Talk:African Queens (TV series)

Controversy?

is the recent controversy regarding the ethnicity of the actor who portrays Cleopatra noteworthy enough to be mentioned? Josephwhyman041104 (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the BBC just summarized the issue and a lot of Egyptians and Greeks are taking issue with it. Variety, Time, and others have covered it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The statement "experts do not agree" appears to imply that experts are not in agreement with each other over Cleopatra's ancestry, which isn't ratified by that article. If anything the article appears to reinforce that any creditable sources are very much in agreement with one another, that her ancestry is of Greek origin and that it's unlikely she'd have had a black complexion. 222.154.246.125 (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The statement isn't reflected in the article at all. Instead, it only mentions Cleopatra's mother's identity as being unknown. It's questionable to try and push it as an academic consensus. The content has been removed until someone whishes to reword it. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 14:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Lede Detail

Believe it or not @2a02:2f0f:f003:4a00:641e:e8af:29c7:12a5:, her identity is not being put into question. I noticed that you didn't try to make a similar addition to Nzinga. Your addition would shift the weight towards someone who has a topic that is frequently debated, which is then mentioned much later in the article. There should not, additionally, be any more emphasis on one person in the lede. Least of all for someone who has controversy on scholarship regarding the precise nature of their race and ancestral origins. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Cleopatra was a white Macedonian Greek woman, nothing else more to add 2A02:2F0F:F003:4A00:D47B:578E:6638:D225 (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

This article says nothing on this claim. If you wish to read or edit articles regarding this, then this is not the one to do so. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The topic isn't frequently debated, it's historical objective fact, you're on Wikipedia, go read the article for Queen Cleopatra there. 3vvww661 (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Until this is accepted, your edits will be undone or a moderator will be contacted. She was a Macedonian Greek

Nobody here is saying that she was largely not of Greek Macedonian decent. This article is not saying she was not Greek Macedonian. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, Cleopatra's ancestry is debated. But this article is not making any claims any which way or the other. This is largely because there is an entire article devoted to this very subject. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The sources in Ptolemaic dynasty will reveal the ancestry may not be as debated as you think. 3vvww661 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately the "debate" stems from very modern narratives that rely solely on negative "evidence." The Cleopatra race controversy page does a good jobe at explaining this. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're referring to Kennedy's comments, then, yes. What I ultimately mean is that the full breadth of her background from her mother's side will almost certainly continue to see discussion until the end of times. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a response to me but the "debate" about her mother is asinine and I think the linked article demonstrates this well. Most historical figures, even the most famous, we do not have such a good geneology as we do for Queen Cleopatra VII. But none of this is relevant to the current article insofar as it's a drama not history. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Pseudohistory

@3vvww661: I am not the one who decides whether this material is really appropriate or not. This isn't my article or anything. However, her wording was not that it was pseudoscience. Therefore, I think the addition of such wording creates a false impression. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 22:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you and I believe you are right on this topic. Quotations from the English Ahram online site would be better suited to this subject material. This content will be added later. The entire quotation is left out and cut with only about half; I have some interest in asking you how best to represent Monica Hanna’s intent within the article as from her interview, but that can be saved for later. 3vvww661 (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the bulk of what she said is still there. Skin color, political parties, an alleged agenda. If people want to read the full extent of the material, then they can go to CBS (or her published material). Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I will be adding later sometime a credited lede from Al Ahram about psuedohistory's relationship to this piece. 3vvww661 (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The Mary Sue

While the Mary Sue is considered reliable, this particular article is a little odd when it comes to describing Colleen Darnell.

"As Tiktok user @manalmet pointed out, Dr. Colleen Manassa Darnell popped up in the trailer as one of the experts on Egypt. Dr. Darnell is a white American Egyptologist who also has an active online presence under the username “Vintage Egyptologist.” On her Instagram and YouTube channel, she shows off her vintage clothing and house. The problem? Well, the era in which she chooses to cosplay is the 1920s and 1930s. This era is synonymous with the British colonizers of Egypt essentially grave robbing ancient Egyptian artifacts. For some reason, Dr. Darnell takes her colonizer cosplay one step further and actually wears these outfits on archaeological sites."

