal Family who's main goal was to preserve their royal bloodline? Unbelievalbe.

Well the problem is her father is called the bastard. You are correct the Dynasty's consanguinous unions were the practice. But her father is a "bastard". Something must have been very conspicuous for him to earn this moniker-- if the affair were with another Greek it would not have been noticed. The woman is the throne, who was the father? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.113.168 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"The marriage of brother and sister was very common occurrence among the ancient Egyptians, practised by the Ptolemies as well as by their subjects. The Ptolemaic strain was probably a very strong one, such as that reported by Voisin, as it endured for many generations and gave evidence of powerful family traits. Many letters have been found addressed to "My sister and wife", while various other documents clearly indicate this double relationship. It was a recognized legal marriage, and occasioned no such condemnation as is now felt under the circumstances."~ Economic and Social Position of Women in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt By Mary Staunton Glover

BROTHER-SISTER MARRIAGE IN ROMAN EGYPT; Brother-sister and parent-child marriage outside royal families in ancient egypt and iran; Brother-Sister Marriage (Angar432 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

I just watched this suppose 'documentary', its mostly like watching a fictionalized movie, then a historical documentary. Here's the part of her supposed ancestry, which is all based upon a skull they do not have and of which they say "certainly looks more white European":

"We can look at the bones on the edge of the nose like showing the nasal root here between the eyes to tell us the prominence and width and shape of the nose."

"She had a very prominent nasal root, kind of like ancient Greek sculpture, that kind classical ehm nose shape."

"She's got quite a distinctive nose which is very straight, and I think now we find esthetically pleasing, its a beautiful feature."

"The distance from the forehead to the back of the skull is long in relations to the over all height of the cranium and that's something you see quite frequently in certain populations one of which is ancient Egyptians another would be black African groups will also show that characteristic ehm this one certainly looks more white European but it has this long head shaped it could suggest a mixture of ancestry."

So basically for them to establish that it really is Arsinoe they claimed her Classical Greek nose and white skull given she really was of Greek origins, a skull they don't have but call African-Egyptian because its long shaped, because I mean everyone knows since they ruled Egypt and Egypt is in Africa she had to have been African-Egyptian according to their ridiculous thinking, and even though long shaped skulls also common among many Mediterranan and Southern Europeans - the origins that we know Arsinoe and Cleopatra really were - we'll still just name Egyptians and Africans as having such shaped skulls since she did come from a Dynasty that ruled Egypt and Egypt is in Africa - throw in what they call "papyri-bundle" columns to give the story more of an Egyptian flavor, to me they looked like ancient Greco-Roman place holders found thru out the ancient Greco-Roman world, and whamo they magically come to conclusion this is really Arsinoe of 'mixed' origins even though most of their claims are dubious at best, such as the shape of a skull that is found in many other people including Southern Europeans; and even the though their own measurement shows the skull to certainly looks more white European then Egyptian or African but "we will claim its mixed because of its long shaped" even though as it was stated long shaped skulls also common among many Mediterranan people, including white Southern Europeans. Guess fiction counts as history nowadays. Oh and two final points, her age doesn't sinc up with Arsinoe's death and the tomb itself was build decades after Arsinoe was killed but lets disregard those pieces of information too in the name of fiction. Unbelievable. (Angar432 (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

-First of all, she was african which is a place-continent, Cleopatra was from Macedonian-Greek and Egyptian etc. origin;, and African as European or Eurasian or Mediterranean are NOT races, but continents and regions were the People born and with many diferent etnich nations groups within, mostly Atlantic-Mediterranean-Europeans-Eurasian-Northafricans, other Africans etc, in the case at the time. those terms are not "races". Get it for once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.163.75 (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Angar432, thanks for taking the time to defend history against the politically-motivated revisionism and cultural relativism promoted by certain groups. Koalorka (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure, Koalorka. :-) Angar432 (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Search for tomb

