text:
Talk:Zionism/Archive 3

Since this is a completely new article, I have archived the old talk.

This new article represents a month's co-operative editing between me and other interested users. Adam 12:47, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Post-Zionism is not synonmous with the neo-Canaanite movement. This article needs to clarify the fact that the term "Post-Zionism" is still loosely defined, and can include those who consciously identify as Zionists, non-Zionists, and anti-Zionists. RK 00:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

Post-Zionism's most controversial advocates are anti-Zionists, who naturally receive a lot of press, out of proportion to their influence. It also really should be noted that the neo-Canaanite movement has little following among Israelis, or among Jews worldwide. It is only accepted among those who wish to replace the State of Israel with an Arab majority, which they euphemistically call the "state of both peoples". This state will be effectively and politically ruled by an Arab Muslim majority; all sides agree that any single-state solution will soon have an Arab Muslim majority; this is not in dispute. This context is necessary to understand why most people reject the neo-Canaanite movement. Many people have publicly criticised it as a disguised form of anti-Zionism that aims at the total removal of the State of Israel and its replacement with an Arab Palestinian State, and I have seen nothing so far to refute this position. Indeed, such views are tacitly admitted by the neo-Canaanites. RK 00:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

RK, I must say that I found Zero's paragraph on post-Zionism a little unclear, but it's not an area I know much about so I didn't change it. Please feel free to suggest an alternative (btw, I did ask you to review the draft before it was posted here). Adam 01:15, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It didn't say that Postzionism was the same as the (neo-|NULL)Canaanite movement, but anyway I rephrased it and also made the point that there is a problem with the definitions. I don't want to labor that point as in fact there is no agreement on the meaning of many terms in this article including the term "Zionism" itself. Postzionism deserves its own article where the internal and external debate can be aired but I don't think that should be done in this article. Note that what I have written does not even attempt to present the arguments in favor of Postzionism; I think that doesn't belong. Btw, I think that mention of the Canaanite movement would be better moved into its historical setting earlier in the article. --Zero 10:22, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The word "Zionism" comes from "Zion", being one of Jerusalem's names, as mentioned in the bible. Zionism is, literally, the yearning for the Holy Land, Zion (Jerusalem) being its symbol in the eyes of diaspora jews of the time (and much before). I corrected that bit of the article, and linked "Zion" to its wikipedia definition, which is pretty accurate. Also, I deleted two links: one referring to jews converting to islam, which might be relevant to some people, but not to the issue of Zionism. The other was plain racist and ignorant, in my humble opinion. I'm gonna look at that link again, just to make sure. --Tohe

 * I think your wording here actually works better than the wording you used in the main article, so I have incorporated it there. Adam

That link contains, beside valid criticism, lots of blunt propaganda, without a bit of reasoning such as: "The ever-scheming European imperialists wisely placed Israel where she could geographically divide the Arab world..." and a page of images entitled "Zionism and Nazism: We Can't Tell The Difference, Can You?". If that's not blatant propaganda, I don't know what is. Those things are valid as opinions but I don't think they should be offered as valid anti-zionist claims. Wonderer

 * I have been arguing this for over a year. This virulent kind of anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, and it is not a valid form of anti-nationalism. (See the Talk page for Anti-Semitism.) These views are not not logical arguments, they are not based on an fact. Such views, and the wesbites that promote them, belong in articles under bigotry, and not in political articles like this one. RK 14:10, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

Those links were carried over from the old article. Feel free to delete them and find a new set of relevant links. Adam

I added an article called Prominent Zionist Figures. It's hardly anything now, but I'd like it to become quite extensive. I do think that all of the people to be mentioned there, should also be incorporated into Zionism, or other complementary articles. Regardless, it'd be good to have such information concentrated under one article, as events are under Timeline of Zionism. Wonderer (a.k.a. Tohe)

For the record, the large chunk of text "Zionism and Germany" added by 216.239.85.234 and deleted by me was taken verbatim from a book review in the Journal of Palestine Studies (vol 129, 1). The interactions between Nazi Germany and the Zionist organizations do deserve an airing somewhere in Wikipedia, but I would argue against putting it in this article (except for a link). Viewpoints other than Brenner's would obviously need to be included. --Zero 03:38, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

'''Attention RK, Zero and Danny. I have found all three of you to be intelligent and knowledgeable on the issues involved in this article, and I wish you would conduct your feuds elsewhere. As far as I can see you are arguing about one sentence in the post-zionism section. If no agreement can be reached I will delete the whole paragraph, which is pretty marginal anyway. I will continue to delete all off-topic personal abuse from this page. ''' Adam 03:14, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am backing off this one, but just for clarification, the debate was about a link that read: [http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/ "Jews opposed to Zionism": An ultra-Orthodox Satmar website. Not recognized by other Jewish groups.], which I changed to "Jews opposed to Zionism": An ultra-Orthodox website.. Danny 03:25, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

My view is that all the anti-Zionist links ought to be removed from this article, and placed at the article anti-Zionism, the rewriting of which ought to be our next project. Adam 04:30, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, it is impossible to write and maintain a good article on anti-Zionism in the Wikipedia environment. You are welcome to prove me wrong. --Zero 09:02, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I think the problem is that you implied that a fellow writer was an anti-Baptist bigot. I have been attacked in recent days as a liar, and as "evil"; this has shown that consensus is impossible when people allow feelings to reduce debate into ad homenim attacks. Having someone treat me badly in Dating the Bible makes my sympathetic to others who are treated in this way. Instead of accusing people of bigotry, work instead on clarifying the issue. See below. Asking specific questions can resolve disputes. JeMa 17:09, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

I accept the challenge :)

draft new Anti-Zionism article

Adam 15:58, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Clarifications
Here are questions that should help clarify the issue: JeMa

 * RK, you claim that Satmar is anti-Zionist, and is not representative of mainstream Judaism. Could you provide references to support this?

 * I think we all agree that Satmar is anti-Zionist; they proclaim this quite openly. Danny and I agree on this. The disagreement is over whether a group that has such a tiny extremist following can be considered representative of mainstream Judaism. Quotes from leaders of Satmar are very explicit in stating that they do not belong to the same Jewish world as Modern Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or secular Judaism. They have been pretty clear in saying that they alone are Judaism, and that all else is not Judaism. I would reccomend reading David Landau's Piety and Power: The World of Jewish Fundamentalism for a good overview of Satmar, other ultra-Orthodox groups, their relationship to each other, and to the greater Jewish community. Also reccomended would be the articles on this subject in the Encyclopedia Judaica (Keter Publishing). I would be happy to offer relevant quotes from these publications.

 * RK says that the mentioned website is Satmar; Danny says that it is not Satmar, and instead represents many "Ultra-Orthodox" groups. Can either of you support your position?

