Talk:Lighthouse of Alexandria

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rachel Fuller. Peer reviewers: Rachel Fuller.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aclark6461. Peer reviewers: Collinmck.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AshleyMaron.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.131.8.60 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

I added the following text and citation under the significance section: Legend has it that the people of the island of Pharos would destroy any ship that wrecked on their shores. Wanting to prevent this, Ptolemy I had the lighthouse built to help guide ships into port at night. [18]Rachel Fuller (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC) I also added the citation missing for the Norwegian word for lighthouse.Rachel Fuller (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. Edaen (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

If you open that Etymology link above there are several times it is listed there as meaning "lighthouse."Rachel Fuller (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

I understand now. I apologize for the mistake. Rachel Fuller (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2017 (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 soviet space station01:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)204.28.248.51 (talk). 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 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

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:. -- 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)

I added a citation (16) that was missing from archaeological research and rediscovery. Rachel Fuller (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC) I added the publishing year under books for Sailing to Byzantium - 1985Rachel Fuller (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2017 (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
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)

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 "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. 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)

"Corn??"
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)

Deletion of 9th century?
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)

History Channel link
what was the purpose of the deletion of. I don't see an obvious violation of WP:ELNO, except that the link did not say that it linked to a Flash video: it should. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[5] one should generally avoid providing external links to: ... Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats." It's not a direct link, but there is no other information on that page except for the Flash video.


 * If you want to restore the link, with a notice that it's a Flash video, I won't object. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"In Books",Caesar; In video games
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)
 * 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)

I added the In video games section and added the information and citation for Assasins Creed Origins, along with linking the information to the Assasins Creed Origins Wikipedia page. Rachel Fuller (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

I have just added the external link for the Nova program "Treasures of the Sunken City", relating to the archaeological research and rediscovery. I am not sure if it is allowed, but I also added the link to the video of the exploration also. Rachel Fuller (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

What should be fixed
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)


 * Uh, can we please not have grammatical "corrections" from someone with such poor grammar? Pinkbeast (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

My Evaluation: Citations provided appear to work and lead to correct information

Most recent information appears to be from 2013, will verify and look for anything more recent

Several citations are missing/needed

No date is listed for Robert Silverberg's novelette Sailing to Byzantium

Significance section appears incomplete, mainly discusses lighthouse word origin, but not many other reasons the lighthouse itself is significant

Archaeological research and rediscovery section could use more detail about what parts of the lighthouse were found during this exploration (such as the 12ft door and statues that decorated the outside of the lighthouse along with possibly adding a link and citation to the videos showing this exploration

Construction - could use further information on the alleged architect Sostratus if reliable information can be found, also information on why the Pharaoh had the lighthouse built

Needs more information on the purpose and uses of the lighthouse along with information on the interior if it can be found

The Lighthouse of Alexandria is now featured in the new video game Assassin's Creed Origins, released October 27, 2017. The game features an interactive reproduction of the lighthouse and the city of Alexandria, along with an educational discovery tour mode (due for release early 2018) that will provide facts and information on the history and construction of the lighthouse with research provided by Evelyne Ferron, a Historian specializing in Ancient Greco-Roman Egypt. I think this information should be added with proper citation. Rachel Fuller (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Record height
I see an assertion has been added to the infobox that the Lighthouse was the tallest building in the world between its construction and that of Malmesbury Abbey's 131m spire in 1180.

I see two problems here. One is that the Lighthouse's height is not well known but is only thought to have been circa 110m. Did spires suddenly jump by 20 metres, or is it simply the case that the heights of pre-Malmesbury spires are not well documented (just like that of the lighthouse) and cooler heads have refrained from speculating on the pre-Malmesbury situation?

The second is that the Great Pyramid of Giza is 140m tall.

List of tallest buildings and structures contains some pedantic definitions of exactly what is a building, a tower, or a free-standing structure, which come from the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. Personally, I am unconvinced that these definitions constitute Gospel truth (in particular they seem to have come about to stop you sticking 200m radio masts on things and calling yourself "tallest", which is quite irrelevant to the Ancient World) but it doesn't matter:


 * If we do accept the CTBUH definition, the Lighthouse was never the tallest building in the world because it's not a building, it's a tower.
 * If we don't accept that definition but just look at any manmade structure, the Lighthouse was never the tallest building in the world because the Great Pyramid is much taller.

Hence absent any sensible counterargument I propose to remove this.

I was going to open a like discussion at Talk:Malmesbury Abbey but perhaps I'll wait and see how this pans out. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Pinkbeast. You've clearly pointed out the problem with the infobox as it stands. The Lighthouse of Alexandria was never the world's tallest building, as the current infobox implies. However, the claim that it was once the world's tallest tower is present on WP in List of tallest buildings and structures and List of tallest towers. Unfortunately I can't find any way of making Template:Infobox building display a parameter for the type of building amongst the "highest" parameters to give "Tallest tower in the world from...". The same display problem is found with the infoboxes of the individual tower articles linked from the lists of tallest towers, so it's more general than just this article. Perhaps we should bring this up at Template talk:Infobox building. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be perfectly happy if you wanted to chase that up; as discussed, I personally think the CTBUH definitions are a bit silly so from my point of view the Great Pyramid is the tallest and the Lighthouse doesn't get a look-in. But, as said, if you get the templates fixed up and make the Lighthouse the tallest "tower" in the world, that's fine with me... and it would answer the question of what to do about the infoboxes on later tall-tower pages where the same content has been added (particularly once they get taller than the Great Pyramid, where my "accept CTBUH or not" argument doesn't work...)
 * In the meantime do you agree that it should be removed from the infobox until some possible later template fix? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've taken the discussion to Template talk:Infobox building. As the way that the infobox currently displays is misleading, I have no objection to removing the "highest..." parameters for now. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I started that. Of course it proved trickier than anticipated because some estimates of the height of Old St Paul's Cathedral make it about the same height as the Great Pyramid (which, to complicate matters, has been shrinking over the years and hence its precise height in AD 1240 is unknown) and the lede of Lincoln Cathedral says it took over from the Great Pyramid. Most estimates of Old St Paul's had it taller than the Great Pyramid, though, and I think perhaps it should be inserted back into the sequence. I linked this discussion in all edits and I think I'll see if anyone else joins in. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect etymology
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)

"currently" = 2012
"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)

Unnoticeable but complete collapse
"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)