Talk:Library of Alexandria/Archive 2

message: It is well known that the library was largely destroyed through a fire by the early Christians.  The head librarian, whose name escapes me at the moment, tried to prevent this from happening but was killed by the angry mob who used seashells to cut his body to pieces.  Those who try to hide this are apparently on the side of the mob and want not only the library to have been destroyed but the story of how it happened to be destroyed.  See a Cantacle for Liebowitz for wonderful rendition of the story of early christians, although it is about a nuclear holocaust in the 1950s and the new religion that springs up, and what they do with the past.
:According to Sagan at least, whose name I have seen smeared here and there in this debate (not saying Sagan didn't have an agenda), her name was Hypatia, and she was pulled from her chariot and cut to pieces by a Christian mob at the urging of the Bishop of Alexandria.  Whether this is true or not, I have no way of knowing.
:I find it quite curious that Walter M. Miller's, A Canticle for Leibowitz is mentioned in this regard.  Though the book generally seems to parallel some of early Chistian history, I certainly wouldn't recommend it as a guide to early Christian history. 
:Finally, as you say, the Library was largely destroyed through a fire by the early Christians, but other sources I have seen have stated that the final Library was destroyed much later by Musliums in retaliation for the City of Alexandria revolting against Islamic rule (I think it would have been the second or third such revolt--unlike the Vandals and the Monguls, the followers of Islam were not inherently anti-intellectual).  If this is so, this argues for destruction by degrees, and places the final destruction sometime after 700 A.D. GestaltG 15:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article doesn't go far enough 

message: It seems to have become common practice to slap templates on articles instead of arguing or editing. It's well known that Mr. Hannam, who runs a site called Reasonable Apologetics under the pseudonym of a medieval Christian monk, objects to the neutrality of this article and has resorted to considerable name-calling in doing so, but so far he has been unable to cite any specific factual errors in it. If there will be no substantial arguments as to the neutrality of this article within the next 7 days, I will remove this newly added "POV check" template.--Eloquence* 20:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has a section called Conclusions, which does indeed draw the conclusions you favor. There's no need of supplimenting that with "substantial arguments", it's conclusive proof in its own right.  A.J.A. 22:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The conclusion section is as ambiguous as it needs to be to remain NPOV. Having such a section does not in itself constitute POV.  Within historical scholarship, the claim that Caesar alone was responsible for the destruction of the library is entirely discredited. This can be seen in the cited sources and in virtually every other contemporary work on the history of the library. As for what happened after Caesar, the article does explicitly avoid making a definitive statement. It does very much not "draw the conclusions I favor". Indeed, the conclusion I favor is not mentioned in the article at all (that the contents of the library were transferred and survived for some time), because there is very little evidence for it. The article is based on the current state of scholarship and historical evidence on the matter. We should give substantial space to the Christian apologist POV only if it is shared by notable historians, and I see no evidence of that. Otherwise, assumptions derived from theological dogma ("The Church cannot have done wrong, therefore ..") do not belong here.--Eloquence* 23:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I enter your own comment as further proof. You think you've succeeded to in pushing your view ambiguously enough to skate just this side of NPOV. You haven't.  A.J.A. 01:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're repeating yourself. I will remove the template unless there are actionable objections on the discussion page.--Eloquence* 04:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So now I need new and persuasive arguments that structuring an entire argument as an argument with explicitly so-labeled conclusions, directed against arguments you personally admit to knowing of and argue are unworthy of inclusion because you disagree with them is POV. But no more conclusive proof is needed, or for that matter possible.  A.J.A. 07:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, particularly the sections on pseudoscience and minority views. Not every person with a website has a right to have their opinion presented in great detail in Wikipedia. This article should primarily rely on historical scholarship. I'm not opposed to including Bede's views in a sentence or two, but they are certainly not representative of the current state of science. James is not a published historian and starts from a religious rather than a scientific perspective. You would not seriously argue to include peculiar views of, say, a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints in the article on gravity, would you?--Eloquence* 09:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. You really do believe that no Mormon, or rather no religious person, can ever have a valid view about anything. And you demand the article be writen with that POV.  A.J.A. 16:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only encountered this article for the first time today, but the whole POV thing would dissolve instantly with a few references to ancient sources. Currently there is not much here that is substantiated: I don't put much stock in "One story holds", "Another story concerns", "the Royal Library is believed to have held" (by whom?), "Carlton Welch provides the following description" (where?), "Socrates Scholasticus provides the following account" (where?), "Paulus Orosius admitted in his History against the pagans" (where in his history?), and I know no reason why Mostafa El-Abbadi is a reliable source for events that occurred 1600 years before his birth. Petrouchka 02:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "POV check" 

