Talk:Cleopatra's Needles

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

Architecture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Ancient Egypt Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects 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.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list: edit history watch purge Needed articles. We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have. Cleanup. To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates? Standardize the Chronology. A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563) Stub sorting Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . . Data sorting. This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library. London Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 11 August 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Cleopatra's Needles. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

On 15 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Cleopatra's Needle to Cleopatra's Needles. The result of the discussion was moved.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

(not-)Pompey's pillar, Plato's olive-tree etc)--Phso2 (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Follow up

@

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The lead sentence is inconsistent with

@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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

@

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]