Talk:Cleopatra's Needles

message: 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)
thread_title: Error?

message: 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)
thread_title: London Needle

message: 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)
thread_title: First airplane raid on London?

message: 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)
thread_title: Orientation of the Sphinxes in London

message: 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)
thread_title:  Time capsual 

message: 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)
thread_title:  erosion of the NY needle 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleopatra connection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Roman discovery of Central Park 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Two or three Needles 

message: 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)
thread_title: possible pic

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hieroglyphs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disambiguation page 

message: :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)
replies: text: Cleopatra's Needle →  – Per WP:PLURAL, and consistent with Luxor Obelisks. Onceinawhile (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  please could you take another look based on the above? Onceinawhile (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked, but I still don't think the plural meets WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

text: @Johnbod just checking if you saw the above question. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the discussion was months ago & is now closed, & I'm not inclined to revisit. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I propose to reopen the discussion. If you comment again, please provide sources next time. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too soon. Let it drop. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 August 2022 

message: 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)
replies: text: @Johnbod just checking if you saw the above question. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the discussion was months ago & is now closed, & I'm not inclined to revisit. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I propose to reopen the discussion. If you comment again, please provide sources next time. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too soon. Let it drop. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Follow up

message: :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)
replies: text: Cleopatra's Needle →  – 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. The same editor felt the article was about the term, not about the obelisks – he later acknowledged this is not the case. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: , 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 November 2022 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Captain Henry Davis