message: Consider me for this moment as an outside observer.  I have not much been involved in this editoral war, I only made a minor comment a couple of days ago in the Article Doesn't Go Far Enough section.  Reading this editorial war, I offer the following outside observations:
* It is utterly fascinating that an event that occurred, at the least, well over a thousand years ago still generates so much heated controversy.  It seems that the destruction of the Library or Libraries of Alexandria is a magnet, or symbol, of a sense of collective guilt, regret, and pessamism for the educated portions of Western civilization.  It carries with it the sense of the fall.
* Ninety percent of all of the debates about the destruction of the Library of Alexandria (we use the collective term either out of convenience or ignorance, hard to say) or anything remotely connected to it, center on the "blame game," we want to blame someone for it.  And when someone is to be blamed for something, especially something as historically vague as this, the door is opened for POV and agendas.  The essence of this debate is really no different than a bunch of Christian theologians arguing over the infamous event in the Garden of Eden; who do we blame for it?  Do we blame the Serpent for inducing Eve?  Do we blame man for being so easily tempted and fallable?  Or do we blame God for making man imperfect?  The difference between the two is that while the latter might be regarded as a pointless metaphysical debate (which has lost meaning for most of the population), the former (the arguments about the destruction of the Library) we feel is more accessible because humans did it.  Our ancestors did it, people that we feel we might identify with; though it is most unlikely that we share much worldview in common with those people.  This suggests that we do not feel that we are significantly different from our ancestors; unlike for example, if you were reminded of something you did as a child, you might respond, "Oh but I was a child!  I would never do something like that now."
*The main problem with the blame game in this particular instance is that there is likely no sigular event that we can call "The Destruction of the Library of Alexandria."  If we assume for a moment (as seems reasonable given the history) that the destruction of the Library occurred over several centuries, then potentially every group that was in the area during those centuries could be blamed.  Which is exactly what we seem to be doing here.  The fallacies of the blame game is that it makes two sorts of unsupportable assumptions:  First that the act of the destruction of the Library was deliberate, and second that the motives for the destruction are attributable to the agendas of one of the groups being blamed.  Take a moment to examine these assumptions.  For example, I have never seen anyone suggest that perhaps the fire (or any of the possible fires) might have been accidental.  I am put to mind of the Fire of London, which modern investigation shows likely started in a bakery from flour dust, but which the people of the time needed to blame on someone, and hence they executed a Dutch immigrant (if I recall correctly).  There is also the possibility of arson, just a plain old "fire bug" type of deranged person.  Such a person's only agenda (though they may state otherwise) is to burn things because they feel the need to do so.  The problem is that in the mileu of the time, even if one of the fires that destroyed the Library was an accident, or if it was just plain old arson by a pyromaniac, there would have been accuasations and blaming, and propaganda, by the competing sides.  And apparently, we haven't learned any better and see fit here in Wikipedia to continue doing exactly what our ancestors did so many centries ago.  The only difference is that we are all a safe enough distance from each other that nobody is going to pull out a sword and start hacking.
The key to resolving this issue, and all similar issues that might arise in other Wikiarticles, is to recognize first what it is that drives these arguments, and then put it in its proper place (not to eliminate it, but don't let it overtake us, to where we are now, arguing over blame games and POV), and to simply present the historical facts as best they are known, and a reasonably neutral paragraph on each major point of view. GestaltG 05:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that is a version of the story even I haven't heard before.  Please could you give us a reference and I'll update my own work at least!  --James Hannam 16:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had read it in a Greek orthodox church book, with texts written by Chrysostom himself. I can't remember the title right now, as it was about 6 years ago and never came back to it again. I'll try to find the reference. Elp gr 08:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably this is to do with the destruction of the library in the Serapeion, rather than the Great Library itself. Petrouchka 01:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting a Grip 

message: This is a free site and those constantly deleting people's work are no more intitled to posting then those being deleting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paranoiapenguins (talk • contribs) .
:You will need to provide a credible source for the "Paul Nezypour" claim. The name doesn't google. --BorgQueen 19:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership 

message: Articles like these are the reasons people have ammo with which to attack wikipedia...
Christ, half the article is a child's story tale told as truth. Theophilus?! Try asking a historian versed in the subject about that folk tale and they will laugh until snot shoots out their nose.
68.52.56.111 05:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - Coptics have "popes". If you'd taken half a second to follow the links (see Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and List of Coptic Orthodox Popes of Alexandria), you'd see that this is an actual title and it continues to this day. Before you cast stones, make sure you are correct... Ckruschke (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Do you have something specific that is "biased"? Because comments like "this page sucks" are usually ignored since they have nothing to do with improving the page and are usually biased themselves. Happy to help make the page better, even though I have written none of the content on it, but can't work blindly. So if you have background knowledge and references that contradict content on the page or would improve it, please post them here and we'll work on fixing the page. Ckruschke (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally Uncredible