On [7] the search for the grave of Cleopatra is reported. Should this be included here, or is it too early yet? Wiki-uk (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. And I saw this claiming "Most recently, a group of French archaeologists digging near Abu Qir Bay in Alexandria found the ruins of Cleopatra’s Palace. They, too, suggested that they would find the queen’s tomb, but nothing has been unearthed so far." --JustUser (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No new news as of May 15. A brief mentioning should be added to the article if there is total confirmation. If it is all speculation at this point, I do not see a point in adding this to the article. If, however, it turns out that the location is the final resting place of Cleopatra, perhaps even a branch article to this one can be written about it. I would be happy to contribute with news articles, if that were the case.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

According to [8], a team of Greek archaeologists may have found the tomb. If true, there is the possibility that Cleopatra was unable to open the door once closed (as opposed to refused as we say in the Wikipedia entry). 97.125.248.187 (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2009 (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)

Cleopatra's sons and daughters

The article currents states that Cleopatra's son Caesarian was immediately captured and executed after Cleopatra's suicide but this has no citation. I had always understood that he disappeared and no one actually knows what happened to him. Of course some believed that Octavian had him killed, others that he'd escaped, but I don't believe anyone actually knows. I guess I'm saying this bit needs to have a citation or it should be amended. - Jim Jay 87.114.150.100 (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Numbering issue

This article lists Ptolemy XII as her immediate predecessor, but in other places I have seen Ptolemy XV and Ptolemy XVI listed as such. Could someone look at a non-Wikipedia peer-reviewed historical article to solve that issue? -The Mysterious El Willstro 71.181.150.198 (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of Ptolemy XVI. Her father was Ptolemy XII. When he died, she became queen. Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV were her brothers, who ruled alongside her. Ptolemy XV was her son, Caesarion, also a co-ruler. john k (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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 #She is African (Race) 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)

Will people please settle on Cleopatra's month of birth?

For the past year the month of Cleopatra's birth has been continually changed on her page, from January to October, and back and forth. If there is no official consensus as to what month Cleopatra was born in, just list her birth as 69 BC, without stating a month. It is poor form to continually change the month of Cleopatra's birth. 115.186.192.146 (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth by Susan Walker & Peter Higgs it is stated on pg. 129 that Cleopatra was born "at the end" of 69 BC. Now it is settled. Tathunen (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move no. 1

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.

Not moved. Clearly there is no consensus for this move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleopatra VII → Cleopatra — 'Cleopatra' redirects to this page anyway and to quote WP:NAME#Common names, "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article". I would argue that very few people say 'Cleopatra VII' and the vast majority of English-speakers (when talking about 'Cleopatra VII') just say 'Cleopatra'. —Philip Stevens (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Let's use our common sense (and use the common name) following the logic of Alexander the Great and Herod the Great. Let's avoid "technical-correct" names like Napoleon I of France and Victoria of the United Kingdom. STUFF the rules which "oblige" us to use such god-awful examples of bureaucratic blindness and simple stupidity. Flamarande (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Don't Support - there were lot's of Cleopatra's, and its appropriate to differentiate properly in the heading. This is an encyclopedia, after all. If the name was written in hieroglyphics then your comment re WP:NAME#Common names would be more relevant, but its not a big deal as it stands. The existing redirect does the job perfectly well, and the existing disambiguation page provides the necessary detailed support, although perhaps we might point out a bit more clearly on that list which of the many Cleopatra's was THE Cleopatra. Wdford (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess that your vote is an oppose. Notice that Encyclopaedia Britannica (a true encyclopaedia) uses 'Cleopatra' as title for its article. Shouldn't we follow its example of common sense and common usage instead of blindly obeying the awful wiki rules? Flamarande (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Worth bearing in mind that Britannica does not have our ability to create redirects. PatGallacher (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose It's not a particularly big deal since "Cleopatra" does redirect here and she is undoubtedly the primary meaning, but there have been confused attempts recently to subvert any consistent or coherent naming conventions for monarchs, I am therefore reluctant to make a move like this to anything other than a cognomen, there are other Cleopatras of Egypt which she does need to be disambiguated from. 78.86.26.211 (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Flamarande suggests using common sense and following the example of Alexander the Great and Herod the Great. Fine, if the proposal was to move to Cleopatra the Great. It isn't. The proposal is to move to Cleopatra and, as others have pointed out, there are other Cleopatras. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Encyclopaedia Britannica can afford to have the article at Cleopatra. They have no other articles on people called Cleopatra. Wikipedia has articles on 17 of them! Britannica may be a true encyclopaedia, but it's also a very limited and incomplete one! Skinsmoke (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? I guess this article doesn't exist then. Look, it depends upon the words you are using 'Cleopatra V', 'Cleopatra III', etc. Flamarande (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment I would even suggest that the article should be moved to "Cleopatra VII of Egypt", to be consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions and the other Cleopatras. PatGallacher (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2010 (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.

