Talk:Cleopatra VII

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cleopatra VII article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Core This article is listed on this Project's core biographies page.
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
Portal:Egyptology
 Egyptology Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article is listed on this Project's core articles page.
This article is a nominee for Wikipedia:Biography Collaboration of the Week.
The Biography Collaboration of the Week is an effort to improve a Biography-related topics, stub or requested article up to featured article status.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Cleopatra VII as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Wikipedia CD Selection Cleopatra VII is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.


Contents


When Octavius invaded Egypt, where did he take the children captive? Were they all with Cleopatra and Mark Antony or were they all sent away and just ran into Octavius on the way? The children were Caesarion, Alexander Helios, Cleopatra Selene, Ptolemy Philadelphus and Mark Antony's two boys Antyllus and Iullus. Octavius killed Caesarion and Antyllus, but let the others go, sending them all to live with Octavia. Why did he let the others go? Selene I could understand, she a girl and couldn't cause too much trouble. The two boys Antony had with Cleopatra, were both quite young and may have been let off... But why Iullus? --80.193.19.191 20:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Augustus probably spared Iullus' life because he was a child still (IE had not put on his manly gown). At the time of the then Gaius Octavius (Augustus) capture of Egypt, the children were all of certain ages. Caesarion and Antyllus were both seventeen. They were grown-ups in the Roman world, as many boys started to take resonsiblity. However Octavius probably would have killed Caesarion no matter how old he was as he was too much of a threat for Rome.The other kids, Alexander, Selene and Ptolmey were still quite young and Romans didn't like killing children if they didn't have to. The twins were no older then Octavius' own daughter, who was just a little girl at the time, so I can understand why spared them.
Iullus, on the other hand, was fifteen. A few years older, he probably would have been killed too. Nonetheless, the two sons of Cleo and Antony died and no one knows why (It's unlikely Augustus killed them after sparing their lives). The only ones who really gained anything out of being spared were Iullus and Selene. Octavius treated them both very kindly, allowing Selene to marry Juba II of Numidia and Iullus was praetor in 13 BC, consul in 10 BC and Asian proconsul. His mistake was getting up to some ooh laa laa with Augustus daughter, Julia. C'est la vie, eh? --Camblunt100 16:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Do we have to have teh word Greek popping up everywhere all the time? I man have you actually read the number of instances it appears unnecssarily - under photo tags etc., Cleopatra's hair in a Greek bun? I mean...c'mon. Wikipedia is became a joke. 82.145.231.92 04:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"Cleopatra VII (69 BC - 30 BC) was pharaoh of ancient Egypt."

Was she actually Pharoah?

No, this was her brother and husband Ptolemy, wasn't it?

Not exactly.The Queens of the Ptolemaic dynasty were usualy siblings (and the rare niece), to their husbands and since they had rights to the throne (and ambitions) they acted as co-rulers. The male members of the dynasty apparently prefeared that to having them conspire against them, organise assasinations or revolts or them marrying other rivals to the throne. (The Dynasty's historie has examples of all of that). Both the written sources and the coins present both King and Queens as ruling. Cleopatra was as much a pharaoh as her three male co-rulers Ptolemy XIII, XIV and Ptolemy XIV Caesarion (Greek for little Caesar).

User: Dimadick

the placement of these images is awful. Kingturtle 05:25 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

that looks a lot better. thanks. Kingturtle 06:30 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Discussion of the movies should be merged with Cleopatra (movie), with just a link to that kept here. -- Infrogmation 22:00, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The article is still the target of unexplained and difficult to verify additions. I have changed her list of "three children" (which included four children) back to those verified by the online genealogy cited, and put a notice about the possible factual inaccuracy on the page. -- Someone else 22:06, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm removing the disputed notice because this dispute happened seven months ago, and the article seems fine, and if no one's going to voice further objections... Wally 00:41, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


Why the hell is it that according to Wikipedia Cleopatra killed herself 3 days before the battle of Actium? Wikipedia is reporting that today September 2nd, the battle of Actium took place. It is also reporting that on August 30th Cleopatra killed herself. Apparently she was clairvoyant.

