Talk:Cleopatra's Needles

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RobertYe.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Error?

Why does the introductory paragraph end with "in California"? There isn't even a full stop, and the inclusion of the words "in California" makes no sense and have no relevence in the context of the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.200.8 (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

London Needle

There is an article in All the Year Round “Not a Whitechapel Needle,” 8 October 1859, 562-64 on the fact that the British have not brought home the Egyptian gift and that travelers are chipping off pieces to bring home.Jonathan.h.grossman (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Size

The image is like watching a Cinemascope movie on TV, while lying sideways on the sofa. I'm just not crazy about the formatting in this particular case. "Not that there's anything wrong with that." Wetman 21:51, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Currently there are only pictures of the London needle. Shouldn't the other ones be depicted as well?

First airplane raid on London?

Gotha bombers were already attacking London in June, so the raid of September 4 cannot have been the "first air raid on London by German aeroplanes". Bastie 19:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• I've corrected the statement Ephebi 13:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Orientation of the Sphinxes in London

Apparently, from tour commentary on the Westminster to Greenwich ferry, it's said that the Sphinxes were mounted the wrong way around (facing in, rather than out), and when this was discovered on the day of innaugration, it was highly embarrasing in front of egyptian officials, and the person responsible for the mistake committed suicide out of shame. I can't find any documentary evidence for this. I find partial evidence from a Doctor Who episode (http://www.whoniverse.org/history/19thcentury.php), but it's difficult to know how factual that is. --mgream 10:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Time capsual

I understand that a time capsual was included as part of the foundations for the London one. Can this be looked into? - Aaron Jethro 04:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There're no refences or acknowledgements at all on this page! What book/website did the translations come from?

Also, why are all the 'edit' links separated from their individual paragraphs/sections and arranged in a single line further down the page?

erosion of the NY needle

The text would seem to suggest that the erosion on one face of the needle has happened since it was moved to New York, and the gaps in the translation presumably relate to that eroded face. Is one or both of these incorrect, or did no-one think to copy the eroding hyroglyphics before they were completely gone? FiggyBee 10:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleopatra connection

The article says there's no connection to Cleopatra, but a few lines further down, it says the obelisks were moved as a tribute for Mark Antony on behalf of Cleopatra. Isn't that a connection? LightSpeed 17:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Roman discovery of Central Park

The section of the article about the obelisk in Central Park says:

At its base are four 900-pound, 19th-century bronze replicas of crabs, which were first placed there by the Romans and are on display in the Met.

This seems to want clarification. I was unaware that the Romans were ever in Central Park, although they did get around. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed: there is a memoir by a Navy guy named Seaton Schroeder, who wrote about moving the obelisk w/ Gorringe from Alexandria to NYC. According to him, they originally left it @Coney Island; & that base was moved separately, which is why it wound up in the Met: it was never reattached. But the Romans were in neither Central Park nor Coney Island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.128.52 (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Two or three Needles

• In german and Spanish Wikipedia only the obelisk in New York and the obelisk in London are called Cleopatras Needle, but not the obelisk in Paris.
• Projekt Gutenberg Spiegel: Altertümer (german)

212.95.118.52 (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The above mentioning of only the two is refered to as Cleopatra's needles is correct. The entire page should be restructured, since it is misleading due to simplicity

All of the mentioned obelisks plus the remains of a another in Istanbul is remains of a total number of six erected by [[[Thutmose III]], two in Deir-Al-Bari, two in Karnak and two in the Ra temple in Heliopolis, which were moved to Alexandria. These two stands in New York and London today.

Two has vanished, one is erected at the Lateran in Rome and the last is in (as before mentioned) in Istanbul Istanbul#Ancient_Greek_and_Roman_monuments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.160.207.18 (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• The French needle is also known (in French obviously) as Cleopatras Needle, and indeed was probably the first to use the nickname. Obviously in reality none have anything to do with Cleopatra at all. The only qualification to be a Cleopatras Needle is to be called that as a nickname. This was all explained in a previous version, which I will restore. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• In all the years I was raised, and lived, in Paris, I have NEVER heard the "Obélisque de la Concorde" referred to as "l"aiguille de Cléopatre"; the term "Cleopatra's Needle" I only heard from foreign tourists..... Renaud OLGIATI (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The London 's needle is also mentionned in "the golem's eye" second opus of the trilogy of Bartimeus (Jonathan Stroud) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.216.62 (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

possible pic

Depiction of the iron cylinder in danger of sinking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/the-cleopatra-cylinder-vessel-31120

Artist died 1880.