For one, I am worried about them invoking Tiktok users. Secondly, this just seems highly opinionated. This fits in line with the description for the RS page describing it has biased or opinionated. Normally, I would just suggest attributing it as "D.R. Medlen states..." However, this is about a living person, and some of the source appears to be from Tiktok, so I think the standard for including this particular material at all should be somewhat higher. We could use other material from this article, however. What does everyone else think? I noticed the dubious tag, but no discussion was brought forth. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Apparently I'm blind and there is a second citation, so this material is probably fine here since both are deemed RS, even with MOS:LABEL under consideration. That said, should it still be attributed under their respective authors? I would say yes. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Specfically name the authors criticizing the racist Egyptologist in the drama? I think that it is a good idea. Kleopatra I Syra (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it works better that way since only the Mary Sue uses the quoted terminology. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 19:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:African Queens (TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Spinixster (talk · contribs) 14:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. Review will be coming up shortly.

• Reject while it contains Generally Unreliable sources (that the creator edit-wars back in) and WP:SYNTH (references to scientific reports that are not about the TV series) - violating WP:GACR 2.b and 2.c. This makes the sections of the article using these sources come across as a personal essay attempting to push a social viewpoint, not an encyclopedia article based solidly on verifiable reliable sources. A stylistic issue is that there's a lot of puffery of the sources themselves in wiki voice, as if the writer knows it's a stretch - it reads like the writer is cobbling together opinions in a synthesis - David Gerard (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately, I'm going to have to quickfail this article. Other than what Gerard has said, here are some things you can do to improve the article:

• add an image of the logo or poster in the infobox (criteria 6). Considering that the two seasons have different names, a poster would not be the best option, but since the series is called "African Queens", you can probably crop out the "Nijinga" from the logo of the first season, upload it with the correct use rationale, and put it in the infobox.
• The Summary section is usually where the summary of the show goes, but I see that the first paragraph seems to lean more into Development/Production. You should move it there.
• Speaking of Development/Production, there isn't a Development or Production section in the article. I'd recommend adding one, since it broadens the coverage of the article (criteria 3). Some things you can include are:
  • where the idea of the show came from (which is already said in the aforementioned paragraph)
  • production on the first and section season (when did it start filming, where was it filmed, how was the casting, etc.)
• Other things you can add are:
  • in the release section: Promotion (was the show advertised somewhere, were there any preview screenings,...)
  • in the reception section: Awards and nominations (if the show was nominated/won an award) and Ratings (how many people watched the show)
• I also noticed the episode summaries are quite thin. You can expand them.

Overall, the article lacks a lot of things, and per the GACR, it will have to be quickfailed. If you need examples of articles to reference while improving African Queens, Sea Monsters (TV series) and TransGeneration are two similar articles. There are also other articles that exist, just check WP:GA. Good luck! Spinixster (chat!) 01:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Puffery and bad sourcing

I've had to remove bad sources from the article that make it into a WP:SYNTH-riddled personal essay:

• who is Arsanious? If he's just writing in a WP:GUNREL source and he's not a linked WP:EXPERTSPS then so what? This is functionally just some guy writing a post.
• Links to scientific papers that aren't about African Queen - they were put in to puff up the Arsanious post. This is what someone trying to put original research into Wikipedia does. The sources have to be about the subject of the article.
• The Conversation is a group blog for academics; you have to check that a given poster is actually an expert in the area. Per WP:RSP, The Conversation is reliable for subjects in the authors' areas of expertise. Makkar is a marketing lecturer.
• If you have to say in wikivoice that your source is totally significant, then that makes it come across as not significant. Again, this comes across as trying to provide supporting evidence for the thesis of an essay - not writing a neutral encyclopedia article. And that's even as it looks like a WP:DUE source!

The sourcing seems very like the goal was to write a WP:SYNTH-riddled personal essay and grab any sources that the editor thought supported the essay thesis.

This sort of puffery is why the article just failed at GA - David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

More cleanup of this sort of writing is still needed, and likely a review that all sources going into it say what they're claimed to. I also just removed some wording that was plagiarised from the source - need to check for this also - David Gerard (talk) 07:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I've wanted to cut material from the controversy section for a while, and when I do, it appears to get written back in. I think we should cut away most of the quotations and keep statements brief. While the show is arguably way more well-known for the controversy, it feels excessive. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to go at it with an axe, it very much needs it - David Gerard (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)