Somebody has mixed their milk and meat, in other words, this definetly ain’t kosher.

It says on http://www.world-sex-records.com/ that Cleopatra was, um, well, an accomplished fellatrice. Can this be verified and, if so, should it be noted? - Furrykef 17:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to Alexander Helios ?

Article says : "The three sons of Cleopatra with Antony were spared and taken back to Rome where they were reared by Antony's wife, Octavia.".

Alexander Helios article says : "Alexander was probably killed when the Romans, led by Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, invaded Egypt in 30 BC and his parents both killed themselves. There is no further mention of him."

Ptolemy Philadelphus article says: "Augustus Caesar took him (Ptolemy Philadelphus) and his sister Cleopatra Selene back to Rome as captives after their parents killed themselves (and their two brothers died) in 30 BC"

There is some inconsistency which needs to be corrected in one or the other articles. Jay 11:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • The correct version is the going to Rome and raised by Octavia one. I dont know what happened to him afterwards. [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 12:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • 1. This article was corrected. "three sons" changed to "three children". 2. Alexander Helios also was rewritten. 3. And I changed the Ptolemy Philadelphus article to conform to the above. Jay 09:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage to Antony

I moved this from higher up in the page to make any discussion easier to follow:

I tried to tidy up a bit, based on what i know by heart. I'll try and investigate more. One thing I am sure: Cleopatra DID NOT marry either Caesar or Antony - they were Romans and like every other proud of it. In Ancient Rome, a poor Roman citizen was "better" than Cleopatra. Actually, they were a bunch of snobs. Besides, both men were already married at the time: to Calpurnia and Octavia. Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 08:40, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica (2003 edition; Cleopatra article) states quite clearly that Antony and Cleopatra did indeed get married, even going so far as to cite the political problems such a union caused an already-married Antony. Does anyone have any sources that state they weren't married? And judging by both men's actions, neither one of thought a poor (or even a rich, for that matter) Roman citizen was "better" than Cleopatra--marrying her would have hardly been the only thing either one ever did on her account that risked the wrath of SPQR or put their political position back home in peril.Binabik80 17:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The arguments have been very well summarized, with sources, by Chris Bennett, who is the online authority for the Ptolemies. (here) — Bill 20:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the heads-up Phil; makes perfect sense. I'm the guy who removed the Category from the page. Now I'm no Ptolemaic scholar (despite the resources on my site, the most germane of which is Bevan's authoritative book), but I'm as queer as the next guy and have never run across Cleo in that context.... — Bill 20:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Female Pharaoh

I removed this:

Cleopatra is distinguishable as the last of three women ever to use the title Pharaoh. Her predecessors were Nitocris of the Sixth Dynasty and Hapshepsut of the Eighteenth Dynasty.

This is incorrect on a couple of points. "Pharaoh" was not used as a title regularly until the Third Intermediate Period, and not during Dynasty 6 or 18. The claim that "Nitocris" was a female is an error on the part of Manetho and Herodotus; the real "Nitocris" of Dynasty 6 was a man. Sobekneferu of Dynasty 12 ruled as a female king. —Nefertum17 21:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Egyptologists vs Afrocentric

I can see how this section of the article represents an important debate in the literature over Cleopatra... But don't you think we're making these categories of Egyptologists and Afrocentric historians a little too black and white? Even if you could separate historians cleanly into these two groups (which you can't), they still probably wouldn't all have perfectly homogenous opinions about Cleopatra's racial background. I think we should revise the article to focus on the actual historical facts and different readings of those facts, without trying to make it into a battle between Egyptologists and Afrocentric historians.

My very thought. It does make both sides so extreme that they both look silly. Tho maybe the debate has really got so polarized?Dejvid 10:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would say. We should not encourage the illusion that there is any serious debate. Afrocentrist considerations are certainly valid when it comes to classic Egyptian pharaohs, but there simply aren't any arguments to say that Cleopatra had any "black" ancestry. The debate goes no further than the shallow "She was an African queen and therefore she was black" or possibly the dogmatic "The Ptolemies MUST have had liasions with black people". This is but a parody of afrocentrism.

