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

Archaeology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 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. Ethiopia: History and politics / People and culture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethiopia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ethiopia 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.EthiopiaWikipedia:WikiProject EthiopiaTemplate:WikiProject EthiopiaEthiopia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by History and politics (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by People and culture (assessed as High-importance).

OK, so I don't know anything about this obelisk, but could I point out that it is unlikely that something carved in the fourth century A.D. is 2500 years old? Isomorphic 02:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Someone confused their BC with their AD. It's fixed. - Nunh-huh 02:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it was supposed to be AD, and it's 1700 years old. References: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7556856/, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4458105.stm -- 02:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article say some tumbs were found near the place were obelisk will be planted. [1]

There was some back-and-forth editing in the main Ethiopia article concerning the date that Italy agreed to return the obelisk. This article puts the date in 1997, following years of pressure. It's probably worth noting that this was at least the third such agreement, and that technically, this agreement wasn't met either (it stipulated that the return occur in 1997). A series of articles by Richard Pankhurst describes the history of the obelisk following its removal (they are no longer at the original website but are avialble through archive.org): [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The article reads like this: In a 1947 UN agreement, Italy agreed to return the obelisk. After years of pressure, the Italian government agreed, in April 1997 to return it.

Also the article says the Ethiopian government is storing the obelisk until it decides what to do with it, but shows the obelisk on display at Northern Stele Park. So which is it? - Rolypolyman 13:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply

That's a different stele (King Ezana's stele). The one taken by Italy is awaiting erection, but the proposed site has now been found to have underground (royal?) tombs under it, so it's still waiting. Wrt to the return of the Obelisk, the date differences are due to tons of stalling by the Italian government. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Why is it still called an obelisk when it does not conform to the classical shape for obelisks? DFH 19:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Today, "Obelisk of Axum" has become the name of this particular stele. Does anyone want to render visible the image "File:Stele di Axum (Henri Salt).jpg"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.204.36.29 ( talk) 10:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply

"The Obelisk of Axum, was itself collapsed and broken into three parts when it was found by Italian soldiers at the end of 1935"..."The stele had fallen in the 4th Century and had broken into five pieces". Well ladies and gents, was it 3 parts or 5? danno_ uk 16:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I've opted for 5 having found a UNESCO paper that asserts it was in 5 pieces when the Italians found it. Having said that, all the BBC refs I've used mention 3... danno_ uk 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC) reply