Talk:Lighthouse of Alexandria

History of destruction

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)

I have read almost every relevant book on the Pharos. I own several of these books, so I can provide citations within the next few days, if that's alright.

Comment 1

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)

What was their civilizations like? What was the people's reaction to the lighthouse?

did it have a lens?

Age 9999? Eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.190.187 (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Foundations of The Lighthouse have now been discovered

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)

Removed link

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)

I have read several books on the subject and happen to know that Pharos was the name of the island back when Alexandria of Egypt was being planned by Alexander the Great. It kept the name when Ptolemy I ruled and decreed that the lighthouse would be built. So if the island was Pharos before pharos(the lighthouse) was decreed, where did the name come from? 76.125.106.236 (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Pharos=lighthouse

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)

Erased repeated part

This part: "The total height of the building was around 117 m, which is the same as a 40 story building and the tower was made up of three stages: a lower square with a central core, a middle octagonal section, and at the top, a circular section. At its apex was positioned a mirror which reflected sunlight during the day, a fire was lit at night.. On the roof there was a large statue of Poseidon." was repeted in both the location and existance sections. It made more sense to keep it only in the Existance section. -- Karim Rathle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathlekarim (talk • contribs) 03:26, 30 April 2006

Height

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 article. It is possible that these estimates are too low and the Lighthouse was indeed the tallest manmade structure. However, this statement cannot be verified, so it does not belong in Wikipedia. DHimmelspach 15:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was the tallest structure on earth, until the Eiffel Tower. I saw this on a history channel documentary. however if you can't find a source i guess you can leave the statement. (Aweedwhacker (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

It is believed to have been the tallest structure on earth, until the Eiffel Tower. A number of descriptions from travelers who actual saw and measured the lighthouse give a number far larger than what is indicated on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirmouse (talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You'll need sources. The ones I've found don't agree with you. See[1] as an example. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I listed numerous sources including Arab geographer al-Bakri (1040-1094), who listed the lighthouse at a height of over 675 feet, and Hispano-Arab geographer Idrisi (100-1166), who listed its height at between 645 and 755 feet. The lighthouse is known to have been made out of granite and coated with limestone and other materials that would stand the test of time, so these figures are not out there by any means.

Sources:See[2]

Al-Bakri; Dozy, Rheinhart P.A.; Goeje, Michael J. de (1866). Description de l'Afrique et de l'Espagne, (Description of Africa and Spain). Leyde, E.J. Brill.

Levi-Provençal, Évariste (1935). Une Description Arabe Inédite du Phare d'Alexandrie,(An Unpublished Description of the Lighthouse of Alexandria), extract from Mémoires de l'Institut Francais. unpublished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirmouse (talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

New photos

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)

I've just added the photo. Looks good to me. Dawidbernard 19:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Somebody removed the photo :( Why? --RyanTee82 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Greek

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)

History

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: . ISBN 0521419999. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help). -- 131.252.221.210 (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"An ancient laser"!?

"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)

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)

Dates

"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)

Infobox images

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)

Cleanup

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)

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)

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)

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)

images

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)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

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)

Fixed, thank you. It was changed in a recent edit; the correct coordinates are now restored. –Whitehorse1 13:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sakmyster promo

Everything after the statement that the lighthouse appears in the author's book reads like a publisher's press release. Along with the off-site link about the book, this looks like nothing more than a sales pitch. Can we agree to delete all of this, save for the notation of Pharos being in his book? Indy (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Since there's very little activity here, I'm going to go ahead and delete the sales pitch. If anyone's interested, it reads:

"David Sakmyster uses the famous Lighthouse as the backdrop for the first adventure in his Morpheus Initiative series entitled *The Pharos Objective - Variance Publishing, July 2010. A legendary treasure chamber hidden beneath the ruins of the ancient Pharos Lighthouse has defied discovery for over two thousand years... Until today. Until the Morpheus Initiative - a team of psychic investigators - use their abilities to solve the mysteries of the Pharos and bypass its deadly defenses. But as they close in on the chamber, they are suddenly thrust into an ancient conflict between the keepers of the Pharos's astonishing secret and evil forces bent on its destruction."

VERY sales-pitchy, and the book title is an off-site link. Indy (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The light

The "History Channel" recently showed a proposed model of the Pharos with a mirror reflecting sunlight, which I found completely plausible.

None of the published archeaological articles about the stone work found in Alexandria harbour mentions finding stones blackened or cracked by fire and the logistics of supplying vast quantities of fire wood seem to argue against such a fire.

If there had been fires burning on the top of the pharos for a long time, nobody seems to mention soot or show it on the survivng images.

Could the mirror that reflected sunlight by day and perhaps moonlight by night?AT Kunene (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on reading pretty much everything there is to know on the Pharos over the course of many years, I am convinced that the Pharos was powered by electricity. Unfortunately others (some of whom are not as informed) do not share my view. Again, it can only be that, my view. Source: "The Electric Mirror of the Pharos Lighthouse and Other Ancient Lighting", by Larry Brian Radka, 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirmouse (talk • contribs) 14:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Improved Intro, Origin and (first para of) Construction & destruction

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)

Height

There seems to be some confusion in some author's works over the height, based on a misinterpretation of the Arab terms so far as I can see. For instance, Al-Idrisi wrote that it was 300 rachahi/rashahi cubits high, each cubit equal to 3 (hand) spans. This is nowhere near 600 feet. Radka of course is not a reliable source[3]. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Radka's work has over 200 sources and I have checked a number of them and they seem reliable from what research I've done. I can't speak for everything he's ever written but his work on the Pharos is at least worth consideration if you give it a glance.

Other authorities I've read over the years give all kinds of numbers due to the constant repairing and rebuilding of the structure. I even looked at the original authority of the lighthouse: "Pharos antike Islam und Occident: ein Beitrage zur Architekturgeschichte by H. Thiersch, Leipzig and Berlin, 1909" and found there to be great differences in height over the many years of the Pharos' existence. Something to consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirmouse (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You can ask abut Radak at WP:RSN but read WP:SPS first. He's self-published and there's no evidence he's an expert. And given his other stuff....

I've found this commnent:"Clayton and Price (1998), relying on Abou Haggag’s description, write that the lowest stage had a height of 57 meters and a cylindrical core which bore the weight of the upper stages. The second stage was octagonal with a height of about 27.5 meters, with the third stage being cylindrical and around 7.5 meters in height. Computing, in addition, the likely height of the statue which topped the tower, and the height of the base above sea level, they conclude that the overall height above sea level is about 117 meters." As I said, the problem I've seen seems to be that some translations used a much larger cubit than Idrisi mentions. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)