The article points out several reasons for disqualifying any serious afrocentric claims, and I have added a last: the Ptolemaic empire is often referred to as "Egypt": in fact it was an eastern Mediterranean state, with its centers in Alexandria, Libya and Cyprus. Cleopatra's father, grand-father and grand-grand- father all spent considerable time on the latter island. It would therefore be equally valid (or rather not valid) to have a Cyprocentric fraction which claim that Cleopatra was partly Cypriotic. Thankfully enough, there is no such fraction. The early Ptolemaic empire also comprised Libanon, Israel/Palestine and cities in Asia Minor, and the Ptolemaic kings spent as much time there as south of Alexandria. I find it much more probable that any unknown mistress would be a Greek-speaking woman from Alexandria or any of the dozens of Ptolemaic Mediterranean strongholds than a native Egypt woman.--Sponsianus 21:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

some of the Egyptologist views may state incorrect information about the demographics of modern day Egypt being mostly not-African, while really (quoting from wikipedia 'ancient egypt' modern day Egyptians "reflect a mixture of European, Middle Eastern, and African." research needed.

The only Egyptian-born people who are "non-African" are those born east of Sinai (because geographically that's Asia). The Caucasian and racially mixed peoples of North Africa are no less African than black sub-Saharan Africans.

personally, i thought the afrocentric view was misrepresented. i find it hard to believe that this dichotomy is the best wikipedia can do. and why is one "-centric" and the other "-ologist". the "ist" sounds like a legit ideology, while the other sounds like a subjective and wrong opinion. can we just say 'afrologist'?

Does the claim that Cleopatra had quote-African-unquote blood have any modicum of support? It's pure conjecture and I don't see any debate on the issue among serious scholars.Saltyseaweed 21:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Ancient Egypt"

The article introduces Cleopatra as queen of ancient Egypt, which is true in the common meaning of ancient ("really old"), and (at least according to Wikipedia) in the scholarly meaning of ancient (see Ancient History). The problem is that if you go to Ancient Egypt, the cutoff is listed as Egypt's conquest by Alexander the Great. This seems like a problem to me, since the article is linking to one that considers itself unrelated. If you want to read about the history of Cleopatra's Egypt you have to go to History of Greek and Roman Egypt. I was thinking about just changing the link to the latter, but the whole think seems a little sticky to me. Anyone? Xastic 12:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You've hit on rather interesting point, which is that although Cleopatra lived in ancient Egypt, she didn't live in Ancient Egypt after Ceaser's intrusion. There's a similar problem with naming eras in ancient Greece. Our article Ancient Greece considers the period to end at Alexander, too, being followed by Hellenistic Greece (cause they weren't Hellenes before) and Roman Greece, all of which clearly fit into ancient Greece.
In this case I'd leave it be; while History of Ancient Egypt stops before Greek Egypt, Ancient Egypt provides a lot of general background information while linking to the later dynasties, including the Ptolemaic Dynasty. — Laura Scudder | Talk 14:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Works for me. I've added a link to History of Greek and Roman Egypt just for good measure. Xastic 07:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Message to Merovingian: I'll let your change stand (unless someone else wants the word "millions" added back), but FYI - Yes, millions of mummies. For centuries egyptian mummies were dug up en mass and used for FERTILIZER (yech), and in the late 19th early 20th (I think) it was done using powered earth moving equipment. Every Egyptian tried to be mummified. If he couldn't actually afford that, his family tried to bury them so the hot/dry sands would have the same effect.24.10.102.46 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] oral sex + the queen true?

http://www.celticguitarmusic.com/Mlandimperial_itch.htm

The truth in this is neglible to the point of laughable.

[edit] Addressing the suicide-vs.-homicide debate

While this debate has only been fairly popular for about a year now, it is a significant matter that must be better addressed in this article. It was even used as a primary reason on why it should not become a featured article, and still the problem has not been covered in the many months since then. A single, off-handed remark about an alternate theory does not give it much credit, especially considering that there is more evidence to support it than the African-heritage argument that is addressed in more depth in this article.