©Geni 22:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hieroglyphs

I'm interested to know why Thothmes' name is written 'men-kheper-re' on the sphinxes (in London) with the scarab beetle, instead of as Thothmes which uses the ibis hieroglyph. Was it a nickname? There's no explanation of this on this page nor on Thothmes' page.VenomousConcept (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thothmes/Thutmose/Thothmosis

It's his throne name. Modern historians generally refer to pharaohs by their birth names, but in ancient Egypt, kings were more widely known by their throne names. In official writings, the two names usually appeared together in cartouches, but if only one name was used, it was the throne name. I suppose the sphinxes were meant to imitate Egyptian monuments in that respect. A. Parrot (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Just starting to try to read hieroglyphs. It is confusing when they have so many names for themselves.VenomousConcept (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

As this article described three different obelisks I have split it and turned it into a disambiguation page. Most content has been transferred to the other articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I've changed my mind, it is probably worth having a general article about the needles, pointing to the separate articles with more details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The article has now been greatly reduced in size, and was given a silly rename to Cleopatra's Needles, which I've reversed. I'm struggling to see any benefit from these changes, which were imposed virtually without notice. What do others think? Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The benefits are now we have separate articles on separate obelisks all of which have different stories, different navigation templates, categories, etc. The shared history remains in this article, but otherwise conflating the articles is confusing. As an analogy with people, you'll notice that on List of twins some have joint articles but most have separate articles for the two different people. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Cleopatra connection (again)

The "no connection to Cleopatra" statement was added 18 years ago in 2004. Above at #Cleopatra connection this was challenged, but ignored.

Well it turns out that we have been wrong for almost two decades. The needles stood for almost two millennia at the Caesareum of Alexandria, which was conceived by Cleopatra. She may not have built the needles, but they were definitely associated with her. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that the connection is rather tenuous: they were erected, some 18 years after her death, on a temple she started to build...The "no connection" statement was made by early archaeologists since they are clearly ancient obelisks and not Hellenistic, despite their popular designation at the time.--Phso2 (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

From the 1755 Voyage d'Egypte et de Nubie.

@Phso2: Agreed. It would be interesting to find out when the Cleopatra connection was first made by modern archaeologists. We know it was in the 1809 Description de l'Égypte, as well as the 1755 Voyage d'Egypte et de Nubie (the latter written before the decipherment of hieroglyphics of course).

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is Norden in 1755: Norden, F.L. (1755). Voyage d'Egypte et de Nubie: Tome premier (in French). De l'imprimerie de la Maison Royale des Orphelins. Quelques Auteurs anciens ont écrit, que ces deux Obélisques se trouvoient de leur tems dans le Palais de Cléopatre; mais ils ne nous disent point, qui les y avoit fait mettre. Il est à croire, que ces Monumens font bien plus anciens, que la Ville d'Aléxandrie, & qu'on les fit apporter de quelque endroit de l'Egypte, pour l'ornement de ce Palais. Cette conjecture a d'autant plus de fondement, qu'on sçait, que, du tems de la fondation d'Aléxandrie, on ne faisoit plus de ces Monumens couverts d'Hiéroglyphes, dont on avoit déja perdu long-tems auparavant & l'intelligence & l'usage

In English: "Some ancient authors have written that these two Obelisks were found in their time in the Palace of Cleopatra; but they do not tell us who had placed them there. It is believed that these monuments are much older than the City of Alexandria, and that they were brought from some place in Egypt, to decorate this Palace. This conjecture is well founded, as we know that at the time of the foundation of Alexandria, these monuments covered with hieroglyphs were no longer made, the understanding and use of which had already been lost long before.