 * This particular website itself prominently displays photographs of Satmar rabbis, and a large amount of Satmar quotes, and pushes a Satmar point of view. Views of other Orthodox groups are much less visible. I don't know how much more clear it can be. If someone wishes to claim that it is not Satmar, but is rather promoting the view of a set of groups equally, I think it is up to them to demonstrate this. I don't see any reason for viewing this website as anything other than it makes itself out to be - an outpost on the Internet to advocate a Satmar point of view on Zionism and the State of Israel. I am uncertain of why this is controversial. RK 21:52, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * Danny, you say RK has confused Satmar with all anti-Zionist Jewish groups, and is ignorant of this subject. Could you provide a quote from him saying this? Maybe he was only talking about one weblink.

 * Zero0000, you have attributed an anti-Baptist position to RK, and imply that he doesn't accept them as legitimate Chrisitians. Why? RK, do you have a position as to which Christians groups are legitimate?

 * I am not a Christian, so I care not for inter-Christian polemics. I understand that many American Protestant groups see Catholics as "heretics" and as un-Christian. I also know that some Catholics might feel the same way about some Protestant groups. However, I find such disagreements incomprehensible; to me, Baptists, Catholics, Anglicans, Greek Orthodox, Presbytrians, are all equally Chrisitian. My only statements on the matter were simply that even though they might be Christian, they are not the same. Baptists are not Catholics. These two groups are no longer in the same community, and it would be disingenuous to use the statements of a Baptist to represent the beliefs of Catholics. I think the same is true of Satmar in regards to the rest of the Jewish world. RK 21:52, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)~

 * Are there any mainstrea, Jewish groups which accept the views of Satmar as a representative view of the Jewish world? If so, who are these groups?  About what percent of Jews worldwide view Satmar as mainstream?  About what percent view Satmar as an unrepresentative extremist group?

 * None that I know of. If you read books, sermons and journal articles by rabbis and Jewish scholars, you will see that few of them see Satmar as mainstream. Even Orthodox authors like David Landau find it difficult to sympathise with their self-separation from the rest of the Jewish world. RK 21:52, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * Do different people use the word "anti-Zionist" to mean different things? If so, why are these views combined into one article, when they really may be different ideas? If not, in what ways are all forms of anti-Zionism similar? Could we get references? JeMa 17:09, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * Hello! I have an idea about this, but I need more time than I have to write it up. Maybe this Sunday. RK 21:52, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

For the record, I have no idea nor interest in what RK's opinion is towards Baptists and I never accused him of having any particular opinion. He used Baptists/Catholics as an analogy and I stated my opinion that his analogy did not fit the situation he wanted it to fit. I used a simple rhetorical device (alternative straw analogy) to explain my point. --Zero 20:30, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Your simple rhetorical device made me look like a very bad person indeed. RK 21:52, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

Excuse me? What elementary mistake of understanding have I made? I have taken no part in this argument. Adam 23:27, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Gulp. Sorry, I misread JeMa's comment as yours.  An elementary  mistake of understanding on my part, for which I apologise.  I deleted my remark. --Zero 00:03, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's OK then. :) Go and read my anti-Zionism article and tell me what you think. Adam 00:21, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Whether the site is Satmar or not is irrelevant. Yes, there is a picture of Yoel Teitelbaum on the title page, but since he was the author of VaYoel Moshe, that would be appropriate. Just going by pictures though, there are also pictures of the Brisker, the Munkaczer, the Chofetz Chaim, the Rambam, and about twenty other rabbis, none of whom could be called Satmar. The demonstrations in Jerusalem that appear in the pictures were led by Blau, who is not Satmar either. As for Satmar quotes, they are represented no more than Brisker quotes--can you pick out the Briskers in the gallery? The problematic issue is actually the idea of writing people out of "mainstream" Jewish life. Is there such a thing? That is assuming a homogeneity that probably does not exist. In fact, that is part of RK's problem when discussing Jewish life--he describes the gamut as Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist. This is exclusionary, since all of those groups define their Jewishness in terms of religion. While that may be an American phenomenon (and I question that too--so what is Woody Allen), it fails to account for the vast numbers of people who consider themselves ethnically Jewish, though they do not identify with a particular religious denomination. Most Jewish Israelis aren't Orthodox--but they do not define themselves as Conservative or Reform either (the miniscule Conservative and Reform congregations in Israel are primarily Anglo immigrants). In fact, classical Zionism is about Jewish peoplehood, not religion. The particular view espoused by RK could, then, even be defined as antithetical to classical Zionism, a la Borochov or even Herzl. As for people who consider Satmar mainstream, the ultra-Orthodox world does, even if some groups may disagree with their attitudes toward Zionism. The Jewish world does, even if some groups disagree with their attitudes toward Zionism and religion. That is because for them, and for most Jews, Zionism is not the unifying bond that unites the many, segmented Jews together into some undefinable mainstream. Asssuming it is puts an interesting spin on Weissmandel's 10 questions. Zionism is one movement out of many, which often clash bitterly (the GRA put the Baal HaTanya in cherem, remember). Say it is an ultra-Orthodox website. Fine. No need to go on the Zionist defensive with some POV attribution about some imaginary mainstream. Otherwise, I might be tempted to start quoting the many proud Jews that think that all Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform are "out of the mainstream," or as they would say, a bunch of meshugenes. Danny 00:48, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

''Some Christians also claim to be Zionists. See Christian Zionism'' --Adam, I don't know what that means. Why the "also"? Are you referring to some movement different from support of Zionism? --Zero 03:44, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Here, too, there are different historical attitudes among Christians claiming to be Zionists: Orde Wingate, the son of Christian missionaries in India and widely claimed to be a founder of the IDF, was an early Christian Zionist, whose motivation was unlike that of, say, Pat Robertson, although they have certain key features in common. Danny 04:02, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * A slightly earlier example would be Richard Meinertzhagen. However, I wonder if Adam was intending to refer to the phenomenon of Zionism as a Christian religious movement.  Such as described at  http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/v37/v37_2mw.htm  for example (not necessarily a great article).  Of course the boundary is unclear, but I would try to distiguish between Christians who have given active support to the Zionist movement and those who have a separate agenda that has some present common interest with Zionism but have ultimate aims that conflict.  Either way, some clarification of the reference would be a good idea.  --Zero 04:34, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Richard Meinertzhagen. Danny 04:36, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * He was a British non-Jewish Zionist who was an intelligence officer for Allenby then a bureaucrat in the Foreign Office. He is sometimes credited with getting the Balfour Declaration almost word for word into the Mandate for Palestine.  (I think that's an exaggeration, but certainly he played a part.)  Later he became a confidant of Chaim Weizmann and helped him with the Zionist-British interaction.  Possibly you met his "Middle East Diary". --Zero 09:18, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have had a stab at Christian Zionism, just out of interest. Comments welcome. Adam 04:54, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I used the word "also" because this article defines Zionism as "a movement among Jews." Christians who claim to be Zionists must therefore be treated separately. Adam 04:56, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * No, you gave two definitions and only the first was "among Jews". In any case, I think "Zionist" should mean any supporter of that particular political movement, similar to communist, anarchist, etc..  Also to make it comparable to "anti-Zionist" as any opponent of that movement.  I realise my opinion on that isn't universal. --Zero 06:03, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Zionism is a movement among Jews, and a non-Jewish supporter of Zionism can't really be Zionist, only pro-Zionist or a supporter of Zionism. You may well support gay rights, Zero, but that doesn't make you a gay liberationist. Anyway I have reworded the paragraph to avoid this particular semantic trap. Adam 06:25, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm OK on your revised wording, but you are wrong in your opinion (in my opinion). Words mean what they are used to mean in common speech, and Zionist as a supporter of Zionism regardless of Jewishness is very common indeed.  Incidentally, OED agrees.  Here is the complete OED definition of "Zionist": A supporter of Zionism.  Webster's agrees with you, apparently, but the Macquarie even defines "Zionism" as a political movement without identifying it as a movement amongst Jews.  Btw, how do you know I'm not gay? --Zero 09:09, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Should we say something about Zionist Occupied Government too? Adam 06:33, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Not in this article. It might belong in the new "anti-Semitism" article you are going to write (hint). --Zero 09:09, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