If it were my work to do, I would certainly make an entire section devoted to the events surrounding her death. It should include at least one paragraph on the many questionable aspects of her "suicide" (in addition to an edited version of what already exists about her death in this article), to include especially that the primary accepted account of her death comes from Plutarch, having written it an entire century after her death, and that there are no known contemporary accounts of her death. Along with this should also be qualifiers appended to any other statement in the article relating to her death denoting that the "suicide" tale is only what is most commonly accepted.

Since I have no history with this article, having never been one of its contributors, perhaps one of you more familiar with it would prefer to make these edits - it's your choice, but something certainly needs to be done. -- Faenor Mornedhel 09:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe Augustus murdered Cleopatra. Cleopatra had power, power Augustus wanted. He had the motive, he had the ability. He did it. --66.218.17.115 02:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caesarion or Ptolemy XIV?

"Cleopatra and Caesarion visited Rome between 46 BC and 44 BC and were present when Caesar was assassinated." Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I thought that it was Ptolemy XIV that accompanied her to Rome, not Caesarion. Anyone have some pages to back up either Little Caesarion or Ptolemy VIV?

[edit] The race debate

this section should not exist even the proper section states that it is a delusional theory.~Just keep to the facts not Afro-American theories. ---Pedro 13:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this section exists for the same reason that articles on crazy pseudoscience theories exist: to present the facts on well-known theories. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • i would agree on a popular culture section, but not like this. Black Africa is below the Sahara desert. Bringing American culture to the article and putting it like this is not a good thing to do and missleades the reader. She is, above all, an historical figure. ---Pedro 18:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I do agree for removong the section. We had a similar question, concerning Alexander the Great and his people's ethnicity, is Greek or a specific Mac. identity. It was concluded this article was on the life of Alexander, not on the language the Macedonians spoke, and so the question was ignored; after all there are articles that treat the problem in a more ample view. Doing the say, we should ignore the problem, since general articles on the rival views already exist. Aldux 23:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a non-debate and a wound to historical truth due to politics. Either this section should be removed, or a section for intelligent design be added immediately to the evolution article. Double standards are hypocritical and do not forward scholarship.



I find this horrendously insulting. This is NOT a "non-debate." In history, there is NO SUCH THING as a non-debate. Just like there is no real proof that Cleopatra was Black, there is no debate-ending, oh-you-people-are-so-stupid proof that she wasn't. Due to having a concubine for a grandmother, no one will ever know whether she was a White European or a woman of color. We'll never know. When dealing with a historic figure, where there are few and/or scattered records of ancestory, you give as many sides of as many arguments as possible, because more than likely there is no one truth. What are the arguments that would lead one to believe she was without a doubt White? What are the arguments that would lead one to believe otherwise? Gather the information, present both sides of the argument, step off of your holier-than-thou platform and shut the hell up. To say that the argument, which has been the primary reason anyone outside of scholarly circles has given a damn about the woman, is unimportant...is...REVISIONISM. It's one of the more contraversial, debate rousing arguments over a historic figure in the 19th Century, HOW CAN IT NOT BE HERE? And to just brush off it's importance like, "meh...we're into real facts...not Afro-American theory hardy hardy har." Is insulting, trivializing, demeaning and the primary reason Blacks go over the depictions of historic figures with a fine toothed comb, because Western historians like to pull this type of crap. "Oh, we know we're right. So there is no need to even mention that there was at some point a discussion on the subject...gafaw gafaw..." Jesus Christ...

Speaking of Jesus Christ, let me check that damn article to see if anyone's gotten snip happy about the debate over his ethniticity. Richard Corey 14:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HELLO

hello i am doing my project on cleo patra sooo who whats to do it for me?

You might find you learn more doing it yourself. Usually helpful come exam time. — Laura Scudder ☎ 06:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check the math

"She was the third daughter of the king Ptolemy XII Auletes"

"as Auletes' oldest child (one older sisters having died)"

So was she the second daughter, or did two older sisters die?

She had two old sisters, the eldest being another Cleopatra, and the other one being named Berenice. They both died.

