Talk:Lighthouse of Alexandria

message: If anyone has access to thalplpt article: Behrens-Abouseif, Doris (2006) 'The Islamic History of the Lighthouse of Alexandria.' Muqarnas XXIII. An Annual on the Visual Culture of the Islamic World., 23 . pp. 1-14., please confirm the facts on the "later days" of Pharos. IMO, this article really needs some citations. --User:Jniemi 20:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: History of destruction

message: Shouldn't the Pharos paragraph be moved to a Pharos entry ? Or else, remove the link from lighthouse to (nonexistent) Pharos ?
The caption for the small, medieval looking painting is exactly the same as that of the more modern engraving attributed to Martin Hemmskerck.
What "more modern" engraving are you referring to? --Centauri 23:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 1

message: Could someone please edit the article to include information that recently the foundations of the ancient lighthouse of Pharos in Alexandria were found by a team of French Archeologists.
Here are 2 links to the story:
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=54882
http://en.rian.ru/world/20051107/42010229.html
:An illustration/overlay image showing where the lighthouse was compared to the current fort would be helpful. Is this possible? I always assumed the fort was actually the base of the lighthouse, the upper part of which had been destroyed by earthquakes. Any thoughts? --24.21.149.124 (talk) 07:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Foundations of The Lighthouse have now been discovered

message: I have removed a link to Hvar from the first paragraph of this article.  The lighthouse of Alexandria was certainly never located off the Dalmatian coast.  I have also removed the inaccurate statement that the lighthouse was called "Pharos" after the island--pharos is simply Greek for lighthouse.  Chick Bowen 18:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed link

message: I just wanted to say that the Swedish word for lighthouse is "fyr" wich most likely come from Pharos, so it isn´t just romance languages that has Pharos as the word for lighthouse. Maybe someone should add that.
:No it doesn't. It is related to English 'fire', German 'Feuer' and so on. Look for yourself in the SAOB or Svensk Etymologisk Ordbok.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.126.130.225 (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Norwegian word has a common origin whith the English word "fire" and the Greek word πυρ (pyr). It isn't related to Pharos see :en:wikt:fyr#Etymology_2_2. Edaen (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

text: That's a translation, not an etymology. "Fyr" is the Norwegian word for "lighthouse". The Norwegian word "fyr" does not stem from the word "Pharos". Edaen (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pharos=lighthouse 

message: I changed the statement "it was the tallest manmade structure on Earth" to "it was among the tallest manmade structures on Earth."  The Great Pyramid of Giza was believed to originally have stood 146.5m tall and currently stands 138.75m.  Either of these numbers exceed the estimates of 117 to 134m given in the soviet space station01:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need sources. The ones I've found don't agree with you. See as an example. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Height

message: In 2005 I was in Changsha, China, and saw a pretty faithful reconstruction of the Lighthouse of Alexandria in a so-called Window of the World cultural park. The photo is available here:
:commons:Image:Lighthouse of Alexandria in Changsha.jpg
I was wondering if this could be useful. I have one more relevant photo, but my friends appear in it so I have to ask them first if they agree to their images being released to the public:)
Dawidbernard 21:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean Shenzhen, China, right? Not Changsha? Somebody took the photo down! Put it back, it was a good addition to the article. Also, how tall is it??? It looks like at least 100 feet! Cool!! --24.21.149.124 (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody removed the photo :( Why? --RyanTee82 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New photos

message: The greek is wrong. The definite article in nominative singular is not"o". Transliterated, it is "ho". Could someone put in the aspirated mark - wikipedia doesn't have it in its greek alphabet. --82.17.241.68 (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek

message: The Chinese account is a mess.  First, the citation is incomplete, so it is not very convenient.  Second, a measurement of 200 feet is quoted, and then there is a description of Chinese units of measure.  I don't think the Chinese measured in feet at that time, and the number of Chinese units is not in the quote, so that portion needs some help.  I'm sure the book is related to: . -- 131.252.221.210 (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: "However, relatively recent research shows that it was, even at that time, possible to burn ships with focused light, basically, an ancient laser."  I'm not a physicist, but a laser isn't simply focused light, is it, it's light with the waveforms sychronised?  So therefore the Pharos clearly couldn't be used as a laser.  Maybe "death ray" would be more appropriate.  Somebody who knows more physics should check and delete.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.19.20 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an expert on this, but it is likely that such stories are related to the infamous legend of Archimedes' "heat ray" (see the Wikipedia article on Archimedes). Basically, the legend goes that the great mathematician and scientist Archimedes built a "heat ray" to sink the Roman warships that were attacking his home city of Syracuse (in Sicily); the theory is that Archimedes used a large array of parabolic mirrors (possibly burnished bronze or copper shields) to focus sunlight so intensely that he could set the Roman ships on fire from afar. As you can see from that Wikipedia article, the actual existence of this "heat ray" weapon is now considered to be incredibly improbable (although perhaps theoretically possible). Anyway, since Archimedes may have studied mathematics in Alexandria (at the Museum and Library there) in his youth, it is easy to see how the legend of Archimedes' "heat ray" may have been "transferred" over time from its original setting of Syracuse to the Lighthouse of Alexandria. Legends such as these can become confused and muddled as they are told, retold, embellished, and altered over the generations. Also, I think that you are right about the physics - such a "heat ray" would not be a laser, because a laser requires that the waveforms cohere in phase and frequency (not simply that they be focused intensely enough on a single point). 76.203.235.83 (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "An ancient laser"!?

