Talk:Bibliotheca Alexandrina

Egyptian anti-semitism in the Bibliotheca

I was wondering what the general feeling was as to whether this should be included?

EXCERPT from wiki article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion:

On November 17, 2003, an Egyptian weekly al-Usbu‘ reported that the manuscript museum at the Alexandria Library, displayed the first Arabic translation of the Protocols at the section of the holy books of Judaism, next to a Torah scroll. The museum's director Dr. Yousef Ziedan was quoted as saying in an interview:

"...it has become one of the sacred [texts] of the Jews, next to their first constitution, their religious law ... more important to the Zionist Jews of the world than the Torah, because they conduct Zionist life according to it ... It is only natural to place the book in the framework of an exhibit of Torah."

It also quoted him as saying that no more than one million Jews were killed by the Nazis, but Zionists manipulated the "knowledge that has reached the world".

Dr. Yousef Ziedan strongly denies these quotes, accusing al-Usbu‘ of attributing "fabricated, groundless lies" to him and stating that "the Protocols is a racist, silly, fabricated book":

"The story began with an article in an Egyptian newspaper, al-Usbu‘, two weeks ago (on November 17th, 2003), which alleged quoting from me utterly senseless statements intertwining facts with fancies. A month before, a journalist from the aforementioned newspaper interviewed me concerning the recent refurbishment of the manuscript and rare book museum. I handed her a written statement, as was the case with other journalists who covered the same news. Although, she concluded her article with my exact words, she started it with fabricated, groundless lies. She falsely reported me saying that I placed an edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion at the center of the museum alongside the Jewish Torah and divine books. Moreover, she claimed that I told her that this book is more significant then the Torah... On my part, I would like to maintain to the visitors of ziedan.com that the Protocols is a racist, silly, fabricated book. Perhaps, I should consider more thoroughly the Jewish issue on the academic level and furnish my vision of the interaction of religions. As civilized people, we totally renounce racism and call for tolerance and constructive interaction between people." ([1])

After the publication, director of the Library Dr. Ismail Serageldin issued a statement:

"Preliminary investigation determined that the book was briefly displayed in a showcase devoted to rotating samples of curiosities and unusual items in our collection. ... The book is a well-known 19th century fabrication to foment anti-Jewish feelings. The book was promptly withdrawn from public display, but its very inclusion showed bad judgment and insensitivity..."

The 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty demands the sides "to refrain from organizing, instigating, inciting, assisting or participating in acts or threats of belligerency, hostility, subversion or violence against the other Party."

end excerpt

Does anyone object to my adding this information? It would seem to cast doubt on the "rekindling" of "brilliance", if true. -Kasreyn 04:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

References

Re: Egyptian anti-semitism in the Bibliotheca

As long as this can not be confirmed I see no point of adding it. It doesn't further our knowledge with the library in any helpful way.

What makes you think it isn't confirmed? I quoted the source above. Kasreyn 08:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

hunh ?, and what you meant is confirmed, the newspaper's (al-osbou') quote, or its denial by Dr. Ziedan ?

please, wikipedia isn't the right place for funny/weird senseless news.

by the way, anti-semitism doesn't mean anti-zionist doesn't mean anti-jewish, Egyptian people themselves are now half semitist, like arabs (from arabia) are.

no mean to spread such propaganda in the FREE wikipedia, keep it for israeli officials, and its denial for egyptian officials.

Khaled.khalil 06:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Location near ancient library?

I've read in several sources that the ancient library was located near the centre of the city, within 50m of the intersection of the streets that are today named Sidi al-Metwali and An-Nabi Daniel. The new library is about 1.5km away, on the Corniche. Saying this is "near" the site of the ancient library is stretching the truth somewhat. Can anyone verify this? --Gene_poole 05:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

can you list (at least) one of your sourses, if you can you may modify the article.

Khaled.khalil 06:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Stylistic Rewrite Needed

This article has clearly been authored primarily by those who do not speak English as a first language. It is in dire need of a rewriting by a native speaker. At that point, it will be easier to guage whether there are POV issues or whether they are arising out of poor semantics.

One and a half kilometers is walking distance, I'd call that "near."81.7.91.43 11:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV discussion

The editor (User:Xiaphias) who placed the POV-template gave the following reasons for his initiative:

• Seems not neutral to him
• Cited sources are not available on the internet, so the citations can't be checked on the internet

Both of the arguments seem vague to me. The cited sources are established magazines and can be easily looked up in a library. I'll actually do that myself now that I think of it. It's not because you have to physically move to check a source that it automatically is an invalid citation.

If the sources turn out to be cited correctly I'm removing the POV template for sure.

But if there are people in favor of keeping the template, can we please have a more thought through discussion about this section and its possible POV problem? Key to the city 20:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, here is result n°1:

reference Bruce Watson, "Rising Sun", Smithsonian, april 2002, I quote:

Though it possesses far fewer books than any other celebrated library--about 500,0o0 as compared with the 9.6 million books and other printed materials in the Library of Congress--it is drawing worldwide attention, both for its bold architecture and for its proximity to the site of the most famous library of the ancient world.

"Everyone knows it is a beautiful building," said one Egyptian businessman, "but they should ask what's inside it. What are the books?" In fact, the collection specializes in the history of Mediterranean cultures. Treasures include copies of rare manuscripts from the Arab conquest of Spain, donated by the Spanish government; documents from the Suez Canal construction; and thousands of Arabic manuscripts culled from Egypt's other repositories. Yet the businessman's question contains a barb. The world's ships no longer dock in Alexandria, and Egypt is no longer as rich as it was when the Ptolemies paid a king's ransom for Aristotle's personal library. Library directors have funds to buy only about 50,000 books per year (they expect as many annually from donations). But at that rate, the library won't reach its capacity of eight million titles for 80 years. Even more problematic: Can the library be "a lighthouse of learning," as former project manager Zahran likes to boast, in Egypt's censorious climate?