[edit] cleopatra

i would like to know more about cleopatras children where do i look?

I know Cleopatra had a child by the name of Caesarian, he was the son of Julius Caesar. Anyway, the whole reason I came to this article and talk page was because of the suicide versus homicide debate mentioned earlier on this talk page. One thing I knwo was that the debate was sparked off by the profiler Pat Brown. If anyone else is unwilling to take up the challenge, then I'll do it. Dessydes

She had three sons and one daughter, I believe. Caesarion, Julius Caesar's son; the twins Cleopatra Selene and Alexander Helios; and then her youngest, Ptolemy Philadelphus, the latter three being fathered by Marc Antony. Caesarion was murdered by Octavian, I believe the other three were raised by Octavia, Marc Antony's Roman wife. Cleopatra Selene, I think, married a King, I'm not sure about Cleopatra's two other sons.

[edit] Refused/Unable

"However, Caesar refused to make the boy his heir, naming his grand-nephew Octavian instead."

Actually, by Roman law, Ptolemy Caesar (Caesarion) couldn't have been Caesar's heir. Not only was he a bastard, but foreign-born. I think we should replace the said sentence with:

"Because of Roman law, Ptolemy Caesar could not have been made Julius Caesar's heir, even if Julius Caesar had wished it so."

[edit] Picture?

Why are there no pictures of what she actually looked like, according to the coins with her image? Even if the coin images are not perfectly accurate, they're much more so than the romanticized depictions that came later. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-04 17:10

[edit] Antony's behaviour

I appreciate this article is primarily about Cleopatra but this line:

Antony's behavior was considered outrageous by the Romans, and Octavian convinced the Senate to levy war against Egypt.

IMHO needs further explaination. What part of his behaviour? His marrying Cleoptra? The wars he was waging? What? I guess maybe it's explained better in the Antony article and perhaps eslewhere but IMHO it does need brief explaination here. Nil Einne 16:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Augustus/Octavian

For consisency, IMHO we should refer to Augustus as Octavian throughout the whole article. For starters, he was known as Octavian throughout the period discussed in the article I believe. More importantly, suddenly changing just confuses people who don't know the history that well. If you really need to change (AFAIK you don't), then this should be explained the first time it's done. E.g. Octavian, by now known as Augustus... Nil Einne 16:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleopatra was the daughter of the King and his own sister that he married to

Help,

              I want to thank you for being there and want to know if you people can helpme with my project that im doing on about Cleopatra.....what i need help is that i'm doinh an essay. But if you want to help can you give me some information....

                     Thank You,
                             Larry Jackson

[edit] Other theories of her death

This section currently sounds like original research because it does not attribute these hypotheses to any person (thus making them sound like the author's alone). They need to be attributed and then cited in order to remain in the article. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's she Beautiful?

Well, I don't think she is truly beautiful,an article said in one of her coins it showed that she had a hook nose! and how could she kill her own brothers like wht sh e did! She's acting s bit like a wild animal!

[edit] Nose

How is it possible that the word "nose" isn't even once in the article? Shinobu 09:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism not reverted

I found several instances of vandalism in this article tonight that were not reverted. I fixed those. I'm very tired now and am not able to proofread well so I may have missed others. Perhaps someone else can eyeball the article and see if any vandalism remains. The problem appears to be that some reverts were made, which brought back old vandalism. Otherwise, it's a very nice article. Very informative. --207.69.139.12 05:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coins

I would agree that illustrating the article with coins of Cleopatra would be the most accurate way of presenting an accurate visage.