So who are these ancient authors? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK the only ancient (ie from antiquity) author which (briefly) mentions the obelisks is Pliny ("There are two other obelisks, which were in Cæsar's Temple at Alexandria, near the harbour there, forty-two cubits in height, and originally hewn by order of King Mesphres.") [1] Cornelis de Bruijn who visited Egypt in 1681 writes about the "palace of cleopatra" and the two nearby obelisks (french trnslation). Norden is perhaps confused about these elusive "ancient authors". According to the author of the relevant notice in the "Description de l'égypte" [2], the association with Cleopatra is fanciful and is the result of the tendency to attributes conspicuous remains to some well-known historical character (same as the prison of Sokrates which was not the prison of Sokrates, the lantern of Diogenes, (not-)Pompey's pillar, Plato's olive-tree etc)--Phso2 (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I read the same reference in Description de l'Égypte earlier today and was perplexed by the reference to "d'après les Francs" - I wonder if by "les Francs" they were referring to the Crusaders. Per Roberts' comment that the needles were the "most striking monuments of ancient Alexandria", we can assume that almost every publication describing the city over the last two millenia will have mentioned them. Finding more pre-modern (but post-classical) writings would be worthwhile.

The best article I can find summarizing the classical writings is: Merriam, Augustus C. “The Caesareum and the Worship of Augustus at Alexandria” Transactions of the American Philological Association (1869-1896), vol. 14, 1883, pp. 5–35. It seems to tally with your suggestion that only Pliny described the obelisks directly. The widely-held statement that the Caesarium was conceived by Cleopatra doesn't seem to be clearly supported either, although may be based on assumption that the building referred to by Cassius Dio ("Antyllus was slain immediately, though he was betrothed to the daughter of Caesar and had taken refuge in his father's shrine, which Cleopatra had built"[3]) is the same. This was debated by Merriam (p.10, 34, 35), and there seems to be some difficulty in deciding which of the the classical writers' references to temples in Alexandria correctly refer to the Serapeum of Alexandria or the Caesareum of Alexandria.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"les Francs" is explained on the note 72 [4]: "the French, Italian or Christian European merchants that settled in Egypt." I also didn't find much tangible sources (ancient writings or archeological studies) to support the claim that the Augustean building was first conceived by Cleopatra; the area was excavated recently, but it is difficult to get access to the publications...--Phso2 (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I just read Ibn Battuta: he describes the Lighthouse, and Pompey's Pillar, but doesn't say anything about the obelisks or Caesar's Temple. Onceinawhile (talk) Onceinawhile (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This is similar to de Bruijn – recounting his 1657 trip, see Jean de Thévenot: Thévenot, J. (1665). Relation d'un voyage fait au Levant dans laquelle il est curieusement traité des estats sujets au Grand Seigneur,...et des singularitez particulières de l'Archipel, Constantinople, Terre-Sainte, Egypte, pyramides, mumies [sic], déserts d'Arabie, la Meque et de plusieurs autres lieux de l'Asie et de l'Affrique,... (in French). chez Thomas Jolly. Retrieved 2022-11-07.

For earlier works that this French is unlikely to be the language – it will likely be in Latin and/or Arabic. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Note that Thevenot (like de Bruijn) doesn't link directly the two "aiguilles" with Cleopatra, but writes that they are near the "palace of Cleopatra"; they had not become "Cleopatra's Needles" yet, perhaps.--Phso2 (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Phso2: I now found that Abd al-Latif al-Baghdadi around 1200 CE referred to them as "Cleopatra's Big Needles". I will add this to the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: good find. Alas, the French translation of al-Baghdadi does not say a word of Cleopatra!!! ([5] and note 46 [6]) What a puzzle, indeed. Gotta check the English translation.--Phso2 (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Also not in the English translation. Probably a simple occurence of the usual "Erudite transmission of errors" phenomena, when scholars assume candidly that their forerunners correctly quoted primary sources and don't bother to make direct verifications: Elliott quotes Budge p.166, who either invented the Baghdadi quotation or himself quoted the error from someone else (I didn't find the entire book only google snippet, so unable to know if he cited anything besides de Sacy's french translation of al B. (cited p166)).--Phso2 (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Nor is it in the 1800 bilingual version (both Latin and Arabic). See al-Baghdādī, M.D.A.L. (1800). Abdollatiphi Historiæ Ægypti compendium,: Arabice et Latine. p. 111.

