Talk:Cleopatra

Question Re. Narrative Flow in the Lead

I have a question that arises out of an effort to make a few minor tweaks to improve the narrative flow in the lead. I'm not understanding the communicative intent of this sentence (quoted as of 18 April 2020): "After losing the 48 BC Battle of Pharsalus in Greece against his rival Julius Caesar (a Roman dictator and consul) in Caesar's Civil War, the Roman statesman Pompey fled to Egypt, where Ptolemy had him killed while Caesar occupied Alexandria." It is preceded and followed by statements involving Cleopatra, but it is unclear to me what this sentence communicates about Cleopatra. Is its purpose to illustrate what brought Caesar to Egypt? What brought Pompey to Egypt? Both? Something else? Other than the facts, what it conveys about Cleopatra is unclear. Thanks for any elaboration anyone can provide. – Kekki1978 talk 03:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kekki1978: Hello! This is a consequence of too many cooks spoiling the broth, so to speak, by attempting to shorten the lead section to what they perceive as the optimal size. In doing so, however, they have excised too many critical and contextual details that are useful to the reader, in my opinion. Pompey fled to Egypt because he had no other recourse after losing the Battle of Pharsalus. Pompey had previously met Ptolemy XII Auletes in Rome during the latter's exile and didn't just know him personally, he was the chief architect of restoring him to the throne in Egypt. Pompey was the one who had Aulus Gabinius, the Roman governor of Syria, raise an army for ousting Ptolemy's rival daughter Berenice IV from power in Egypt. By the time Ptolemy lost the Battle of Pharsalus Ptolemy XII Auletes was dead, but his son Ptolemy XIII was sitting on the throne and engaging in his own civil war with his sister Cleopatra VII. Pompey trusted the Ptolemies as close confidants and political allies, so he chose Egypt as a logical place to flee and had no idea that young Ptolemy XIII (or rather his court eunuchs) would ever dream of having him executed in a scheme to appease his rival Julius Caesar. The calculated move to assassinate Pompey backfired for Ptolemy XIII, of course, when hostilities broke out between his faction and Caesar's Roman army stationed in Alexandria. If it wasn't for Pompey, Caesar most likely would not have come to Egypt in the first place to act as a mediator resolving the conflict between Ptolemy XIII and Cleopatra, or perhaps Caesar would have arrived sometime much later in his career due to Egypt's importance as a source of vital grain shipments to Rome. Whatever the case, Pompey was the catalyst for Caesar meeting Cleopatra and then securing her on the throne with the death of Ptolemy XIII in the 47 BC Battle of the Nile. While all of this cannot be explained in the lead, I will try to do so succinctly with a single sentence simply noting that Pompey was a political ally to the Ptolemies, hence the reason for fleeing to Egypt. Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: Hi! Great job with cultivating the article! So, the purpose of that paragraph is to illustrate how Cleopatra ascended the throne, and the purpose of that sentence (now sentences) in particular is to show how Caesar came to Egypt? Thanks. – Kekki1978 talk 14:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kekki1978: yes, that is correct. Caesar came to Egypt not yet knowing that Pompey had been killed and was still pursuing him and trying to capture him as a prisoner of war following the Battle of Pharsalus. It might be true or not, but Caesar was said to have wept when he learned that Pompey died, on account of his previous personal friendship and (now broken) marriage alliance with him, and wanted the propaganda victory of a benevolent leader showing clemency to his bested foes. Caesar was undoubtedly shocked when he learned Ptolemy XIII (and his advisers) had Pompey - a former Roman consul - killed for the sole purpose of appeasing Caesar and currying favor with him. It was all around a terrible move when it would have been better to capture Pompey and hand him over to Caesar, especially considering how Caesar and Ptolemy XIII came into conflict with each other soon afterwards. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: I read the previous discussions about the lead in the archives of the Talk pages here. I recognize that the lead has seen numerous "cooks" and lots of edits in the journey to GA & FA status. In your opinion, does the organization you described here still hold true? "I carefully planned the current setup so that the first paragraph would provide essential details, the second would summarize her childhood up to the birth of her son allegedly sired by Caesar, the third paragraph would detail her relationship with Antony and their subsequent downfall, and the fourth paragraph would explain her legacy and relevance in art and popular media." Thanks. – Kekki1978 talk 16:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kekki1978: Yes, I would say it's okay for the most part. On the issue of Pompey fleeing to Egypt, you highlighted a part that was highly problematic, far too vague for its own good, and desperately needed to be fixed with proper context and clarification. I can't say the same for other parts of the lead, which look okay. The overall organization of the lead section that you've mentioned here is also still intact. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest some minor copy-editing of the following 2 sentences in order to help the flow. In an effort to achieve consensus, I am making the suggestion here. If there are no significant objections, I will make the change in the article. Thanks.