message: "was a tower built in the 3rd century BC (between 285 and 247 BC)" - Britannica has "it was finished during the reign of Soter's son Ptolemy II of Egypt in about 280 BC" anyone know of sources to verify?
Britannica has no sources as of yet. Most sources list it as being built around 280 BC and taking 10-12 years to complete.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirmouse (talk • contribs) 14:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: Yesterday, a user added a "pushpin_map" parameter to the Infobox; this added a large (240px x 217px) Infobox image of a tiny lighthouse icon on the outer edge of a white square, and took up lots of room. Because of those factors, and the fact it contributed little apparent benefit, I removed it. Today, another editor edited the page, without using an edit summary, and re-inserted it. Neither editor had edited the article before inserting the image.As I do not wish to 'edit war' I am bringing this up on the discussion page.
There is no common agreement, that I'm aware of, that Infoboxes and especially large content as part of them must be placed into articles. Other instances of their being inserted or substantively modified without substantial reason and consensus for the change with other editors, such as discussed here, reinforce this. I am against having the image for all of the above reasons. The Infobox itself can be reconsidered where necessary.  This article is especially important, as a selection for the Wikipedia for Schools project. It's true, however, it needs a lot of work; I would like to help with that. But I do not think the image is a positive addition. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 18:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox images

message: I added the cleanup tag because there are a lot of unsourced claims. I removed a clause just now stating that it was commissioned by Bill Murray. There are awkward clauses, and it is in my opinion that this article should be cleaned up. If you disagree, please feel free to dispute this below.Jake Sinnott (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is vandalized consistently and is personally of high importance to those who study ancient history. It does need a bit of clean up, like removing a couple of images and adding references to a few uneasy statements. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right; it certainly has room for improvement. I think the unsourced claims are somewhat covered by the 'needs additional citations' tag (it adds: 'please improve this ... by adding ... refs')? The clause stating actor Bill Murray commissioned it was vandalism, added a short while before you removed it. Obviously that silliness needs to be removed (thank you for doing so, Jake!), though probably doesn't also warrant a banner. –Whitehorse1 03:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Having since cleaned up much of the original research & guesswork, I've now removed the cleanup tag. It looks a little better now, though still needs improvement & expansion. –Whitehorse1 15:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: It seems we have too many images, and they're messing with page formatting (in my browser, all the section edit links appear in the middle of the popular culture section). I'm going to remove the pic of the hotel in Georgia and rearrange the others. Hopefully the result will be an improvement. Jedikaiti (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: images

message: The following coordinate fixes are need for
Pharos, Alexandria, Egypt; the Lighthouse of Alexandria was NOT in Iraq
—97.84.4.76 (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thank you. It was changed in a recent edit; the correct coordinates are now restored. –Whitehorse1 13:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 

message: I found the Introduction to be a relatively poor summary, lacking sufficient info in many ways. Also found in the next "Origin" section the sentence "It was supposedly inhabited by people who would destroy any ship that was wrecked off its coast." very woolly - 1) What "It"? The city? Or the island? Unclear! 2) It had no citation and therefore read as being potentially POV. So I rewrote, describing Paros's location in better context, and adding greater Lighthouse information from the page on Alexandria (for example "The first Ptolemy began the project, and the second Ptolemy (Ptolemy II Philadelphus) completed it, at a total cost of 800 talents. It took 12 years to complete and served as a prototype for all later lighthouses in the world. The light was produced by a furnace at the top and the tower was built mostly with solid blocks of limestone.") Unfortunately there's no source citation given for this extra info on the Alex page so I can't do anything about that, but it seems reliable and perhaps someone will eventually build further source refs in. Pete Hobbs (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved Intro, Origin and (first para of) Construction & destruction 

message: Corn is the generic word for grain. What North America calls "corn" was generally called "Indian corn" to distinguish it from the generic word. I don't know the Latin, but it is plausible that Caesar was using the generic Latin word for "grains."Jim Stinson (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Corn??" 