message: Greetings,
I'm an undergraduate of history at North Idaho College. It has come to my attention that many of you have gotten quite brutal and accusatory in your discussion of this subject. I have just a few recommendations to avoid this kind of thing in the future.
1) CITE YOUR SOURCES 
2) WATCH FOR PLAGERISM!!!!! ( I know for a fact that at least one ENTIRE paragraph is plagerised from the eHistory page provided by the University of Ohio- http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9. Even if you site your sources in the bibliography, if you use more than a few words from someone elses work without quoting them, you are PLAGERIZING. Take a look at the www.e-riginalworks.com's link page for some help correctly citing sources)
3) KNOW YOUR OWN BIASES! (Almost all of you obviouslly had some)
4) WATCH FOR THE BIASES OF OTHERS! 
5) While searching for sources, I recommend using your local college or university's library or watching for an .edu or .gov web address. These are excellent places to start as they are related to education and government. You can usually find a links page with creditable information from there.)
6) Last but not least, avoid the use of fallacies!
If you truely respect the integrity of this project you will go through the effort of educating yourselves in the use of critical thinking, research and the writing of an essay.
Lady Syntria 16:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lady Syntria, I applaud your sentiments. Your heart seems to be in the right place. But...I tried to find a way to contact you privately so as not to make you feel bad but coudln't, so I have to say it here: you need to spell check your stuff, especially if you are announcing to the world that you are a scholar. "plagiarism", "truly", etc. Dveej 22:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know why I can't get my comment just previous to this one to start on a different line than Lady Syntria's signature. Guess they'll have to take away my geek card now... Dveej 23:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Fixed it for you; just put colons in front of your paragraphs).  Well I don't have any serious biases here ... because I just want to KNOW the answer.  I don't really care what it is, I just want it to be accurate.  I was very disappointed to find out that it seems nobody knows the real story, and we just have a situation where people are making nonsensical unsourced and clearly invalid claims.  It sad that we can't even form a reasonable theory about it without falling into some sort of contradiction.  Can we not just say that we don't know, and there are many popular claims, all of which are made by people with an axe to grind, and none of them being contradiction free? At least it would save the next person from spending hours on the web searching in vain before realizing this. --Qed (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A little bit of everything...

message: Magic: The Gathering has a famous card called Library of Alexandria Mathmo 05:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Magic: The Gathering

message: I got bold. Ethan Mitchell 16:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A rewrite

message: I'm currently adding info to the University of Timbuktu Articles (Sankore, Djinguereber and Sidi Yahya). I've run across several sources stating the city of Timbuktu had around 700,000 scrolls between the mosques and private residences. If this is true, it would put it on par with Alexandria especially since many of the scrolls still exist to this day in and outside of Timbuktu. Of course many may be copies like in alexandria (students were required to copy text). If anyone can find a definate or minimum number on Alexandria's text i'd appreciate it.
Also, I've heard the burning of Alexandria set humanity (or at least Europe) back almost a thousand years. any truth to this? just curious. holla back
::No that's rediculous.  The Romans weren't a great enlightened race, which flew UFO's around Atlantis.  Technology/knowledge/culture (things that makes life bearable for the great unwashed masses) has progressed in a linear fashion, the Roman Empire wasn't even a blip, and neither was it's disappearance a blip.  The God-hating Atheists just like to bring up the Library of Alexandria for their 3 minute hate sessions.98.165.6.225 (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The loss of Alexandria represents a massive loss of culture and an unknown amount of pre-science or philosophical thought.  But the 1000 years of lost progress comes from the Christian domination of Europe during the middle ages (aka Dark Ages) not specifically the loss of Alexandria itself.  The Arabs continued with whatever was recovered from the Greeks and Romans (from the remains of Alexandria's stores and elsewhere).  Its unclear how far back the extensive loss of the Greek and Roman knowledge before the Arabs could recover it cost society, but 1000 years for that alone seems unlikely.  Its the fact that all of Europe was now closed to either benefiting from or contributing to that progress, and the Arab golden age was somewhat short-lived (somewhere between 200 and 300 years?).  You would have to take the 1000 years of darkness in Europe, subtract the progress generated by the Arabs (which the European enlightenment followed directly from), but then add however much was lost by the destruction of Greek and Roman materials to estimate how much we lost. Qed (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're spreading untruths claiming that 1000 years of lost progress comes from Christian domination. The Dark Ages refers to the period after the fall of Rome when Roman culture, thought, knowledge, engineering, etc. were not maintained (or were destroyed) and were lost to Western Europe. This was due to barbarian (foreign) invasions and conquering of the Western Roman Empire. It has nothing to do with Christian domination, though there is a compelling case to make that Christians actually helped greatly during the subsequent Dark Ages by copying and preserving what remained of ancient sources of knowledge. Arabic progress also does not come into play here, nor does the Eastern Roman Empire which continued to flourish throughout the Middle Ages, because neither stemmed the loss of progress in Western Europe following the fall of the Roman Empire in the West.68.63.139.125 (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Regardless of the scroll count, the library at Timbuktu did not even exist in the era we are discussing, and no one is claiming that the LOA was the largest library in the history of the world. The Library of Congress (or, perhaps, the internet) gets that honor. Also, it is well established that the burning of the library of Alexandria, by the Dutch, only set us back 347.2 years. Ethan Mitchell 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison and Myth