Original sentence: Berenice was killed in 55 BC when Ptolemy returned to Egypt with Roman military assistance.

Suggestion: After the King and Cleopatra returned to Egypt with Roman military assistance, Berenice was killed in 55 BC, allowing the King to regain power.

Original sentence: When he died in 51 BC, the joint reign of Cleopatra and her brother Ptolemy XIII began, but a falling-out between them led to open civil war.

Suggestion: The joint reign of Cleopatra and her brother Ptolemy XIII began upon the King's death in 51 BC, but a falling-out between them led to open civil war.

– Kekki1978 talk 12:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kekki1978: hello. I'm going to have to disagree about this. Why are we emphasizing the word "king" here so much? Why are we consistently capitalizing the word "king" here without it being coupled to his name Ptolemy XII Auletes, a proper noun? The word "king" by itself is not a proper noun, even when referring to someone directly, and is only ever capitalized when combined with the monarch's name. I honestly don't see the problem with the original sentences, since they read just fine in context. Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Before I respond to @PericlesofAthens:, let me ask if anyone else is interested in chiming in. Wikipedia is a group effort, and no single article belongs to or is written by any single individual. PericlesofAthens, thank you for sharing your input.– Kekki1978 talk 15:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Pericles that "King" is vague and not even the correct title. The first suggestion is also longer, while the lede is long enough. T8612 (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Occupation

Over a year ago the sentence "She was also a diplomat, naval commander, linguist, and medical author" was removed from the 1st paragraph of the lead and placed in a footnote, apparently over concerns that the section was too large. A single sentence, however, will hardly have a significant impact on space (especially since this one did not take up additional lines), and this one in particular is of importance in introducing and defining the subject of the article. In my view it should be restored to the main text. If space is still a concern, then the fragment "nominally survived as pharaoh by her son Caesarion" (which is of singular lack of importance in this context) could be moved to the footnote explaining his pseudo-reign.

The 1st paragraph would be as follows:

Cleopatra VII Philopator (69 – 10 or 12 August 30 BC) was the last active ruler of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt. (footnote explaining Caesarion's pseudo-reign) She was also a diplomat, naval commander, linguist, and medical author. As a member of the Ptolemaic dynasty...

Avis11 (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

That sounds very sensible. I remember when the sentence was in the lead and it looked like a very good definition. Surtsicna (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reservations regarding (a) "medical author": the article tells that this is doubted (b) "linguist": the article doesn't tell (c) "naval commander": it is only said that she commanded the rear-guard at Actium, this arguably could be enough to receive this status, but I think it's quite a lot to mention this in the first paragraph of the lede, as if it was one of her main activities (d) "diplomat": every head of state does diplomacy, but a diplomat is a representative obeying orders, it cannot be a king, or a queen in this case. I haven't re-read everything so I may have missed something though.