When I was consulting OED to refute Adam (-), I found a second definition of "Zionist": ''A member of any of a group of independent churches in southern Africa similar to pentecostal churches but containing distinctive African elements of worship and belief. [Named after the first such church, the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church in Zion, brought from Chicago to S. Africa in 1904.]''   Actually I never heard of that before and don't know if it ought to be mentioned. For the record, here are the usage examples offered by OED:
 * 1948 B. G. M. SUNDKLER Bantu Prophets in S. Africa ii. 55 Theologically the Zionists are now a syncretistic Bantu movement with healing, speaking with tongues, purification rites, and taboos as the main expressions of their faith. 1956 H. BLOOM Episode xvii. 318 Among the crowd were a number of Sunday pilgrims, location Zionists of various sects. 1970 Standard Encycl. Southern Afr. II. 55/1 Most ‘Zionists’ have a characteristic form of dress, worn to all services by all members: long dresses and capes, mostly white, decorated with coloured figures (stars, crosses, rings, angels, etc.), veils for women and special forms of headdress for men. Ibid., The ‘Zionist’ phase has led to extensive proliferation of small groups. 1977 Time 27 June 18/3 Some aspects of the old Soweto still exist: the neatly kept gardens of middle-class black homes;..the Zionists, an Africanized Christian sect, famous for their daylong religious dances that begin at prayer services in backyard tents on Saturday nights. -Zero 09:33, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't know you're not gay, as I realised as soon as I re-read that. My apologies if you are (I don't get to say that very often).
 * I had forgotten that Black Christians frequently use Zion and Zionism as an analogy with the promised land of freedom. Someone who knows more about it can write about that.
 * Adam 10:29, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

'' Zionist is frequently used by anti-Semitic groups as a euphemism for "Jew."

What's euphemistic about that? Malbi 12:35, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It seems pretty self-explanatory to me. Adam 12:52, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree with Adam. (JeMa) The article on Anti-Zionism states.

 * In most of the Arab world there is no practial difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, Arabs have interchangeably used the term "Zionists" (Sahyûniyyûn), with "Jews", "Children of Israel" (Banû Isrâîl) or "Israelis". (Stillman, 1986)
 * "The mounting scale and sheer extent of this vehemently anti-Semitic literature and commentary in the newspapers, journals, magazines, radio, television, and in the everyday life of the Middle East have swamped that minority of Arabs who did try to separate their attitudes to Jews from their rejection of Zionism." (Wistrich, Antisemitism, p. 253)

 * In my definition, a euphemism is a word used to make something sound better/more positive. Why should Zionist sound better than Jew? I'd rather write  ... as a synonym for "Jew".  Malbi 08:24, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's right, it's designed to make anti-Semitism "sound better/more positive," by dressing it up as a political idea called anti-Zionism. Adam 09:56, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

None of the above argument shows why the comment belongs in this article. On the contrary, it shows that it actually belongs in anti-Zionism or anti-Semitism. HOWEVER, I will also question its meaning and accuracy. I take it that we are not referring to the possibility that someone who criticises Zionism is motivated by anti-Semitism, but rather to the use of "Zionist" to mean "Jew" in circumstances where Zionists or Zionism are not the topic of conversation. For example, "Zionists rule the world". Since Russia is mentioned, I discussed this with a Russian Jew who lived there until moving to Israel not many years ago. He was adamant that he had never heard such a usage. Of course one person's memory is not statistically significant, but still I wonder where the information about "the Soviet Union and its satellites, notably Poland" comes from. (And even if it is correct, I still think it is in the wrong article.) --Zero 13:30, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You surprise me, Zero. The whole 1968 campaign in Poland which led to virtually every Jew in the country losing their job and most of them being forced to emigrate was conducted against "Zionists" - it was used completely interchangably. The same was generally true in the Soviet Union. I agree that a general discussion of this belongs at anti-Zionism and / or anti-Semitism, but it merits a mention here as a recognised usage of the word "Zionist." Adam 13:42, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I heard it used by a Russian at a public meeting in London. He was arguing that the problems in Russia were caused by "Zionist" owned banks. Secretlondon 13:46, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Zero writes "None of the above argument shows why the comment belongs in this article. On the contrary, it shows that it actually belongs in anti-Zionism or anti-Semitism"

 * Zero, for over a year you have tried to hide facts which make you uncomfortbale, even when they are highly relevant to the subject. The simple fact is that in many nations across the world, Zionism has been used for decades as a thin veil for anti-Semitism, especially in the countries of the former Soviet Union in the 1950s to 1970s, and in some Muslim Arab nations from the 1960s to the present. This is not a minor academic point; it is a major topic addressed in the literature on this subject. Your desire to totally remove any reference of this from the article is not responsible or justifiable. RK 13:47, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Zero writes: ''rather to the use of "Zionist" to mean "Jew" in circumstances where Zionists or Zionism are not the topic of conversation. For example, "Zionists rule the world". Since Russia is mentioned, I discussed this with a Russian Jew who lived there until moving to Israel not many years ago. He was adamant that he had never heard such a usage. Of course one person's memory is not statistically significant, but still I wonder where the information about "the Soviet Union and its satellites, notably Poland" comes from.''

 * If you do not know where these facts come from, then I can onl conclude you have never once read a book on the subject of anti-Semitism in the former Soviet Union. This is extremely well documented in the literature, and never have I met anyone who questioned the existence of this FSU campaign. RK 13:47, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Sources for anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism
The following copyrighted material is from the Encyclopedia Judaica, Keter Publishing, CD-ROM edition.