message: In a recent copyedit the following paragraph about historical speculation was deleted from the Destruction section:
In 796, the lighthouse may have lost its upper tier, which apparently went without repair for about a century. There are reports that Sultan Ahmad ibn Tulun (868–884) then built a mosque with a dome in place of the upper tier, but this seems to conflict with travelling geographer Muhammad al-Idrisi's report that the structure still operated as a lighthouse on his visit in 1115.
Was it deleted deliberately, and if so, do you consider it to be incorrect or merely lacking a citation?
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of 9th century? 

message: the quote is from Caesar de bello civili 3.112.3-6; and the Pharaoh Caesar was fighting back then was Ptolemy XIII. (Cleopatra's elder brother). And wouldn't it be reeasonable to place the quote box closer to the paragraph? I tried to change this and a bot removed the changes I did. --77.188.12.230 (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's best to put new sections at the bottom of a talk page not the top. I have restored your changes, clearly a false positive by the bot. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "In Books",Caesar; In video games

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lighthouse of Alexandria. 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/20121110234435/http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/museums-and-tourism to http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/museums-and-tourism/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article is hard to read and doesn't flow very well. Paragraph one has good information but should be worded in a way that's easier to read. Sentences are choppy and don't flow. There are a lot of sentences that end abruptly, personally the article just needs to read through and any grammatical errors should be fixed. 
Information about Pharos in the origin section should be put under the Pharos heading of the article. Also the origin of the lighthouse should only talk about how it was made and where it was located as well as what it was used for so there shouldn't be anything about the modern world or "today's city development".  
Under the construction section the death of Alexander the Great is unnecessary or needs to be put in a different part of the sentence possibly after it states who started the construction. 
There are a lot of unsourced claims where the information is somewhat covered but should have more citations to really back up the uneasy claims the article is making. 
Should add to the history portion stating that it was not only used as a lighthouse but also as the port's landmark. Which I found here: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Lighthouse_of_Alexandria
AshleyMaron (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, can we please not have grammatical "corrections" from someone with such poor grammar? Pinkbeast (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings Ms. Maron. It's very exciting that you have taken on the ambitious task of improving this article. May I humbly suggest that you might start by drilling down to the basic facts about the lighthouse and especially how they are known. This will entail research into (at least) the two areas of classical history and archaeology. I think it will be very helpful to identify these basics and move from there into different theories or interpretations. Probably you can find good information in books on ancient Alexandria at your university library, and by searching databases like JStor. Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should be fixed 

message: The etymology given is that of "Pharaoh". But the problem is, "Pharaoh" and "Pharos" are not etymologically related, as far as I know.
I am not a linguist or an Egyptologist, but as far as I know the actual etymology is unknown or uncertain. I believe that past scholars have tried to connect it to Greek φᾱνός "torch" or φαίνω "to shine", but I think this is outdated and no longer works with the currently-known rules of linguistics. There is also Jablonski's alternative explanation (which is the etymology listed on the Wiktionary page : https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%A6%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82#Etymology ), in which he derives it from Coptic ⲫⲁⲣⲉϩ "the guard" or "the watch" (presumably because the lighthouse stands tall like a watchtower), but Vorziblix (on this discussion page: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:%E2%B2%81%E2%B2%A3%E2%B2%89%CF%A9 ) points out that the island was already named Pharos before the lighthouse was built, so the naming would be the reverse (the lighthouse was named after the island; not the island after the lighthouse).
There are also other places called Pharos ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharos_(disambiguation) ) or Paros ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paros ). No idea if their names are at all connected to this island or its lighthouse.
Anyway, I am removing the etymology from the article as it's not too relevant. 73.133.224.40 (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect etymology 

message: "The secretariat of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage is currently working with the Government of Egypt on an initiative to add the Bay of Alexandria (including the remains of the lighthouse) to a World Heritage List of submerged cultural sites."
I guess on the scale of 2,300 years 2012 is "currently". 2A02:AA1:114F:D1D4:C952:82BA:5B5D:96DE (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "currently" = 2012 

message: "Battuta noted that the wrecked condition of the lighthouse was then only noticeable by the rectangle tower and entrance ramp. ...Battuta detailed Sultan An-Nasir Muhammad's plan to build a new lighthouse near the site of the collapsed one..."
If the damage was localized and hardly noticeable, why is the lighthouse called "the collapsed one" and why would the sultan want to build  new lighthouse? 2A02:AA1:114F:D1D4:C952:82BA:5B5D:96DE (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnoticeable but complete collapse