POV

Right at the beginning it says "Cleopatra VII... was the last effective pharaoh of Egypt's Ptolemaic dynasty," this is an opinion and does not belong on Wikipedia. Alinkinthefuture (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misreading this sentence. I suspect it is the word "effective" you are misunderstanding. In this context it means she was effectively the last pharaoh. Caesarion, her son by Caesar, was briefly proclaimed her successor as pharaoh, but never exercised power, before being killed by order of Octavian. Paul August ☎ 03:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The phrase is badly worded and needs rewording to make the meaning clear. It is ambiguous, hence Alinkinthefuture's comment. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: No consensus for move. Ucucha 14:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Cleopatra VII → Cleopatra VII of Egypt — This would be consistent with both Wikipedia naming conventions (see WP:NCROY) and the treatment of other Cleopatras (see Cleopatra (disambiguation)). The present title is an awkward halfway house. PatGallacher (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support, if we can't have the most commonly used name, we might as well have the name which best matches Wikipedia's naming convention. --Philip Stevens (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Unnecessary, and neither supported nor suggested by WP:NCROY, which limits itself to European and Muslim royalty, which almost all need disambiguation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That misunderstands some issues here. If you read WP:NCROY properly, you will see that European and Muslim royalty are not treated as inherently different from others, the crucial issue is that they tend to share a common stock of names. If the only royal Cleopatras were queens of Egypt then we could just disambiguate them by number, but if you look at Cleopatra (disambiguation) you will see that there were royal Cleopatras in Macedon, Pontus, and Jerusalem. PatGallacher (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe I read the language I helped write correctly: These following conventions apply to European monarchs since the fall of the Roman Empire (not, therefore, to the Byzantine Emperors), because they share much the same stock of names. This restricts the scope of the convention explicitly.

It does not apply - and was never intended to apply - to Hellenistic royalty, for whom there are standard and comprehensive conventions for disambiguation in modern languages. We should not be installing of Egypt on any of these; we should follow the Britannica in calling the wife of Ptolemy V Epiphanes Cleopatra I Syra; especially since Syra is ancient and the numbering modern (and debatable - although now uniform enough to include).

Where are these "standard and comprehensive conventions for disambiguation"? I don't see anything about this at WP:NCROY. We do use our normal convention for disambiguation with some ancient monarchs, see Darius. PatGallacher (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you won't; you will find them used in the academic literature on the Hellenistic period. This is one fundamental rule for WP:Article titles: use what reliable sources use.