 * At the beginning of the 1970s, most opposition to and reservations concerning Zionism among Jews had disappeared. This change happened gradually, under the influence of several factors...Parallel to this, there was also a mutation in Arab as well as in Soviet anti-Zionism, but in the opposite direction. These forms of opposition to Zionism not only persisted, but, by contrast with the past, the defamation and the demonization of Zionism became prevalent. There was a notable shift from the previous rather "objective" opposition to and criticism of Zionism to its hysterical, paranoid and global denunciation.

 * After 1948, the Arab hostility to Zionism deepened. From being categorized as a mere agent of "both Imperialism and Bolshevism," Zionism was raised to the status of an "imperialist conspiracy" against the unity of the Arab world, and charged with being racist. This emphasis on racism came to the fore especially in the Palestinian National Covenant, which states that Zionism is "racist and separationist in its structure and fascist in its objectives and means" (Art. 19 in the 1964 version). It aimed at enlisting the support of the Third World and at awakening a guilt complex in Western circles.(2) With Israel's success in surviving and overcoming the Arabs, the conspiracy pattern (to rule the world) became more and more prevalent, as illustrated by the repeated editions of Mein Kampf and of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and their frequent quotations.(3)

 * Besides, Zionists and Jews were presented more and more not as adversaries or agents of enemies, but rather as the embodiment of evil, of a wickedness imputed to alleged basic characteristics of the Jews and of Judaism, to their ambition to rule the world because of the pretentious notion of the "chosen people."(4)

 * A similar trend became noticeable in the Soviet Union. For a long time, Zionism was regarded there as a "chauvinist, bourgeois and reactionary" movement. It was in the beginning of the 1950s that Zionism was denounced as an international conspiracy against the Soviet regime. This was one of the major themes of the campaign against cosmopolitanism, and of the well-known trials of the 1950s. After the Six-Day War, and its humiliation of Soviet armaments, and subsequently the stimulation to the Jewish movement in the U.S.S.R., Zionism began to be demonized there from 1970 as a racist movement and an accomplice of the Nazis, the basic evil of which stemmed from the "theory of the chosen people."5

 * 2. Y. Harkabi, "Arab Positions on Zionism," in: S. Almog (ed.) Zionism and Arabs (1983).

 * 3. Institute of Jewish Affairs Staff, The Post War Career of the Protocols of Zion, Research Report, Dec. 1981. Y. Harkabi, op. cit.

 * 4. T. Mayer, Arab Anti-Zionism, its Development and Significance (1984); Harkabi, op. cit.; Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, "An Inquiry into Arab Textbooks," in: Asian and African Studies 8 (1972), 1–19.

 * 5. Anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union, its Roots and Consequences, proceedings of a seminar held in Jerusalem, April 7–8, 1978, The Hebrew University, Center for Research and Documentation of East European Jewry, 1979. See also Y. Manor, "L'Antisionisme," in: Revue FranLaise de Science Politique (1984).

 * 6. V. Zagladin and F. Ryzhenko (ed.), Sovpomennoe revolutzionnoe dvizhenie i natzionalism ("Contemporary Revolutionary Movement and Nationalism"), Izdatel'stvo Polititcheskoi Literatary, M. 1973, 205.

 * Some of the things said in reply address the question and are evidence against my suggestion. But I'm not happy.  In my country (and probably yours) there are racists who carry on about the evils of "immigrants" when it is clear that they are really only concerned with non-white immigrants.  Does that mean that the article Immigration should get a footnote saying that "certain racists use immigrant as a euphemism for non-white immigrant?  It just would look pretty odd to me, though it might look ok in Racism. (Now I've had my word and I'll stop; I don't feel strongly about this at all.) --Zero 14:20, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

From today's andrewsullivan.com: QUOTE OF THE DAY: "When my eyes fell upon the rare copy of this dangerous book, I decided immediately to place it next to the Torah. Although it is not a monotheistic holy book, it has become one of the sacred [tenets] of the Jews, next to their first constitution, their religious law, [and] their way of life. In other words, it is not merely an ideological or theoretical book. Perhaps this book of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' is 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 [scrolls]." - Dr. Yousef Ziedan, museum director of the new Alexandria Library, on why the anti-Semitic forgery is now prominently displayed next to the Torah in the manuscript museum. UNESCO funds helped build it. Adam 23:25, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Zionism/Archive 3


text:
Robert Napier, 1st Baron Napier of Magdala

Field Marshal Robert Cornelis Napier, 1st Baron Napier of Magdala (6 December 1810 – 14 January 1890) was a British Indian Army officer. He fought in the First Anglo-Sikh War and the Second Anglo-Sikh War before seeing action as chief engineer during the second relief of Lucknow in March 1858 during the Indian Rebellion of 1857. He also served in the Second Opium War as commander of the 2nd division of the expeditionary force which took part in the Battle of Taku Forts, the surrender of Peking's Anting Gate and the entry to Peking in 1860. He subsequently led the punitive expedition to Abyssinia in July 1867, defeating the Emperor Tewodros II of Ethiopia with minimal loss of life among his own forces and rescuing the hostages of Tewodros.

Early career
Born the son of Major Charles Frederick Napier, who was wounded at the storming of Meester Cornelis (now Jatinegara) in Java on (26 August 1810) and died some months later, and Catherine Napier (née Carrington), Napier was educated at Addiscombe Military Seminary before being commissioned into the Bengal Engineers on 15 December 1826. He attended the Royal Engineer Establishment at Chatham with the rank of ensign from 7 June 1827 before being promoted to lieutenant on 28 September 1827 and being sent to India in November 1828. After commanding a company at Delhi, he was employed in the irrigation works of the Public Works Department until 1836 when he returned to England for leave on account of his poor health. Promoted to captain on 25 January 1841, he was appointed garrison engineer at Sirhind in 1842.

First Anglo-Sikh War
Napier served under Sir Hugh Gough during the First Anglo-Sikh War and commanded the Bengal Engineers at the Battle of Mudki in December 1845. He was severely wounded at the Battle of Ferozeshah in December 1845 while storming the Sikh camp and was also present at the Battle of Sobraon in February 1846. Promoted to brevet major on 3 April 1846, he was chief engineer at the siege of the fortress of Kote Kangra in the Punjab by Brigadier-General Wheeler in May 1846.

Second Anglo-Sikh War
Having been appointed as consulting engineer to the Punjab resident and to the Council of Regency of the Punjab, Napier was called to direct the siege of Multan in September 1848 at the outset of the Second Anglo-Sikh War. He was wounded during the siege but managed to recover sufficiently to be present at the successful storming of Multan in January 1849 and at the surrender of the fortress of Chiniot shortly thereafter. He took part in the Battle of Gujrat in February 1849 and accompanied Sir Walter Gilbert as he pursued the Sikhs all the way to Rawalpindi and was present at the surrender ceremony of the Sikh Army. He was promoted to brevet lieutenant-colonel on 7 June 1849 and became chief engineer to the Board of Administration of Punjab Province at the end of the War.

