This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group. New York (state) Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's Classical Committee This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Classical Committee, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Classical Committee articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's Classical CommitteeWikipedia:WikiProject Women's Classical CommitteeTemplate:WikiProject Women's Classical CommitteeWomen's Classical Committee articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Women in Red: #1day1woman (2018) This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2018. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It has come up that several editors would like note of some controversy or criticism to be included here. I am not familiar with the topic, but Morbidthoughts found these sources:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/10/opinion/black-cleopatra-netflix.html
• https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/05/10/a-new-docu-drama-about-cleopatra-has-riled-officials-in-cairo
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/23/when-cleopatra-was-alive-she-wasnt-categorised-by-colour-of-her-skin
• https://theweek.com/race/1023435/netflixs-cleopatra-controversy-explained

I would suggest any new or inexperienced editors read:

• WP:FORUM
• WP:BLPTALK
• WP:BLP
• WP:RS
• WP:SOURCE
• WP:NPOV

I don't intend to work on this article further at this time. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recents edits by Drmies removed the bibliographic and awards sections. I was surprised by the removal of selected works, since there seems to be widespread inclusion of journal articles for academics, which is mentioned in the manual of style. The MoS uses books as an example, but also includes a paragraph on "books and articles" - as such I suggest to that Haley's articles at least are added back to the article. It also states that:

• "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet."

I see these guidelines as being inclusive of articles and chapters in books, and would welcome further discussion. Lajmmoore (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • I disagree. It is very rare for journal article to warrant individual mention based on secondary sources, unlike with books: we regularly remove articles and book chapters. It's resume material and Wikipedia is not for resumes. The list of awards just restored by User:Srsval makes this even worse--seriously, a "Merit Award" and a "Certificate of Recognition"? These things aren't noteworthy, and half of them are sourced to her own resume/faculty page. Oh, two of them are from the university she teaches at--that's so local that it's really resume material. PS: you skipped commenting on "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged"--which means that a few of the book chapters, when mentioned explicitly in reviews, could be appropriate. But lectures, panel presentations, encyclopedic entries? That's a whole nother ballgame. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, well, Srsval just restored the whole lot, claiming "help to establish notability and significance" (and accusing me of vandalism)--that's complete nonsense. She is plenty notable and doesn't need a resume to prove it. This is just really poor editing. What makes it worse is that her actual work (right now footnotes 7 through 14, or more than a third of the total number of references, are to her own work. That's not how you write an encyclopedia. A quick Google Book search proves there is PLENTY of secondary material to build on ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), but it seems that the easy road was taken here. Note 33, the review by Setzer, could have been used to describe her actual work, but now it's just to verify a line on the resume. How many actual academic articles and reviews are cited to support text? How much of this content is sourced to organizational websites, blogs, and faculty pages? No one is doing her a service by replicating her resume here. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]