WP:NCROY is our effort to untie the Gordian knot: reliable sources use Henry IV for a dozen different people, three of them very prominent monarchs, and we can't have the same title for all of them. But reliable sources - and unreliable ones - call the subject of this article Cleopatra - and call every other ancient Cleopatra something else ("Cleopatra of Macedon", "Cleopatra II", "Cleopatra Syra") in an effort not to confuse the reader; we should do the same. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to move this article, its proper place is simple Cleopatra; and the proper argument - not made expressly last time - is that she is WP:PRIMARYUSAGE: what 90% of our readers who type in Cleopatra will expect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is currently clearly labelled so as to not confuse the subject with any of the many other Cleopatras, and the redirect takes a "Cleopatra" request to this article anyway, so everything is already fine as it is. Wdford (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wdford reads as being opposition to any move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. She has to be the VII^th of something, and if there were Cleopatras of elsewhere, then her name should include of what she was the VII^th Cleopatra of. And, at a glance, all but one other Cleopatra of Egypt have the same parenthesis. Rennell435 (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • She has to be the VII^th of something. Why, for Heaven's sake? Do you find Anthony and Cleopatra an obscure title? But even if we include the numeral, it no more requires a place than John D. Rockefeller III. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree with PMAnderson. The subject of this article is Cleopatra. She is famous under that name and nearly everybody with basic education knows who she is/was and recognize her. Most of us will be confused by 'Cleopatra VII', and the proposed title 'Cleoptra VII of Egypt' manages to be even worse. I would compare this with the Roman emperors. Are we going to use 'Augustus I of the Roman Empire', 'Tiberius I of the Roman Empire', 'Claudius I of the Roman Empire', etc? For Chris'sake let us use our common sense (and common names) and not blindly follow the rules. Flamarande (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• oppose: why bother? It's easy to explain the subject of an article in the opening paragraph. Explaining the subject in the name is a waste of time.--Marhawkman (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Everyone knows her as "Cleopatra", and that page redirects to here. The article should be at "Cleopatra" per policy. Placing her at a long and unnecessarily convoluted title makes wikipedia look amateurish. DrKiernan (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Vandalism

This article should be protected because it gets vandalised pretty often, at least that is the impression I got when I look at the revision history. Löjliga element (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It is constant. This article should remain permanently semi-protected.Tathunen (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for three months. That might have been a conservative decision, as vandalism is likely to just resume after the three-month mark. If there's consensus here, I'll extend the semi-protection to infinite. Ucucha 02:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd wait three months, then if it resumes...--Marhawkman (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Eytmology

Maybe should include that in the ancient Greek language, "Cleopatra" literally means "glory of the father", while "Philopator" means "love of the father"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Unable to edit article - wording change

In the section "Caesar and Caesarion," there is a VERY poorly-written (grammar went out the door on this one) sentence. It reads: Nine months after their first meeting, Cleopatra gave birth to their baby, in 47 BC. It should read: Nine months after their first meeting, in 47 B.C., Cleopatra gave birth to their son, Caesarion. Or something of the like. Currently, the sentence reads that the son's name is "in 47 BC." Can't edit the page or I'd do it myself. 24.107.190.142 (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Donations of Alexandria

Although I applaud the new editor's recent attempts to reference his additions, neither of those references ([22] and [23] at present, actually seem to be reliable sources which support his thesis. The disputed addition is:

Caesarion was not only elevated having coregency with Cleopatra, but also proclaimed with many titles, including god, son of god and king of kings. Egyptians thought Cleopatra to be a reincarnation of virgin goddess Isis, as she dictated herself, and she was planning to replace herself as a Greek Aphrodite and Roman Venus, all this part of a bigger agenda called "new era" or "new age".< ref>http://www.tyndalehouse.com/egypt/ptolemies/cleopatra_vii.htm</ref>< ref>http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-028.html</ref>

The first reference doesn't support the thesis, and seems to be published by a Christian organization without much claim to Roman or Egyptian scholarship. The second reference is a contributed article, (on 16 April 02, from cross-indexing), and there's little indication of editorial review nor of the expertise of the contributor, Andrew Mason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Donations of Alexandria needs own section, possibly with a new era section or separate. Or complete new new era page.