North-West Frontier
In December 1852 Napier took command of a column in the first Hazara expedition, and in November 1853 against the Afridis on the North-West frontier. He crushed the Afridi Pashtun rebellion in the North-West Frontier Province and was promoted to the brevet rank of colonel on 28 November 1854 and the substantive rank of lieutenant colonel on 15 April 1856.

Indian Rebellion of 1857
Napier was appointed military secretary and adjutant general to Sir James Outram, whose forces took part in the actions leading to the first relief of Lucknow in September 1857. He remained as chief engineer until the second relief in November 1857, when he was badly wounded while crossing an exposed space with Outram and Sir Henry Havelock to meet with Sir Colin Campbell. He recovered sufficiently to be present at the capture of Lucknow in March 1858.

Napier then joined Sir Hugh Rose as second-in-command for the march on Gwalior and commanded the 2nd Brigade at the Battle of Morar in June 1858. After Gwalior was captured by the British, Napier and his 700 men pursued, caught and defeated Tatya Tope's force of 12,000 men on the plains of Jaora Alipur. After Sir Hugh Rose's departure, Napier assumed command of the Gwalior division and helped capture Paori in August 1858, routed Prince Ferozepore at Ranode in December 1858 and secured the surrender of Man Singh and Tatya Tope, ending the war, in January 1859.

China
In January 1860, during the Second Opium War, Napier assumed command of the 2nd Division of the expeditionary force under Sir James Hope Grant. In the Battle of Taku Forts he led the assault on the main northern fort on 21 August 1860 where he counted six bullet holes in his clothing and equipment. The Anting Gate in Peking was surrendered to Napier on 13 October 1860 and he was responsible for protecting Lord Elgin's line of march into Peking on 24 October 1860. He was promoted to brevet major-general on 15 February 1861 and to the substantive rank of colonel on 18 February 1861.

Napier became the military member of the Council of the Governor-General of India in 1861, acting for a short while as Governor-General after the sudden death of Lord Elgin. He assumed command of the Bombay Army with the local rank of lieutenant general on 7 February 1865 and received promotion to the substantive rank of lieutenant-general on 1 March 1867 before taking command of the punitive expedition to Abyssinia July 1867.

Abyssinia
Napier achieved his greatest fame as an army officer when he led the expedition of 1868 against Emperor Tewodros II of Ethiopia. The Ethiopian ruler was holding a number of Protestant missionaries hostage, in his mountain capital of Magdala, as well as two British diplomats who had attempted to negotiate their freedom (Tewodros had unwisely taken them hostage as well). After months of planning and other preparations, the advance guard of engineers landed at Zula on the Red Sea to construct a port on 30 October 1867; Napier himself arrived in Zula on 2 January 1868, and on 25 January 1868 led his troops south into the Ethiopian Highlands.

The expedition involved crossing 400 mi of mountainous terrain lacking roads or bridges occupied by local people with a known history of hostility towards outsiders. The expedition overcame the first obstacle, the terrain, by thorough logistical planning and engineering ability. Shrewd diplomacy dealt with the second obstacle, local opposition. On the one hand, Napier made it clear to the Ethiopians that the sole intent of the British force was to rescue the imprisoned Europeans—not conquest; on the other, Napier met with local potentates such as Ras Kassa (the future Emperor Yohannes IV) and arranged to purchase needed supplies with the 4.35 million Maria Theresa thalers (the preferred currency of the area) the British had purchased from the mint in Vienna. What helped Napier was the general disaffection with, if not hostility to, Tewodros, and a desire to replace him, held by several native leaders, as well as a general sense that his hostage-taking was bound to lead to trouble.

Napier's troops reached the foot of Magdala on 9 April 1868. The next day, Good Friday, he defeated the 9,000 troops still loyal to Tewodros at the Battle of Magdala for the loss of only 2 British lives. Although Emperor Tewodros surrendered his hostages and made repeated efforts for a negotiated surrender, the distrustful Napier pressed on and ordered an assault on the mountain redoubt on 13 April 1868. The British captured Magdala, and Emperor Tewodros killed himself, leaving a grandiose statement that he preferred to "fall into the hands of God, rather than man." Napier then ordered the destruction of Tewodros' artillery and the burning of Magdala as revenge for Tewodros's hostage taking; his palace was sacked by members of the expedition.

After the Ethiopian campaign, Napier was made a Fellow of the Royal Society and a Freeman of the City of London. He was also elevated to the peerage as Baron Napier of Magdala on 11 July 1868 and granted an annuity for life.

Later career
Napier became Commander-in-Chief, India, with the local rank of full general in April 1870, and having been promoted to the substantive rank of full general on 1 April 1874, he became Governor of Gibraltar in June 1876. In February 1878, however, he was recalled to London and appointed to command an expeditionary force which was being prepared in anticipation of a war with Russia. When war did not break out he returned to his duties in Gibraltar. In November 1879 he represented Queen Victoria at Madrid as ambassador extraordinary upon the occasion of Alfonso XII of Spain's second marriage and in December 1879 he became a member of the Royal Commission on the organization of the army. Standing down as Governor of Gibraltar, he was promoted to field marshal on 1 January 1883.

Napier was also honorary colonel of the 3rd London Rifle Volunteer Corps and colonel-commandant of the Royal Engineers. In January 1887 he was appointed Constable of the Tower of London.

Napier died of influenza at his residence in London on 14 January 1890. He was given a state funeral and buried in St Paul's Cathedral on 21 January 1890.

Legacy
In 1883 the British government installed one Armstrong 100 ton gun in a battery in Gibraltar that they named the Napier of Magdala Battery and in 1891 a statue of Napier on horseback by Sir Joseph Boehm was unveiled in front of Carlton House Gardens in London: it was moved to Queen's Gate, Kensington in 1920.

The descendants of the Third City of London Rifle Volunteer Corps are located within Napier House Army Reserve Centre, Grove Park, London; the building is named in his honour.