[edit] Page location

Would anyone object to moving this to plain old Cleopatra? It's clearly a primary use, and Cleopatra redirects here. The current title is kind of silly. john k 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering Cleopatra VII of Egypt was her actual name and title, is there any compelling reason why we should move it? Also considering just how many different articles Cleopatra can refer to, as well as that the article title is consistent with the line of rulers she was descended from, it seems best to keep it as is. Sxeptomaniac 16:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Royal naming conventions only apply to modern countries. Cleopatra redirects here. Any reference to plain old "Cleopatra" is bound to refer to this Cleopatra. There are no Cleopatras who were monarchs of other countries than Egypt. This Cleopatra was more or less the only one to be fully ruler in her own right. And, um, it's stupid to not have our article on Cleopatra be at Cleopatra. If you attempted to make Cleopatra redirect to Cleopatra (disambiguation), you'd have a revolt on your hands. I shouldn't have to provide any particular "compelling reason" to move the article beyond the fact that this is in line with "common naming" procedure. At the very least, it should be at Cleopatra VII. Note, though, that she was never called that at the time - it is a retrospective ordinal given by later historians (possibly incorrectly - as far as I can tell, there was no Cleopatra VI), and was not used by she herself. john k 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It should just be Cleopatra. I doubt even specialists would use 'Cleopatra VII', other than in highly refined debate. Or, to be more correct, should we start refering to Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra VII in future?

What I would really like to know is by what process of assesment is her life considered to be a 'core' biography? Her role in history seems more akin to that of the fictitious Helen of Troy, and she hardly merits top consideration in her own right. If it had not been for Ceasar, Anthony and Octavian I suspect she would have remained as obscure as her predecessors and namesakes. White Guard 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

She was the last independent ruler of ancient Egypt. I would add that sometimes legend is as important as actual importance to history. Personally, I think the number of core biographies is overly limited, and that we would be better off if we had a much larger number, but what can you do? At least Cleopatra is genuinely world famous, and unlike Helen of Troy, she actually existed. john k 17:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all very true, but she was a foreign ruler of a foreign dynasty of an Egypt in decay. Who springs to mind when you think of the high noon of ancient Egypt? Surely Rameses the Great or even Akhenaten, not poor old Cleo, no matter how notorious! White Guard 23:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, what can you do? My basic feeling is that "core biographies" should be of people that readers would expect to find biographies of in an encyclopedia, an issue which is generally easier to determine than who the "most important" people are, which is subjective. john k 08:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

H..mm, yes; I've had a look at the 'core' list and have to confess that there are some people even I have never heard of! All very eclectic. But we are getting too far from the point. Surely 'most people' have heard of Rameses? Perhaps I have not yet understood the logic behind 'core' biographies, but Cleopatra seems a figure of little real significance-an historical epiphenomenon, if you like. What biographies most people would expect to find would, I suspect, be a list with very little weight indeed. White Guard 19:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The list of people that the most people have heard of is not the same as the list of the people that most people would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Whether or not, say, Dan Brown is more widely read than Charles Dickens, I think most people, in general, would more expect to find an encyclopedia article on Dickens. But this is all irrelevant. The core biographies is project is a project, as far as I'm concerned, to identify fairly important people and improve articles on them. Given that the basic goal is to improve articles, I don't particularly see why it matters. Beyond that, what about moving the article? Cleopatra VII of Egypt is deeply unnecessary. Cleopatra VII or Cleopatra would either one of them do. john k 21:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course: go for it. White Guard 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I will move it to Cleopatra VII for the moment, as I think that should be wholly uncontroversial. Then I might do an RM to move it to Cleopatra, depending on how I feel. But this will probably happen tomorrow. john k 23:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "What did Cleopatra really look like?"

Sorry, newbie here. I don't really find the "what did Cleopatra look like?" section very useful, and I would suggest deletion - its source material doesn't back up the claim that Cleopatra was more manipulative and intelligent than she was beautiful, as if these two qualities can be compared in the first place, and while it may be fitting to mention her reputation for beauty, making an assertion one way or another seems unprovable. Also, this whole seems to have been intended to dodge the moribund debate between egyptologists and afrologists. Seastreet 23:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was silly when I saw it, too. Thanks for giving me a push to get rid of it; we don't really need to cover internet speculation. — Laura Scudder ☎ 03:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleopatra was a Macedonian princess

Does the article mention this?

Also, why is there the greek spelling and not the macedonian spelling?