message: The article has improved a lot recently, most notably due to the work of User:Ethan Mitchell. The article needs more work, but I think it's progressed far enough to take off the "rewrite" and "citecheck" templates. Any objections? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken them off. There are still  tags in the body of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of "complete rewrite" and "citecheck" tags

message: I have deleted the mention of Aristotle's library. "According to a well-known story, first told by Strabo and repeated by Plutarch and Suidas, Aristotle's library, including the manuscripts of his own works, was willed by him to Theophrastus, his successor as head of the Peripatetic School. By Theophrastus it was bequeathed to his heir, Neleus of Scepsis. After Neleus's death the manuscripts were hidden in a cellar or pit in order to avoid confiscation at the hands of royal book collectors, and there they remained for almost two centuries, until in Sulla's time they were discovered and brought to Rome. At Rome they were copied by a grammarian named Tyrannion and edited (about 70 B.C.) by Andronicus of Rhodes." -Catholic Encyclopedia. --Wetman 03:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Ethan Mitchell 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aristotle's library

message: The well known and award winning computer game Civilization 2 by Sid Meir gives the player the option of building "The Great Library". Clearly, this was a reference to the library in Alexandria. The benefit was gaining any knowledge advancement discovered by two rival civilizations Canking 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Computer Game

message: To say that Muslims could have possibly burned collections of the Library of Alexandria (and used them to fuel their "Turkish baths" for "six months" is not only false but preposterous. Not only did the Prophet instruct his followers (by quoting the Prophet Luqman) to "Sit with the learned men and keep close to them" saying that "Allah gives life to the hearts with the light of wisdom as Allah gives life to the dead earth with the abundant rain of the sky" but it is a well-known historical fact that Muslims were responsible for copying down and preserving the works of Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolemy of Alexandria and a whole host of other Greek Philosophers. On the other hand, it is also a well-known fact that the ones responsible for burning the complete works of Sappho, Epicurus, Democritus, Heraclitus, as well as Aristotle's Dialogues (to name only a very few) were fanatics who claimed to be Christians and considered such knowledge as the "doctrine of demons" (to quote the fanatic Tertullian.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazallen (talk • contribs) 
:The article clearly and fairly represents this matter with citations. Tvoz | talk 08:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry, i didn't note this section when writing the same in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Library_of_Alexandria#Muslim_conquest.3F , which citation ? please if you can clarify by citing more serious citations (for not against what is wrote like the existent) put it/them, i plan to clean up the section.Khaled.khalil 00:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the same logic, wikipedia should not say that the English army resisted Germany during World War II, since Jesus told his followers to "turn the other cheek." Intent is not action. And how on earth are you commenting without either a username or an IP address? Ethan Mitchell 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It isn't Islamophobia to suggest that perhaps the muslim conquerers were anything less than the "highly cultured patrons of learning" you laud them as. It is a false choice to say that muslims must either be placed on a pedestal and esteemed as noble or else they are the Taliban. They were not always benevolent, they were conquerers. Conquest is not charity. The OP states that certain parts of the koran encourage support of science, but that presumes that all parts of the koran are always followed by muslim authorities, which clearly isn't true, and even if it was the koran is highly open to interpretation. So just because part of the koran encourages respect for science and learning has nothing to do with whether Omar decided to burn the library, any more than Christian doctrine determines whether Theoplilus did. All conquerers, Omar, Theoplilus, Caesar, were asserting control over their empire and would have sought to squash any dissent that exceeded what could be tolerated.Walterego (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand this completely.  It's not a question of respect, or attitudes, or what it means to conquer.  The Arabs would have recognized the value of the books from the beginning.  A reasonably sized book had the same value as a house.  The purpose of the conquest was also to acquire the treasures of Alexandria, and any library and its contents within would have been considered exactly that; treasure.  That's why it is easy to find 5 sources in the current article that all debunk this story on completely independent grounds: the story is a very lazy lie. Qed (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is Wikipedia once again repeating Islamophobic lies???