Sources are valid enough to be written as it is. Im not giving up. Im gonna go trough every paper, book and internet source I can get a hold of, if that's what it takes. References given are more than valid enough compared to average on Wikipedia's sourcing. Im having major work done with these subjects, and will be improving the articles recently edited.WillBildUnion (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe not that Andrew Mason, but I wouldn't put it past him.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This all stems from cherry picking by {{user|A Nobody]] from a book by Ronald Syme. That editor added [9] which says ""was planning a war of revenge that was to array all the East against Rome, establish herself as empress of the world at Rome and inaugurate a new universal kingdom." But Syme (whose quote this is) makes it clear that this was just a contemporary belief, and he carries on to suggest that she may have had the much more limited desire "to secure and augment her Ptolemaic kingdom under the protection of Rome". Because of that I've removed the new era bit. Other badly sourced articles are not an excuse. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, she and J. Caesar where planning a new kingdom, but the opposition in Rome was huge, which eventually led him to adopt Augustus as heir to his fortune, not the "bastard son of Egypt" as the Romans mocked him. Cleopatra continued the plans with Mark Anthony and when Anthony lost the war there are sources saying she also might of looked for coregency with Octavian. Nevertheless I should bring sources to daylight, and indeed I will. I urge people interested on the subjects of these and regarding the donations of Alexandria, and the "new era", also read one of the latest books about Cleopatra by Wolfgang Schuller: Cleopatra empress of three cultures, ISBN 3498063642. Wolfgang Schuller is an emeritus professor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillBildUnion (talk • contribs) 12:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Emeritus basically means retired, still affiliated and active, we'd only mention that in a biography. Until you find quotes from Cleopatra and/or Caesar where they actually say they were planning a new kingdom, what we have is opinion. Just as I quoted Syme, we can also quote Schuller's opinion, but not state it as fact. You'll need a quote, page number, book details, etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why was Cleopatra wearing a triple uraeus? Commonly one uraeus were worn by pharaohs, and double uraeus was rare, but Cleopatra wore triple? According to stele interpretation by London University College the triple uraeus represents Cleopatra, Julius Caesar and Caesarion as the new Isis, Osiris and Horus. Fate of history changed when JC was murdered and Mark got to take the place of Dionysos Osiris, as proclaimed at the donations of Alexandria. There totally was an ongoing merge of the cultures (deities) and rulership of the Roman empire by the mighty people. Julius Caesar was killed because he started to be an silly old man, over 50, wearing a purple triumvirate toga every day, staying seated at the temples of Apollo and Venus when senate came to meet him, and planning to institute an inheritable monarchy with a new dynasty by gens Julia & gens Ptolemy.WillBildUnion (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

And this is mainly original research, please stop using talk pages to argue a point of view. Also, 'fate of history' doesn't mean anything to me in English. Do you mean 'course of history'? And if you do, please again do not add it without a source actually saying that, otherwise it is just more OR. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

All these edits seem to tend in one direction- to portray Cleopatra as a "Virgin Mary" to Caesarion's "Jesus" (son of god etc etc). The problem here is not so much the facts but the implicit (admitedly only implicit) synthesis of what is quite common Hellenistic imagery to imply that Cleo planned to create a new religion and universal empire based on herself and her divine son, and that a few years later along came another divine son whose followers did just that, presumably borrowing the Cleopatran masterplan. It's this implicit agenda that's the issue. Otherwise, is it important that Caesarion was in a sense a "son of [a] god" because Caesar was his dad and Caesar had been deified? Does it mean anything to us? Paul B (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The intention is not to portray Cleopatra nor Caesarion in any other context than what it comes to Isis and Horus and perhaps cult of Amen. There is no agenda.WillBildUnion (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent talk page comment on Talk:Jesus suggests otherwise. I don't see why we need to list the largely irrelevant and uncited titles "son of god" and "king of kings". Paul B (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Im not to drag any of this to the Jesus article. Issa is a subject of completely different, as is Cleopatra and Caesarion. Do not mix these. Im not seeing parallels. What was written in the talk:jesus about alternative theories was completely fictional. All these are separate, not linked and really, have nothing to do with each other. Articles son of god and king of kings were updated because Caesarion had these titles, and is very notable because of his parents and stepfather were and are one of the most well-known, famous and celebrated people. Notable enough to mention, despite perhaps Caesarion lived a short life, and some 20 years isn't that short. (people at medieval times died at 40).WillBildUnion (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In Talk:Jesus, you said:

See for example Caesarion and donations of Alexandria. Read also what Cleopatra VII had planned. Caesarion fled to India and came back years later to hang out with the Essene and Nazorean people. Isa/Issa means son of Isis. Issa Nezer means means branch of the son of Isis. There are no historical mentions of Nazareth, Isa of Nazareth mean son of Isis branc of son.

