Talk:Luxor Obelisks

France: Paris Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Paris task force.

Untitled

Images of Alain Robert climbing the Luxor obelisk in 2000 shows him standing on top, without the new pyramidian. However, the pyramidian was apparently added in 1998. Can anyone resolve this as I am confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.22.82 (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Robert climbed the obelisk in 1998 and 2000 according to his website.

Hi, this is my first ever contribution to Wikipedia so sorry if this messes up. In any case, I've noted some issues with the citations for the draping of the Obelisk with the pink condom: one possible source to use is perhaps this one. I'm not sure how to add it into the article though and I'm worried of making errors. Thank you! --BritishRoyalPatriot 17:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BritishRoyalPatriot (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luxor Obelisk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090308090322/http://www.civismemoria.fr/contribution/?module=contrib&contrib=862 to http://www.civismemoria.fr/contribution/?module=contrib&contrib=862

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of the obelisk

An anonymous editor changed the lead section to say the obelisk in Paris was "stolen". When I reverted that edit, on the grounds that the king of Egypt at the time gave the obelisk to France as a gift, the anonymous editor said instead that the obelisk "still remains in Paris despite France having no legal right to it since 1981".

It's true that Egypt passed a law in 1983 declaring all antiquities to be state property, but according to this article it wasn't considered to apply retroactively until this year, when the Egyptian government began arguing that antiquities that were legally removed from the country before 1983 still counted as Egyptian property: https://coinsweekly.com/is-egypt-breaking-its-own-laws/#:~:text=Reinterpreting%20an%20Old%20Law&text=Rihan%20justifies%20this%20view%20with,that%20exporting%20them%20is%20illegal. Laws don't normally work that way, so if Egypt does try to apply those claims universally, it will prove very contentious. The article mentions the obelisk as an example of what the Egyptian government could demand if this reinterpretation of the law we applied across the board, but as far as I can tell, they haven't actually asked for it as yet.

I don't know to what extent this source is considered reliable in Wikipedia terms, and I don't have time at the moment to search for other sources. But the upshot seems to be that this is a contentious legal argument that Egypt has only recently started to make, and we don't yet know to what extent they will pursue it in the future. So we can't say outright that France's possession of the obelisk is illegal, at least not yet. I'm undoing the anonymous editor's new edit, although with a caveat that this issue could become worthy of coverage in the future, though not necessarily on this page; I'd say it's only relevant here if Egypt applies its claim to the obelisk. A. Parrot (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]