Honours
Napier's honours included:
 * Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath (GCB) – 27 April 1868 (KCB – 27 July 1858 )
 * Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Star of India (GCSI) – 16 September 1867

Family
In June 1840 Napier married Anne Pearse; they had three sons and three daughters before his wife died in childbirth in 1849. In April 1861 he married Maria Cecilia Smythe Scott: they had six sons and three daughters.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
List of music arrangers

Notable music arrangers include:

A

 * Toshiko Akiyoshi
 * Erik Arvinder
 * Jeff Atmajian
 * Nick Ariondo

B

 * HB Barnum
 * Norman Bergen
 * Doug Besterman
 * Larry Blank
 * Buddy Bregman
 * Alan Broadbent
 * Christoph Brüx
 * Paul Buckmaster
 * Artie Butler

C

 * Charles Calello
 * Jorge Calandrelli
 * David Campbell
 * John Clayton Jr.
 * Rahn Coleman
 * Frank Comstock

D

 * Roberto Danova
 * Eumir Deodato
 * David Foster
 * Brent Fischer
 * Ernie Freeman

G

 * Gil Goldstein
 * Gordon Goodwin
 * Dave Grusin

H

 * Simon Hale
 * Johnny Harris
 * Norman Harris
 * Yukari Hashimoto
 * Jerry Hey
 * Larry Hochman
 * Lee Holdridge
 * Les Hooper

I

 * Nick Ingman
 * Merle J. Isaac

J

 * Booker T. Jones
 * John Paul Jones
 * Quincy Jones
 * Bradley Joseph
 * Tyler Joseph

K

 * Artie Kane
 * Roger Kellaway
 * Sirvan Khosravi
 * Ludwik Konopko

L

 * Michel Legrand
 * Ruslana Lyzhichko

M

 * Henry Mancini
 * Johnny Mandel
 * Anthony Marinelli
 * Carl Marsh
 * Bobby Martin
 * Rob Mathes
 * Frank McNamara
 * Sergio Mendes
 * Vince Mendoza
 * Alan Menken
 * Bob Mintzer
 * Ennio Morricone
 * Rob Mounsey
 * Manoj George

N

 * Richard Niles

O

 * Claus Ogerman
 * Tale Ognenovski

P

 * Gene Page
 * Conrad Pope
 * Rita Porfiris
 * Pino Presti
 * André Previn

R

 * Ray Reach
 * Les Reed
 * William Ross
 * Paul Riser
 * Davide Rossi
 * George Russell

S

 * Lalo Schifrin
 * Maria Schneider
 * Vic Schoen
 * Don Sebesky
 * Deke Sharon
 * Randy Slaugh

T

 * Octave Octavian Teodorescu
 * George Tipton
 * Doron Toister
 * Steve Tirpak
 * Danny Troob
 * Jonathan Tunick

V

 * Tommy Vig

W

 * Chris Walden
 * Steve Weisberg
 * Harold Wheeler
 * Patrick Williams

A

 * Johnny Allen

B

 * John Barry
 * George Bassman
 * Les Baxter
 * Louie Bellson
 * Robert Russell Bennett
 * Harry Betts
 * Perry Botkin Jr.
 * Bob Brookmeyer
 * Ralph Burns
 * William David Brohn

C

 * John Cameron
 * Benny Carter
 * Al Cohn
 * Michel Colombier
 * Ray Conniff
 * Don Costa

D

 * Tadd Dameron
 * George Duke
 * Frank De Vol

E

 * Jack Elliott
 * Ray Ellis
 * Gil Evans

F

 * Percy Faith
 * Robert Farnon
 * Bill Finegan
 * Clare Fischer
 * Ernie Freeman

G

 * Douglas Gamley
 * Russell Garcia
 * Robert Graettinger

H

 * Rene Hall
 * Norman Harris
 * Isaac Hayes
 * Neil Hefti
 * Ray Heindorf
 * Bill Holman

J

 * Michael Jackson
 * Gordon Jenkins
 * J. J. Johnson
 * Jimmy Jones
 * Thad Jones

K

 * Artie Kane
 * Michael Kamen
 * Peter Knight

L

 * Philip J. Lang
 * Rod Levitt
 * Mort Lindsey
 * Geoff Love

M

 * Henry Mancini
 * Arif Mardin
 * Billy May
 * Gary McFarland
 * Hal Mooney
 * Angela Morley
 * Jelly Roll Morton
 * Gerry Mulligan
 * Manoj George

N

 * Sammy Nestico
 * Tommy Newsom

O

 * Chico O'Farrill
 * Sy Oliver
 * Glen Osser

P

 * Gene Page
 * Marty Paich
 * Ástor Piazzolla
 * Perez Prado
 * Tito Puente
 * Gene Puerling

R

 * Johnny Richards
 * Nelson Riddle
 * Aldemaro Romero
 * Pete Rugolo
 * George Russell

S

 * Conrad Salinger
 * Eddie Sauter
 * John Serry, Sr.
 * Harry Simeone
 * Axel Stordahl
 * Billy Strayhorn
 * Ed Summerlin

T

 * Tommy Tycho

W

 * Paul Weston
 * Barry White
 * Ernie Wilkins
 * Gerald Wilson

Z

 * Torrie Zito

title: List of music arrangers


text:
List of computer-animated films

A computer-animated film is an animated film that was created using computer software to appear three-dimensional. While traditional 2D animated films are now made primarily with the help of computers, the technique to render realistic 3D computer graphics (CG) or 3D computer-generated imagery (CGI), is unique to computer animation.

This is a list of theatrically released feature films that are entirely computer-animated.

Released films
Release date listed is the first public theatrical screening of the completed film. This may mean that the dates listed here may not be representative of when the film came out in a particular country.

The country or countries listed reflects the places where the production companies for each title are based. This means that the countries listed for a film might not reflect the location where the film was produced or the countries where the film received a theatrical release. If a title is a multi-country production, the country listed first corresponds with the production company that had the most significant role in the film's creation.

title: List of computer-animated films


text:
Honda VF and VFR

The Honda VF and VFR series is a range of motorcycles first introduced in 1982 by Honda featuring V4 engines (hence the "VF" prefix).

History
In 1969 Honda revealed the CB750 superbike, establishing the template for the Universal Japanese Motorcycle with a range of transverse inline-fours. Relishing technological innovation, Honda unexpectedly moved on to adopt the V4 ("VF") configuration. However, some of the early VF models suffered mechanical problems, mainly as a result of poor quality camshafts (the "chocolate cams"). Honda, alarmed that they were losing their hard-won reputation for reliability, moved to introduce the VFR750 motorcycles featuring gear-driven over head cams and a very high build quality. The first three or four iterations of VFR motorcycles re-established Honda's reputation for quality, and the motorcycles received almost universal praise from journalists and riders alike.

The VFR was originally a 750 cc, but became an 800 cc in due course. New models featured technological innovation, such as a single-sided swingarm, linked braking, ABS, and VTEC. The VFR1200 became the first motorcycle to feature a dual-clutch transmission. Not all of these innovations proved popular with riders, who often preferred the simple robustness of the earlier models.

Honda also developed a limited edition VFR, the Honda RC30, as a homologation racing platform. This motorcycle achieved some racing success, but the introduction of very light inline-four motorcycles by competing firms led Honda to downgrade its racing plans.

Honda's VF model lineup had engine capacities ranging from 400 cc to 1,000 cc. Another Honda, the shaft-driven ST1100 also featured a V4 engine, but this touring motorcycle does not form part of the VF series.