Caesarion fled to India and Himalaya, spent some 15-20 years there, before returning to Syria/Palestine to look for his sister and brothers. He had became highly spiritual during his journey and wanted to conquer back his dad's kingdom, but not with weapons and bloodshed, but by creating a new religion (as was planned in the new era plan Cleopatra VII (and also Julius Caesar)). Caesarion was thought to be a son of god as his father was declared a god by the Roman senate after he was murdered. He had already years ago taken a new identity Issa (son of Isis) Nezer (Nazar). After returning to Syria/Palestine, Jesus found his sister Cleopatra Selene II who took a new identity Mary Magdalene and his brothers Alexander Helios who is known as Thomas Judas Didymus and Ptolemy Philadelphus who is known as James. It is not known, if the crucifixion happened, who of the four siblings were actually hanging on the cross. Anno Domini could refer to anointing. Perhaps year 0 or 1 refers to year when John the Baptist baptised Caesarion, so that he could start his public work in Jerusalem. Otherwise years roughly 50-1BCE and 1-50CE were superimposed. Caesarion had already spent time in the Essene community, teaching them spirituality and they were highly cosmological, a new group evolved which were the Nazorean (branch of son of Isis), who were not that hardcore in their devotion to asceticism as the Esseneans were. Nazoreanism eventually evolved into christianity that we know today, although heavily altered by the Piso family (caretakers of Caesars will) of Rome who edited the later canonized NT gospels and by the emperor Constantine I and the likes like of the Nicea council. The philosophy of the Essenes and Nazoreans, refuse of violence (wars), temple sacrificial, nonacceptance of slavery and vegetarian eating were in conflict with the agenda of pharisees and Roman emperors, hence the new age medieval version of christianity. Jesus also spoke that he is an example of how to live, act and think, not anything people could outsource their killing, murdering, robbing and raping on.

WillBildUnion (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

At no point did you indicate at all that it was fiction, and if it was, you should think about whether you should be here -- this is an encyclopedia, not a fiction hosting site. Per WP:SPADE, I'm saying your edits appear to have an agenda behind them. It is pretty apparent that you are trying to do more than make comparisons between the two. We all know you have an agenda here, no point in hiding it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• CLEOPATRA WAS CAUCASOID WITH ANCIET GREEK/MACEDONIAN HERITAGE; WAS EGYPTIAN ONLY FOR JUS SOLI AND NOT JUS SANGUINIS(FOR JUS DNA SHE WAS ANCIET NORTH-GREEK)..!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.25.180 (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

CAPSLOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL AND TOTALLY NOT FOR N00BS!!!one!!!!! Turn off your capslock. Also, sauce? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleopatra WAS Greek

Cleopatra was Greek. Everybody knows that she was the first Egyptian Pharaoh in generations to speak her people's language. Well, then again she was a mix, because she was Greek/Egyptian. But mostly Greek, explaining why all of her family except for her spoke only Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chavah R. F. (talk • contribs) 19:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only that. The native 'Egyptian' language at the time, whatever it was, was not her native language. How well did she speak or know it? Now, keep in mind that the Rosetta Stone, through which Western civilization finally 'decyphered' the Hieroglyphic paleontological evidence in Egyptian monuments dates approximately from Cleopatra's -i.e. the Ptolemaic Greek/Macedonian dynasty rule- period. The stone is actually just a Ptolemaic period Greek text that is rendered in both Greek and in Hieroglyphics. How well was the ancient original native written Hieroglyphic language known at this time, at all? How reliable is the translation to 'contemporary' Greek. through which the ancient language and civilization are currently 'decyphered?' Just some epistemological musings inspired by your off the cuff observation above... warshy^talk 20:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Chavah R. F., Cleopatra was not 'mixed' she was fully of Greek Ptolemiac lineage on both her mother and father's sides. She didn't only learn to speak Egyptian, she also spoke around seven other languages. Her learning Egyptian isn't an indication that she was part Egyptian, only that she was a smart woman who knew that educating herself will help advance her power through out the region. Her first and only native language was always Greek. We even have her handwriting on official royal documents in Greek. (Angar432 (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)).