I suppose this sentence was moved to footnote because it was a bit overblown, but now I support its removal. T8612 (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@T8612: hello once again! This is precisely why I had it moved to a footnote. To its defense, these claims appear prominently at the very beginning of the 2010 Oxford University Press biography on Cleopatra by Duane W. Roller, obviously a reliable source. However, I had it moved to a footnote because of the rather excessive emphasis on these attributes when they were minor aspects of her reign and personal life. She only commanded one other naval fleet aside from her ships at Actium in conjunction with those of Antony. Her using diplomacy is also what one would expect from any variety of heads of state in antiquity. Scholars still debate the veracity of her medical works being rightfully attributed to her, but this is explained in its appropriate place in the body of the article. Her being a linguist is perhaps the most worthwhile or unquestionable item in this list, but this is mentioned in the body sufficiently and the lead paragraph already mentions how she learned the Egyptian language after her native Koine Greek. I wouldn't remove the footnote, I still find it valuable, but I wouldn't put it back in the lead text of the article either. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If Cleopatra had written about language as a sideline to being a monarch—like Claudius, who wrote a now-lost dictionary of Etruscan—I'd support describing her as a linguist, but simply being a polyglot does not make her a linguist. A. Parrot (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

What about the part on Caesarion? The first sentence says she was the last active ruler of Ptolemaic Egypt, and proceeds to make mention of a supposed nominal reign of her son, itself elaborated on a subsequent footnote. The fragment "nominally survived as pharaoh by her son Caesarion" can hardly be considered important information on Cleopatra herself, and should, I believe, be moved to the footnote, where the rest of the explanation is. I'm not sure if there is a specific rule for footnotes in the lead section, but the section itself is already cluttered with them. Perhaps the part on her being a linguist, author etc. could be moved to the last paragraph with the status of an additional curiosity? Avis11 (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Responding to T8612's point above, per WP:CreateLead (an explanatory supplement but not policy), the primary purpose of a Wikipedia lead is to summarize an article's contents. Therefore, if it's not in the body of the article, it shouldn't be in the lead. If the article doesn't support the characterization as a medical author or linguist, and only minimally supports the characterization as a naval commander and diplomat, then I question whether it would be appropriate to restore these characterizations to the main text of the lead. At this point, I have no opinion about the lead's treatment of Caesarion. – Kekki1978 talk 16:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Kekki1978. A. Parrot (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Maccabees

She was mentioned in the Bible. I can't find any mention of the Bible in this wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.41.149.231 (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC) http://www.usccb.org/bible/1maccabees10:21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.41.149.231 (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@102.41.149.231: As explained by a footnote in the page you linked to, the Cleopatra who is mentioned in 1 Maccabees is Cleopatra Thea, who lived a century before Cleopatra VII. A. Parrot (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: Precisely. Cleopatra VII Philopator was only the seventh (or sixth) queen of the Ptolemaic dynasty named Cleopatra and that's just including the Ptolemies, not even all of those of the Seleucid dynasty such as Cleopatra I Syra who introduced the name to the Ptolemaic line or just other previous random Greek/Macedonian women like the sister of Alexander the Great: Cleopatra of Macedon (his only full-blooded sibling, not just a half-sister). Then we have women named Cleopatra who didn't even really exist because they were part of Greek mythology, such as Cleopatra Alcyone, wife of Meleager, or even the two daughters of Danaus named "Cleopatra". Cleopatra Thea was born in Egypt as a Ptolemaic princess but she married into the Seleucid dynasty and ruled from Syria in the 2nd century BC. Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Depiction of Cleopatra

On display are white monochrome statues of Cleopatra. There are no displays of black monochrome statues of Cleopatra. Such as this one: (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bust_of_Cleopatra) there are no displays of Cleopatra from the ‘L’Abreujamen de las estorias’ which show her skin color in stark contrast to Europeans.

The exclusion of these types of artistic depictions erases the ethnic ambiguity of Cleopatra from the historical narrative which ultimately perpetuates the trope of the civilized white body and the uncivilized brown body. Mbarrett710 (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

LOL. That "Bust of Cleopatra" is already used in the sub-article "Reign of Cleopatra" and for that matter there is already a black basalt statue of Cleopatra in the "Cultural Depictions" sub-section of this article. Also, we're talking about white marble here, which by default is white when unpainted or has lost its pigment. Cleopatra was also Macedonian Greek (i.e. colonial European), with no evidence she was native Egyptian/Nubian/African. You did read the "Ancestry" section of this article, right? Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Larger picture of Cleopatra & Cesarion

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Merlin-UK/Egypt#/media/File:SFEC-DENDERA-2010-085.JPG