V4 engine
Prior to its adoption by Honda, the V4 design had been used only rarely for motorcycles, most notably by Matchless. In modern times, the V4 configuration has been embraced by Aprilia, Ducati, Suzuki, Yamaha & Norton.

Compared to an in-line four, the advantages of a 90° V4 engine include compactness, narrow width, and perfect primary balance giving a smooth and nearly vibration-free operation. A disadvantage is that it is more expensive to manufacture, and, just like a V-twin, more difficult to locate ancillaries and inlet & exhaust systems.

VF Models

In 1982 VF models were introduced to the public at the Cologne Motorcycle Show with a V4 engine mounted in a square-tube steel frame. That very year, reliability and quality control problems arose, possibly due to new automated production equipment at Honda's plant in Hamamatsu, Japan. Regardless, Honda sold out its first year's inventory of Sabres and the Magnas were not far behind. 1983 saw the engine revised to correct the problems from the previous production year and the introduction of the V65 and the Interceptor. Cam-wear problems surfaced during 1984 in the larger displacement bikes, which, by the time it was corrected, led to eight factory cam revisions over the course of just one year.

VFR750F & VFR800F

The 748 cc VFR750F (RC24) was introduced in 1986, and was over-engineered in a bid to re-establish a reputation for reliability. It had an alloy beam frame, gear driven cams. This version underwent constant revision of the non-US models with later revisions including changing wheel sizes from 16" front & 18" rear to 17" front and rear, larger diameter forks and the fairing was slightly modified. After this was a series of VFR models which featured various innovations, including a single-sided swingarm, linked braking, ABS, and VTEC. In due course the geared cam drive was dropped in favour of cheaper chain-drive.

A total redesign of the engine to a new one based on the RVF750R (RC45) and a slight capacity increase led to later models being designated the "VFR800F".

VFR1200F
A much larger capacity VFR model, the VFR1200F, was revealed at the Tokyo Motor Show in October 2009. The new 1200 cc narrow-angle SOHC V4 engine does not use the V-Tec design of the smaller VFRs. It has an optional six-speed push-button operated dual clutch transmission with three modes: automatic, sport and manual. The modes are similar to those on the Honda DN-01 but with a conventional gearbox shifted automatically, similar to a "Tiptronic" system, and without a hand-operated clutch rather than a hydrostatic drive.

To date, the VFR1200 has not sold particularly well, as buyers have tended to favour the smaller VFR800F (RC79).

Honda have permitted the Ariel Motor Company, British makers of the Ariel Atom sports car, to use the VFR1200's V4 engine in a new motorcycle, the Ariel Ace.

Race Models
Honda developed the RC30 as a homologation racing version which was used from 1988 to 1993. It was the first large capacity motorcycle to use a single-sided swingarm.. The RC30 was succeeded in 1994 by the RC45.

VF

 * Magna
 * VF400F (NC13)
 * VF500F 'Interceptor'
 * VF700F 'Interceptor'
 * VF750F 'Interceptor' (v45)
 * VF1000 'Interceptor'
 * V45 VF750S and V65 VF1100S 'Sabre'

VFR

 * VFR400 (NC21/NC24/NC30)
 * VFR750FG/FH (First generation) RC24
 * VFR750FK/FJ (Second generation) RC24
 * VFR750FL/FM/FN/FP (Third generation) RC36
 * VFR700F2
 * VFR750FR/FS/FT/FV (Fourth and final 750 generation) RC36
 * VFR750R (RC30)
 * VFR800 'Interceptor' (RC46)
 * VFR800X Crossrunner
 * VFR1200F
 * VFR1200X Crosstourer

RVF

 * RVF400R (NC35)
 * RVF750R (RC45)

title: Honda VF and VFR


text:
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)

title: Talk:Lighthouse of Alexandria


text:
Cedrus libani

Cedrus libani, the cedar of Lebanon or Lebanese cedar (أرز لبناني), is a species of tree in the genus Cedrus, a part of the pine family, native to the mountains of the Eastern Mediterranean basin. It is a large evergreen conifer that has great religious and historical significance in the cultures of the Middle East, and is referenced many times in the literature of ancient civilisations. It is the national emblem of Lebanon and is widely used as an ornamental tree in parks and gardens.

Description
Cedrus libani can reach 40 m in height, with a massive monopodial columnar trunk up to 2.5 m in diameter. The trunks of old trees ordinarily fork into several large, erect branches. The rough and scaly bark is dark grey to blackish brown, and is run through by deep, horizontal fissures that peel in small chips. The first-order branches are ascending in young trees; they grow to a massive size and take on a horizontal, wide-spreading disposition. Second-order branches are dense and grow in a horizontal plane. The crown is conical when young, becoming broadly tabular with age with fairly level branches; trees growing in dense forests maintain more pyramidal shapes.

Shoots and leaves
The shoots are dimorphic, with both long and short shoots. New shoots are pale brown, older shoots turn grey, grooved and scaly. C. libani has slightly resinous ovoid vegetative buds measuring 2 to 3 mm long and 1.5 to 2 mm wide enclosed by pale brown deciduous scales. The leaves are needle-like, arranged in spirals and concentrated at the proximal end of the long shoots, and in clusters of 15–35 on the short shoots; they are 5 to 35 mm long and 1 to 1.5 mm wide, rhombic in cross-section, and vary from light green to glaucous green with stomatal bands on all four sides.

Cones
Cedrus libani produces cones beginning at around the age of 40. Its cones are borne in autumn, the male cones appear in early September and the female ones in late September. Male cones occur at the ends of the short shoots; they are solitary and erect about 4 to 5 cm long and mature from a pale green to a pale brown color. The female seed cones also grow at the terminal ends of short shoots. The young seed cones are resinous, sessile, and pale green; they require 17 to 18 months after pollination to mature. The mature, woody cones are 8 to 12 cm long and 3 to 6 cm wide; they are scaly, resinous, ovoid or barrel-shaped, and gray-brown in color. Mature cones open from top to bottom, they disintegrate and lose their seed scales, releasing the seeds until only the cone rachis remains attached to the branches.

The seed scales are thin, broad, and coriaceous, measuring 3.5 to 4 cm long and 3 to 3.5 cm wide. The seeds are ovoid, 10 to 14 mm long and 4 to 6 mm wide, attached to a light brown wedge-shaped wing that is 20 to 30 mm long and 15 to 18 mm wide. C. libani grows rapidly until the age of 45 to 50 years; growth becomes extremely slow after the age of 70.

Taxonomy
Cedrus is the Latin name for true cedars. The specific epithet refers to the Lebanon mountain range where the species was first described by French botanist Achille Richard; the tree is commonly known as the Lebanon cedar or cedar of Lebanon. Two distinct types are recognized as varieties: C. libani var. libani and C. libani var. brevifolia.