I don't understand why this debate continues. We know that Cleopatra was half Macedonian Greek, but no one knows the true identity of her mother. It is ASSUMED that it was Cleopatra V Tryphaena, but in truth the royal line was purely patrilineal, so her mother could've been virtually anyone from a queen to a concubine and it would not have mattered. Yes, she could've been completely Greek. Yes, she could've been half black. For all anyone knows her mother could have been blonde and blue-eyed. The fact that she was fluent in both Greek and Egyptian means nothing, especially when one considers when and where she lived. Her grasp of numerous languages indicates intelligence, nothing more. No one knows her full ancestry. Chances are we never will.Tathunen (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The claim that Cleopatra might have had black ancestry is total nonsense. Obviously her mother was not some black African concubine or Royal Queen of another ethnic race but part of the Greek-Macedonian Royal Families who arose to power after Alexander the Great's death. For one royals usually do not intermix outside their own kind, especially back then, they tented to breed among themselves when it came to producing royal heirs, as all royals have done so through out history. Secondly the high degree of inbreeding is very well documented among the Ptolemies they were notorious for it, so the likelihood that her mother was not of the Ptolemaic bloodline is also highly unlikely. Thirdly if her mother was a royal of some other ethnicity or race it would have been such an unusual act that a high born royal princess of another country/kingdom marrying into the Ptolemaic Dynasty would have been important enough to be documented and yet it is not because her mother was more then likely part of the Greek-Macedonian Royal Dynasties that the Ptolemies surrounded themselves with and we have historical records that show they tented to intermarry with each other and these Greek-Macedonian Royal Dynasties. So far there is no credible evidence to suggest Cleopatra or her siblings had 'black' ancestry, but there is plenty of evidence that clearly shows them as inbreeding Greek-Macedonian royals on both their patrilineal and matrilineal lines. Also lets not forget that it was through the mother's line that the Ptolemies gained royal recognition, it would be highly unlikely that a child of a mother who was not of Greek-Macedonian origins would rise to heir of the Dynasty. (Angar432 (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC))

This is probably true, but the point is that there is no proof either way.Tathunen (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

IMHO "no proof either way" simply means that the theory that she had black ancestors should be clearly dismissed. There is a theory but it isn't based in scientific facts or ancient records. The theory should be mentioned but clearly explained as wishful thinking. Flamarande (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

cleopatra is a kinda weird but is awesome she has a big story that its so hard to describe!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.83.253 (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Angar432 and Flamarande are totally right. The Ptolemies were Pharaohs, and it is well attested that the legitimacy of the mother was very important for them; they did after all marry incestuously, in ancient Pharaonic style, and there are known cases of illegitimate children of Ptolemaic kings, such as Ptolemy Apion, who had inferior status. In addition, the Ptolemies held territories on Cyprus and in Cyrenaica (Libya), where the inhabitants certainly weren't black (and indeed few of the ancient Egyptians were black Africans, they were largely the ancestors of today's Egyptians, who are not black Africans). Luckily, nobody has tried to confuse matters even more by suggesting that Cleopatra was half-Cypriotic - there would be as little evidence for that theory as for her African origin. As has been mentioned many times before, Cleopatra was the subject of fierce Roman propaganda from her enemy Augustus. Any irregularities in her heritage - such as a native Egyptian mother - would very likely have been used against her.Sponsianus (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

a matter of months?

Copy from article (black is mine): "Ptolemy XII died in March 51 BC, thus by his will making the 18-year-old Cleopatra and her brother, the 10-year-old Ptolemy XIII joint monarchs" and then: " In the autumn of 48 BC, Pompey fled from the forces of Caesar to Alexandria, seeking sanctuary. Ptolemy, only fifteen years old at that time".

Something seems to be incorrect :). ? Thx--151.51.5.44 (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)