• 1800 Arabic: ورايت بالاسكندرية مسلتين علي سيف البحر في وسط العمارة اكبر من هذه الصغار واصغر من العظيمتين, lit. 'In Alexandria, I saw two obelisks on the sea shore in the middle of the building, larger than these little ones and smaller than the two great ones'
• 1800 Latin: Vidi in Alexandria duos Obelifcos fuper littore maris, in medio munimenti, majores his quidem parvis, magnis autem illis duobus minores, lit. 'At Alexandria I saw two obelisks near the shore of the sea, in the midst of the ramparts, the greater of the two small ones, and the smaller of the two large ones.'
• 2022 translation (al-Baghdādī, A.L.; Mackintosh-Smith, T. (2021). A Physician on the Nile: A Description of Egypt and Journal of the Famine Years. Library of Arabic Literature. NYU Press. pp. 74–75. ISBN 978-1-4798-0624-9.): Following a section discussing Ain Shams (Heliopolis): "I also saw two obelisks in Alexandria, on the seafront in the middle of the built-up area, bigger than these small ones but smaller than the two enormous ones."
• Budge (1926): "...he says that he saw two obelisks in the middle of the building, which were larger than the small ones of Heliopolis, but smaller than the two large ones. He calls them "Cleopatra's big needles.""

When Sir E. A. Wallis Budge published the statement in 1926, he had just retired as a highly respected academic. I cannot believe he invented it. A real puzzle. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

By "invented" I did not mean "conscienciouly made a deceiptive statement", looks more like a kind of slip of pen, when dealing with "Cleopatra's needles" which Al-B calls "two big needles" he may have inavertently confused the two; this kind on inadvertance doesn't mean intellectual dishonesty, and happens quite often — even with respected academics, errare humanum est. Since he cites the french translation as a source, it is dubious that he quoted another version of Al-B. But de Sacy often criticizes Pococke translation, which i did not find, it would be interesting to check, if possible. Also on page 19 he seems to discuss the attribution of the name "cleopatra" to the obelisks, but I can't read the whole.--Phso2 (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Phso2: the whole chapter is transcribed here. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but it is no the relevant chapter I'm afraid. I found one mention of the obelisks by André Thevet (who visited egypt in 1552), with a quite naive engraving [7] but still no mention of cleopatra.--Phso2 (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. After a relisting and much back-and-forth, the discussion has reached a stalemate. Favonian (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Cleopatra's Needle → Cleopatra's Needles – Per WP:PLURAL, and consistent with Luxor Obelisks. Onceinawhile (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

yes, seems reasonable. And So It (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC) strike sock — Preceding unsigned comment added by GizzyCatBella (talk • contribs) 00:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• This move was considered controversial back in 2016. Courtesy ping MSGJ and Johnbod who were involved then. Favonian (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - "The Luxor Obelisks (French: Obélisques de Louxor) are a pair of Ancient Egyptian obelisks", so there is no option; the consistency argument is nonsense. The pieces called Cleopatra's Needle are all individual, and all called by the singular. That there are a number of them, very widely dispersed, does not matter. No source ever talks of "Cleopatra's Needles". Which part of WP:PLURAL do you think supports this? I can't see one. They are not a particular class or type of obelisk, other than having been set up a very long way from home. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Johnbod: I think you might be commenting on the wrong article? Or an old version of it (it was improved very significantly earlier this year)? This article is only about a pair of obelisks known originally as "Les aiguilles de Cléopâtre", when they sat next to each other outside Cleopatra’s Caesareum of Alexandria. Like the Luxor obelisks they now sit in different cities, but are very much a pair.

For sources which describe "Cleopatra’s Needles”, please see for example the external links section at the bottom of the article with two encyclopedia articles on the topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, they are a pair. But the best sources you can find with the plural name are two popular American works over a century old? Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

No, they are just the other encyclopedias already linked in the article. Other encyclopedias have done the same. So have some 20th and 21st century book titles like Christopher Niall Elliott in 2019, Bob Brier in 2016, R. A. Hayward in 1978, Aubrey Noakes in 1962. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: please could you take another look based on the above? Onceinawhile (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I've looked, but I still don't think the plural meets WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Johnbod, the use of the singular in the sources, and per the N-gram tally. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

  We already have articles for the singular usage – Cleopatra's Needle (London) and Cleopatra's Needle (New York). This is what ngrams shows.