message: Is it worth mentioning in the Fiction section that the Library is a buildable Wonder in the game "Empire Earth"? If I remember correctly, it enabled the builder to see all the buildings built on the map. TheTrojanHought 10:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Empire Earth

message: Why is there a neutrality tag above the "conclusion" section? I can see people disputing other parts of the destruction tales, but the last bit says nothing more than "the story of the Library ends sometime before the 8th century ends" and gives some reasoning to back that conclusion up. If there is bias (IF), it is in the sections above the conclusion (dealing with who was responsible for the destruction), not the end paragraph (stating that it was, in fact, destroyed before this point in history).
With that in mind, I am removing the neutrality tag. If people feel there is bias in the finger-pointing section, place the neutrality tag over the part that has the bias so people read the warning before reading the compromised text, or at the top of the whole section if you feel the entire section is potentially biased. Davethehorrible 15:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality tag?

message: This article could benefit from a picture of any credible recreations/models of the ancient library available online. There are computer models and physical models (Of both the main building and various rooms within) that have been created by historians based on the best available evidence. Many of these pictures can be found online. Does anyone know the proper procedure for obtaining proper rights/permission to use such a picture on Wikipedia? GoldenMean 09:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect people will take pictures at wikimania? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rights for a Picture of the Ancient Library of Alexandria

message: I have restored part of the conclusion. It seems perfectly reasonable to me. I have added a citation tag though. I actually think the rest of the conclusion was ok too, but clearly a couple of people have issues with it. I think without it the article seems to stop suddenly. Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The conclusion should note that Plutarch's claim that the Library burned down during Caesar's visit is the only account in ancient literature as to what happened to the library. Even if we reject his specific claims, this is good evidence that the Library was a thing of the past when Plutarch was writing (about AD120). The Serapeum, burned down under Aurelian, rebuilt, and destroyed-for-good by Theophilus, was a different institution. The Musaeum where Hypatia was a lecturer was the city's university -- also a separate institution than the library. Kauffner (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 4 proposed theories and none of them weighs more than the others. Either all of them should be included and summarized in the conclusion, or the generic current version that states the following should be kept: Although the actual circumstances and timing of the physical destruction of the Library remain uncertain, it is however clear that by the Eighth century A.D., the Library was no longer a significant institution and had ceased to function in any important capacity.
--Lanternix (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The conclusion should be expanded, but there is no reason to give all four accounts equal weight. Who thinks that the library was still functioning in the seventh century? This is only in the medieval legend that the Muslims destroyed it. This is not serious history. Plutarch is by far the best existing source. He was scholar who lived in Alexandria. He would certainly have known about the Library if it still existed in his time. Kauffner (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: Does the quoted passage really contain the word "contarry" (search the article for it, you'll see what I mean), or is that a typo for "contrary"?  If there is some word "contarry" that I don't know about, and the passage really does use it, that's fine...if it's a typo in the original it should be noted as such with "[sic]", but if it's a typo introduced in the replication of the passage here, it should be fixed... I don't have access to the original, so I can't check it for myself... Tomertalk 01:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly "contrary". Why the article needs sizable blockquotes from this source, I'm not sure. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote check 

message: Does the phrase "This account was dismissed..." refer to the story of the bathwater or of the entire account of muslims burning/destroying the library? 192.114.91.226 (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This account"? 

message: Is the Straight Dope counted as RS? There's also a Coptic website quoted that looks a little dubious. I would have thought Google Books to the rescue for this one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.233.249 (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RS 

message: The article currently states "King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (309–246 BC) is said to have set 500,000 scrolls as an objective for the library" , and cites a 1928 paper by W.W. Tarn for this admirably specific figure. The article cited does not in fact support this claim, and does not offer any verifiable facts to suggest it. The closest the paper gets is to say (p. 253) "tradition speaks of 200,000 rolls in this reign, 700,000 ultimately". Tarn does not offer any supporting evidence; "tradition speaks of" is not an adequate source.
In other words, this article is wrong both in (1) the figure it cites, and (2) the reliability of the source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.38 (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of library