Pece Kocovski 02:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Pointless even to comment on this, but anyway... Cleopatra was speaking Greek, her name is Greek, the historians of that time mention her as Greek (and, i guess, she considered herself as well), the Slavs of modern FYROM were some thousands of miles away and the Cyrillic alphabet was not yet invented... Hectorian 03:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right; and though what you have written is-or should be-blindingly obvious, the challenge to ignorance is never pointless. White Guard 05:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waxwork

Do we really want a fuzzy photo of a waxwork? Paul B 20:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the cheap, fuzzy waxwork picture of a naked woman (omg bewbs!) is not in very good taste, and I think it rather cheapens up the entire page. I vote that it be removed or replaced. --Promus Kaa 16:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Cleopatra VII of Egypt

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Evidence

Recentally in the Month of september, on discovery the channel or history channel. A show premeired that put new light on the life of cleopatra.

New evidence shows that she was not the suicidal type, and that it is believed the snake thing comes from the fact that cleopatra is often though as the incarnation of the god Isis. Isis was depictied with a cobra, which is one of the snakes thought to have been used. in alternative to a asp. Also a Asp is to painful of a death, and she was not likely to use it as a choice. Snakes also only inject venom 50% of the time, thus making it not reliable. Yami 16:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


I edited the article to best fit other cases. The article is not neutrual and shows only one side of a complex story


This is off a Discovery Channel Site

http://www.discoverychannelasia.com/ontv_egyptweek/death_cleopatra/index.shtml

The Mysterious Death of Cleopatra tackles a cold case of regal proportions. Cleopatra inherited the throne of Egypt at age 17, before dodging assassination to rule for more than 20 years. Her life is filled with the enigmatic and the unexplained… as is her untimely death. For two millennia, only one cause has been recorded – suicide by snakebite. Now, cold case criminal profiler Pat Brown and a team of experts that includes an underwater archaeologist and a toxicologist, are re-examining the circumstances of her alleged suicide. Using techniques of 21st century criminal investigations, they reconstruct the 2,000-year-old death scene (which is now submerged beneath Alexandria harbor) and reveal the sinister power games that led to her death. Yami 16:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yami, I've reverted your additions for now, since they are unsourced. Paul August ☎ 17:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I've again reverted your additions concerning speculation about Cleopatra's suicide. Your edits failed to provide any sources for their claims. Note that a teleivision show is not normally considered a particularly reliable source. Also please note the warning: "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted, that occurs on every edit screen. Paul August ☎ 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COMPUTER RECONSTRUCTION OF WHAT CLEOPATRA LOOKED LIKE

I have heard that the Discovery Channel aired an image of Cleopatra that was a computer reconstruction. It was made from reconstructing the likeness from the various images of her on ancient coins and statues. I also read that Goddio's divers retrieved ancient coins which were used in a computer generated image of Cleopatra. I have tried in vain to locate a pictures of this images. Does any one know where it can be found? GWr —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.79.98.90 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 December 2006.

How about you all just stick your foot in your mouth! Cleopatra was beautiful! (on the inside) I mean how are you supposed to know what she REALLY looked like... You can never be sure gosh! *sticks tongue out* Go scratch your cats butt for me!
Cleopatra and Caesar were a better couple than Cleopatra and Mark Antony... I mean psh i would have died for Caesar not Mark antony... But Cleopatra is a big fat beeeeeeep! sonvm... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.200.53 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 8 December 2006.
Traditional Egyptian sculptural style was to depict idealized faces of leaders with almost no relation to how they actually looked (with the notable exception of Akhenaten). Greek sculpture was more realistic, but still weren't meant to be true-to-life portraits. So basically there's no way to know how Cleopatra really looked; we can only reconstruct the image presented to the public. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving Rome

"Cleopatra and Caesarion visited Rome between 47 BC and 44 BC and were present when Caesar was assassinated on 15 March, 44 BC. Before or just after the assassination she returned to Egypt."

If they were present when Caesar was murdered, they can't have returned to Egypt before it happened...

[edit] Requested semi-protection

There is quite a lot of vandalism on this article lately. I've requested semi-protection. ArthurWeasley 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/l/e/Talk%7ECleopatra_VII_ffaf.html"