  The sources which describe the pair – i.e. the subject of this article (examples given above), use the plural.

  Onceinawhile (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  Similar to the two The Magic Circle paintings which have one article entitled with the singular. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  Although, that page should have a 's' added, so it's The Magic Circle (Waterhouse paintings). Now a red link, I think I'll do a bold move on that one as it makes sense as a plural title (but not an example for adding 's' to Needle). Randy Kryn (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2022 (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.

Follow up

@Johnbod: in your comments above you stated that you used WP:COMMONNAME to assess whether this article should be titled in the plural. This article is about the pair, so when you assessed usage, you must only have looked at sources describing the pair (whereas sources describing only one of the needles will correctly relate to the child articles at Cleopatra's Needle (London) and Cleopatra's Needle (New York)).

I have tried to replicate your assessment and have got a different answer to yours. Please could you provide some examples of the sources you were referring to. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod just checking if you saw the above question. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the discussion was months ago & is now closed, & I'm not inclined to revisit. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I propose to reopen the discussion. If you comment again, please provide sources next time. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It's too soon. Let it drop. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I think the RM discussion above was one of the lowest quality discussions I have seen in all my years working on this project. I think it needs more people to look at it, because you are refusing to. I would be happy to let it drop if I felt you had read the sources and therefore has based your judgement on something solid. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Further to the above, Johnbod has a responsibility to make an effort in this discussion given the long term damage his unsupported edits have made to this article. In 2008[8] and in 2009[9] he incorrectly re-added the Paris Luxor obelisk as part of a supposed “trio” of Cleopatra’s needles. This was supported by his addition of a WP:OR [10] statement that the Paris Luxor obelisk “appears to be the origin of the [Cleopatra] nickname” – unsourced speculation which has since been proved to be false.

This article also previously stated that Cleopatra’s needles had nothing to do with Cleopatra; again this has now been proven to be false.

Johnbod seems to have been unaware for more than a decade that this is a historical pair, that stood beside each other for millenia. Johnbod admitted his mistake in the RM above, but has refused to do the work of looking at the sources to reassess his long-held incorrect understanding of this subject.

Sorry for stating this so directly, but sometimes things needs to be said as they are.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Johnbod so much time is being wasted because you are refusing to state to the sources that you have looked at. This comment from three months ago has made progress impossible. When I reopen the RM, will you then provide the sources that you have been looking at? Is reopening the RM the only way we can get sight of these sources? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Let the reader judge who is wasting time here, mainly mine, by neurotic pinging and demands! Obviously it was so long ago I've forgotten & I have no intention of doing more work to feed your obsession until I have to. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

MOS:REFERS

The lead sentence is inconsistent with MOS:REFERS: "…Cleopatra's Needle is the name given to a pair". It should say simply "is a pair", but it would need plural Needles.

@Johnbod: what do you think we should do here? Can the first sentence be plural while the title is singular?

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course it can! The first sentence is not "plural" - the object is "name", singular - as is "a pair" - "pairs" woulsd be plural. What does MOS:REFERS have to do with it?. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, if you say so. I have amended the sentence to be consistent with MOS:REFERS, but kept the rest as is. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