Contents of the Criticism section: correct. This even covers the censor issue too. Key to the city 10:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Result n°2: Michel Arseneault, "Alexandria, from papyrus to the internet", The UNESCO Courier, (april 1999), I quote:

The BA is due to be officially opened at the end of this year by president Mubarak, who will be running for a fourth term of office in October. Will his opponents criticize him for spending so much money on a fancy library when half the country's adult population cannot read or write? Egypt is forking out almost two-thirds of the $172 million cost of the building itself...

Check. I'm not even going to look up the other article. The editor who wrote the criticism section did his homework. I'm removing the template. I'll tone it down a bit too, to make it more in harmony with the cited articles. Key to the city 10:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for verifying these sources! -kotra (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Weird POV sign?

Why is it that the only references in this article are in the criticism section? Murderbike (talk) 04:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the guy who wrote the criticism section used sources and the other people didn't? I don't get what you're trying to say... Key (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What language is "Bibliotheca Alexandrina"?

Is it ancient Greek? This should be noted, I think. Even though it doesn't have any direct importance, it's useful to know what language something is in. -kotra (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Its Latin; which makes sense could the Romans were the first to burn the original library, i guess. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! [2] confirms that it is Latin. I've added (Latin for "Library of Alexandria") now. -kotra (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Four years of high school Latin and i finally had a chance to apply it to a practice situation;)--Dudeman5685 (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Literacy criticism

I've removed the illiteracy issue criticism here. While there are sources about Egypt's illiteracy rate, there isn't a source that anyone is connecting the library's cost with that issue. It feels like synthesis to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Digital Assets Repository

Hello. I recently edited the article by adding a new section called Digital Assets Repository, but I figured out after editing that there is a separate page for it Digital Assets Repository on the wiki. I guess this means an editor has to undo my [my edit]. A newbie mistake, sorry! SamzY (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

A brief summary of a sub-article within a main article is totally fine, and any further expansion should be made there instead. However, I'm of the opinion that the digital assets article should be merged into this one because it doesn't appear to be notable enough for a separate article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The separate article about this system has resources including 3 books and 2 external links. I already add 2 other book references while editing the current article (here). If this is notable enough, then I suggest updating the digital assets article with the new resources while adding a brief summary here as you already suggested.SamzY (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Do what you deem fits. It's just that I was unsure whether the subject merits a separate article or not, but per the sources you just mentioned, it could be notable. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll make the required modifications. Thank you!SamzY (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because I used reputable and both primary and secondary sources and cited every use. Please give further information about this before deletion. Also, the cited references were not created by me.Stephbarth (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephbarth (talk • contribs) 02:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this should not be deleted. The sources used were cited, not reposted. What is the problem?

I see that the page has been reverted to a much less informative version than what it was after all of my contributions. I cited every word I added to the page. Elaborate specifically how copyright was infringed upon.Stephbarth (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright infringement, what you are claiming, is an incorrect analysis of my contributions to this page. "Almost never appropriate," "usually should," these statements in the Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources is very subjective and not relevant here. I cited everything and made clear when it was not my own words. Reverse this deletion.Stephbarth (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The user who deleted the page referred us to the Bibliotheca Alexandrina website- " The Center for Islamic Civilization Studies was established in 2013, in response to the need for reforming the Islamic religious discourse on one hand, and bridging the gap between Islamic Fiqh and our contemporary world on the other. The center aims to contribute to the construction of a contemporary and systematic Islamic discourse, interwoven with reality, and create a space for interaction between Islamic Fiqh and thought, and the modern world we live in, with all its entanglements and complications. To this end, the center presents the contemporary perspectives and thoughts sweeping our modern world in a scientific and cognitive way that introduces Islamic thought to new horizons. It also attempts to mobilize Islamic scholars and intellects to interact positively with global issues, and encourages them to engage in the areas of ijtihad (Islamic diligence), and contemporary social issues without fear or sensitivity."- Furthermore, also from the website, here is the Bibliotheca Alexandrina's mission statement, "The Bibliotheca Alexandrina aims to be: A center of excellence in the production and dissemination of knowledge and to be a place of dialogue, learning and understanding between cultures and peoples."

Who appears to be acting in the spirit of the Bibliotheca? User Stephbarth? Or the person who deleted this effort arbitrarily and with great contradiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TlyleSheph3rd (talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism?Bad Faith??

This pages has been worked on faithfully by Stephbarth who has gone to secondary sources and been careful in her editing. The deletions seem to me to be vandalism and bad faith. This is heedless trolling of a hard working newq editor and I seek other input bad support. Please see above entry" Contested Deletion.

I was looking through the edit history on the Bibliotheca Alexandrina page, and I didn't see notes giving the reason WHY Stephbarth's contributions were deleted, other than not citing sources (which clearly is not the case here). Given the subject of that paragraph, I wouldn't be surprised if it was deleted on the grounds of some political or religious reason. That clearly demonstrates bias on the deleting party's end, if that were the case. Amflis16 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bibliotheca Alexandrina. 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/20141006091343/http://speakmemory.org/uploads/ArchiveMapEgypt.pdf to http://speakmemory.org/uploads/ArchiveMapEgypt.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Mostafa El-Abbadi

According to the last issue of The Economist, Mostafa El-Abbadi was instrumental in the creation of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina but his name doesn't appear yet on the page. Would anyone know anything about the subject? Un historien (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bibliotheca Alexandrina. 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/20111016143739/http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/global-reach/how-bibliotheca-alexandrina-supporting-2011-egyptian-revolution to http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/global-reach/how-bibliotheca-alexandrina-supporting-2011-egyptian-revolution

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)