C. libani var. libani: Lebanon cedar, cedar of Lebanon – grows in Lebanon, western Syria, and south-central Turkey. C. libani var. stenocoma (the Taurus cedar), considered a subspecies in earlier literature, is now recognized as an ecotype of C. libani var. libani. It usually has a spreading crown that does not flatten. This distinct morphology is a habit that is assumed to cope with the competitive environment, since the tree occurs in dense stands mixed with the tall-growing Abies cilicica, or in pure stands of young cedar trees.

C. libani var. brevifolia: The Cyprus cedar occurs on the island's Troodos Mountains. This taxon was considered a separate species from C. libani because of morphological and ecophysiological trait differences. It is characterized by slow growth, shorter needles, and higher tolerance to drought and aphids. Genetic relationship studies, however, did not recognize C. brevifolia as a separate species, the markers being indistinguishable from those of C. libani.

Distribution and habitat
C. libani var. libani is endemic to elevated mountains around the Eastern Mediterranean in Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey. The tree grows in well-drained calcareous lithosols on rocky, north- and west-facing slopes and ridges and thrives in rich loam or a sandy clay in full sun. Its natural habitat is characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, moist winters with an annual precipitation of 1000 to 1500 mm; the trees are blanketed by a heavy snow cover at the higher altitudes. In Lebanon and Turkey, it occurs most abundantly at altitudes of 1300 to 3000 m, where it forms pure forests or mixed forests with Cilician fir (Abies cilicica), European black pine (Pinus nigra), Turkish pine (Pinus brutia), and several juniper species. In Turkey, it can occur as low as 500 m.

C. brevifolia, a closely related species or perhaps a subspecies of C. libani, grows in similar conditions on medium to high mountains in Cyprus from altitudes ranging from 900 to 1525 m.

History and symbolism
In the Epic of Gilgamesh, one of the earliest great works of literature, the Sumerian hero Gilgamesh and his friend Enkidu travel to the legendary Cedar Forest to kill its guardian and cut down its trees. While early versions of the story place the forest in Iran, later Babylonian accounts of the story place the Cedar Forest in the Lebanon.

The Lebanon cedar is mentioned several times in the Bible. Hebrew priests were ordered by Moses to use the bark of the Lebanon cedar in the treatment of leprosy. Solomon also procured cedar timber to build the Temple in Jerusalem. The Hebrew prophet Isaiah used the Lebanon cedar (together with "oaks of Bashan", "all the high mountains" and "every high tower") as examples of loftiness as a metaphor for the pride of the world and in Psalm 92:12 it says "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon".

National and regional significance
The Lebanon cedar is the national emblem of Lebanon, and is displayed on the flag of Lebanon and coat of arms of Lebanon. It is also the logo of Middle East Airlines, which is Lebanon's national carrier. Beyond that, it is also the main symbol of Lebanon's "Cedar Revolution" of 2005, the 17 October Revolution, also known as the Thawra ("Revolution") along with many Lebanese political parties and movements, such as the Lebanese Forces. Finally, Lebanon is sometimes metonymically referred to as the Land of the Cedars.

Arkansas, among other US states, has a Champion Tree program that records exceptional tree specimens. The Lebanon cedar recognized by the state is located inside Hot Springs National Park and is estimated to be over 100 years old.

Cultivation
The Lebanon cedar is widely planted as an ornamental tree in parks and gardens.

When the first cedar of Lebanon was planted in Britain is unknown, but it dates at least to 1664, when it is mentioned in Sylva, or A Discourse of Forest-Trees and the Propagation of Timber by John Evelyn. In Britain, cedars of Lebanon are known for their use in London's Highgate Cemetery.

C. libani has gained the Royal Horticultural Society's Award of Garden Merit (confirmed 2017).

Propagation
In order to germinate Cedrus libani seeds, potting soil is preferred, since it is less likely to contain fungal species which may kill the seedling in its early stages. Before sowing it is important to soak the seed at room temperature for a period of 24 hours followed by cold stratification (~ 3–5 °C) for two to four weeks. Once the seeds have been sown, it is recommended that they be kept at room temperature (~ 20 °C) and in the vicinity of sunlight. The soil should be kept slightly damp with low frequency watering. Over-watering may cause damping off which will quickly kill the seedlings. Initial growth will be around 3–5 cm the first year and will accelerate subsequent years.

Uses
Cedar wood is prized for its fine grain, attractive yellow color, and fragrance. It is exceptionally durable and immune to insect ravages. Wood from C. libani has a density of 560 kg/m3; it is used for furniture, construction, and handicrafts. In Turkey, shelterwood cutting and clearcutting techniques are used to harvest timber and promote uniform forest regeneration. Cedar resin (cedria) and cedar essential oil (cedrum) are prized extracts from the timber and cones of the cedar tree.

Ecology and conservation
Over the centuries, extensive deforestation has occurred, with only small remnants of the original forests surviving. Deforestation has been particularly severe in Lebanon and on Cyprus; on Cyprus, only small trees up to 25 m tall survive, though Pliny the Elder recorded cedars 40 m tall there. Attempts have been made at various times throughout history to conserve the Lebanon cedars. The first was made by the Roman emperor Hadrian; he created an imperial forest and ordered it marked by inscribed boundary stones, two of which are in the museum of the American University of Beirut.

Extensive reforestation of cedar is carried out in the Mediterranean region. In Turkey, over 50 million young cedars are planted annually, covering an area around 300 km2. Lebanese cedar populations are also expanding through an active program combining replanting and protection of natural regeneration from browsing goats, hunting, forest fires, and woodworms. The Lebanese approach emphasizes natural regeneration by creating proper growing conditions. The Lebanese state has created several reserves, including the Chouf Cedar Reserve, the Jaj Cedar Reserve, the Tannourine Reserve, the Ammouaa and Karm Shbat Reserves in the Akkar district, and the Forest of the Cedars of God near Bsharri.

Because during the seedling stage, differentiating C. libani from C. atlantica or C. deodara is difficult, the American University of Beirut has developed a DNA-based method of identification to ensure that reforestation efforts in Lebanon are of the cedars of Lebanon and not other types.

Diseases and pests
C. libani is susceptible to a number of soil-borne, foliar, and stem pathogens. The seedlings are prone to fungal attacks. Botrytis cinerea, a necrotrophic fungus known to cause considerable damage to food crops, attacks the cedar needles, causing them to turn yellow and drop. Armillaria mellea (commonly known as honey fungus) is a basidiomycete that fruits in dense clusters at the base of trunks or stumps and attacks the roots of cedars growing in wet soils. The Lebanese cedar shoot moth (Parasyndemis cedricola) is a species of moth of the family Tortricidae found in the forests of Lebanon and Turkey; its larvae feed on young cedar leaves and buds.

title: Cedrus libani