And I have improved on that rather misleading phrasing. Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Your edit tried something creative, suggesting they are no longer a pair. The pair formulation is well supported - you yourself wrote "Ok, they are a pair" back in August. We also have in the first sentence at Luxor Obelisks: "The Luxor Obelisks are a pair of Ancient Egyptian obelisks"; they are also thousands of miles apart. They remain a pair, as would be my pair of shoes still be if I accidentally left one on an aeroplane. No definition of the word pair requires immediate proximity - that is something you appear to have invented. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It's just misleading and confusing to the reader. I have restored my last version which is accurate and clear. Like most policies MOS:REFERS does not give a clear bright line, and allows for exceptions, where there is a good reason, as here. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I do not consider you to yet be in a position to state what is misleading or confusing (I assume you are referring to the "pair" point here), per my comment above of 16:29, 5 November. Until you have taken the time to study this subject, and correct any more historical misunderstandings you may have, I don't think you should be commenting in this manner. I realize my tone is strong here, but I remain disappointed that you are standing in the way of improving this article whilst refusing to engage in proper source-based discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: please explain your reasons for proposing an exception to MOS:REFERS and WP:ISAWORDFOR here. WP:ISAWORDFOR explicitly describes your proposed wording as a "poorly written dictionary-style introductory sentences... [which] ought to be cleaned up". MOS:REFERS explicitly states that constructions such as your proposal should be avoided. What is it about this topic that justifies an exception to these clear requirements? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Johnbod: please could you let me know re the above question? I have thought about it further – I still don't see a rationale for an exception here. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The silliness of your alternative "Cleopatra's Needle is a pair of ancient Egyptian obelisks currently located in London and New York City" is ample justification. We've had the RM; if you can think of a formula that is compatible with that & reads well, please let us know. Johnbod (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hence my question at the top of this thread: Can the first sentence be plural while the title is singular? "Cleopatra's Needles are a pair of ancient Egyptian obelisks currently located in London and New York City" seems eminently sensible.

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but you lost a RM to impose that title, and are refusing to accept consensus on that. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 15 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Cleopatra's Needle → Cleopatra's Needles – Reopening after three months to break the deadlock with wider participation. The previous RM (above) was poorly attended and suffered from mistakes which have since been rescinded. The first of two commenting editors influenced the discussing by stating incorrectly that the obelisks were unrelated and not a pair – he later acknowledged this was wrong.[11] The same editor felt the article was about the term, not about the obelisks – he later acknowledged this is not the case.[12] The second editor made an analogy to a painting and its identical copies, but these painting copies were not meant to stand together and be exhibited as a pair.

Finally, sources were alluded to but never provided (despite subsequent pleading and begging) to counter the numerous sources which use the plural in the title (e.g. Christopher Niall Elliott in 2019, Bob Brier in 2016, R. A. Hayward in 1978, Aubrey Noakes in 1962 and E. A. Wallis Budge in 1926). Since this article is about the pair of obelisks that stood side by side for millennia, an assessment of its title must use sources which describe them together. Care is needed with the sources that only describe one of the obelisks (which now reside thousands of miles apart); those sources are relevant for our articles about the individual obelisks and their current locations, but not relevant when assessing the name of this article about the historical pair.

When describing them as a pair, all sources use the plural, by definition – it isn’t possible to write a grammatically correct introductory sentence describing them as a pair with a singular name, without making the article about the name itself. Scholarship has not written on the name in any detail (unfortunately, as it would be useful for the history section) so an article about the name would fail WP:GNG. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PLURAL Articles on groups of distinct entities that are nevertheless often considered together (and/or Articles that actually distinguish among multiple distinct instances of related items). The inappropriateness of singular can also be seen in difficulties to write a cogent lead sentence using the singular subject. No such user (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support, per nomination and several sources, a change to my last opinion on the subject. The two stand-alone articles about the pair should remain singular. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per the last time. Though originally together, the obelisks are now thousands of miles apart. Necessarily the vast majority of sources refer mainly to one or the other at a time, making the singular title more appropriate - WP:PLURAL does not apply. The singular name is clearly vastly more common, as Onceinawhile admits. Onceinawhile's "Care is needed with the sources that only describe one of the obelisks (which now reside thousands of miles apart); those sources are relevant for our articles about the individual obelisks and their current locations, but not relevant when assessing the name of this article about the historical pair" is clearly nonsense. Material about the later history and placings does not belong here in any quantity, but other stuff may well belong here. Precisely because they began as a pair, good sources on the early history of one will normally apply to both. Onceinawhile's invented difficulty "it isn’t possible to write a grammatically correct introductory sentence describing them as a pair with a singular name" is also silly. The fact is, he lost a RM to impose the plural title only 3 months ago, and is refusing to accept consensus on that. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Lost a RM – what a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Refusing to accept consensus – the RM was closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation and rather aggressive opposition by one participant. No such user (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Apart from a sock, there were no supports and two opposes. I'm not the one who has been moaning and issuing peremptory demands ever since. Three months is too soon to revisit. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

No such user, until I read it a few minutes ago I didn't know that literal badgering (the nominator took a badger, the actual animal, I don't know its name, and used its two front paws to type much of their comments during the last few weeks) had quickly turned into this RM on November 15th. After reading the two sections between the last RM and this one I think Johnbod can be forgiven the feeling of battleground surrounding this naming. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support, as it is an article about the obelisks considered as a pair. Also, as already stated, singular makes "difficulties to write a cogent lead sentence".--Phso2 (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2022 (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.

Dimensions?

All this writing, and not a single mention of the height of either obelisk? President Lethe (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Captain Henry Davis

The Ship Captain that brought Cleopatras Needle to New York was Captain Henry Davis born on Nantucket Island and he worked as the Captain of several ships in Nantucket and Connecticut. He was the twin brother of Frank Davis a ship builder. 2601:48:2:3AE0:E133:EF65:C6F0:D2C8 (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Cleopatra One more Time

I know this isn't the first time the issue has been thrashed out, but we need to fix the statement about the needles being named after Cleo because they used to stand next to her Caesareum. It breaks the rule against original research. That's because it rests entirely on its own inference that the Caesareum is the connection. I won't comment on whether that inference makes sense, because it doesn't matter. Good original research is still original research.

Now, if you can find a reliable source that backs the Caesareum theory, then it can stay in the article — but not in the lead. Because there are also reliable sources (like the book that sent me here) that say, no, it was just some French dudes with a fascination for Cleo. Which belongs in a separate Etymology section. The Caesareum theory can go there too if you can find a reliable source that argues it.

Tagging previous discussants: @Onceinawhile @Phso2

— Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Isaac. The section Cleopatra's_Needles#Alexandria shows that the connection to Cleopatra has a long and consistent history - at least back to 1650 and possibly to 1300. Sources are always much harder to find in the 1500s and before, because printing was yet to proliferate so we are reliant on a small number of manuscripts. So what was this view based on?

All scholars agree that the needles were not originally from Alexandria, i.e. that they must have been moved there. Alexandria was founded late in the context of Egyptian history, in 331 BCE, and only became the Egyptian capital in 305 BCE. So if the needles were moved by an Egyptian dynasty, it can only have been the Ptolemaic dynasty.

Scholarly consensus says that the needles were part of the Caesareum of Alexandria, narrowing it down to the very end of the Ptolemaic dynasty.

We know that elements of the Caesareum survived until the 19th century. If we could find a 19th century archeological publication setting our everything we known that building, it would likely shed more light on this question. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Merriam, Augustus C. [in German] (1883). "The Caesareum and the Worship of Augustus at Alexandria". Transactions of the American Philological Association (1869-1896). 14. [Johns Hopkins University Press, American Philological Association]: 5–35. ISSN 0271-4442. JSTOR 2935824.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

With all respect, your ignoring my point. I'm not questioning your argument, I'm pointing out that it's original research. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be called WP:OR when there is a string of refs in the article going back centuries, saying just this or versions of it ("Cleopatra's Palace" etc). Is there any alternative theory? Are you querying their location in Alex, or what exactly? Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not questioning any of the facts you cite. I'm questioning your inference "And that's why they're called Cleopatra's needles." Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

My inference? Now I'm puzzled: you accept Western writers have been calling them Cleopatra's Needles or similar for centuries, whether or not their ideas of the connection to C or her buildings agree with modern archaeology. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Your inference is that they called them Cleopatra's needles because they used to be next to the Caesareum. You haven't show me a source that says that. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

a) I don't see the current text saying this, b) I've only fiddled with long-standing text - why do you keep calling it my inference, c) you are welcome to propose different text. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't formally say that the connection to Cleo comes from the fact that they belonged to the Caesareum, only that they were brought to the caesareum, that the latter was conceived by Cleo, and that they were named after her. Perhaps it would be better to omit the "which had been conceived by Ptolemaic Queen" part, because it subtly suggests that the reference to Cleo comes indeed from her own association to the building (this doesn't seem to be the case because when travellers started to call the obelisks "cleopatra's needles" in the 17th century, they didn't make the connection to the caesareum). And according to this scholarly source the main building and installation of the obelisks were the design of Octavian some years later. Phso2 (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)