Talk:List of destroyed libraries/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Theological Library at Caesarea Maritima

The collections of the library suffered during the persecutions under the Emperor Diocletian, but were repaired subsequently by bishops of Caesarea.[1] It was noted in the 6th century, but Henry Barclay Swete[2] was of the opinion that it probably did not long survive the capture of Caesarea by the Saracens in 638, though a modern historian would attribute more destruction to its previous capture by the Sassanid Persians.

  1. ^ Jerome, "Epistles" xxxiv
  2. ^ Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, pp 74-75.
This is relevant but since the library has its fullest description in the article Pamphilus of Caesarea it is not clear now to summarise this for the table.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It is now a separate article but still hard to summarise.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Antioch

Library of Antioch (by Jovian) In 364, the Christian Emperor Jovian ordered the entire Library of Antioch to be burnt[1]. It had been heavily stocked by the aid of his non-Christian predecessor, Emperor Julian--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Jaffna

Burning of Jaffna library In May 1981 a mob composed of thugs and plainclothes police officers went on a rampage in minority Tamil-dominated northern Jaffna, Sri Lanka, and burned down the Jaffna Public Library. At least 95,000 volumes — the second largest library collection in South Asia — were destroyed, including a very rare collection of ancient palm leaf volumes.[2] --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Michael von Albrecht, and Gareth L. Schmeling, A history of Roman literature (1997), page 1744
  2. ^ Knuth, Rebecca (2006-06-27). Destroying a Symbol: Checkered History of Sri Lanka's Jaffna Public Library (PDF). IFLA. Retrieved 2008-08-30.

Granada and Sarajevo

{{(Spanish: La biblioteca de la Madraza de Granada, la primera Universidad de esta ciudad, fue asaltada por las tropas del cardenal Cisneros, a finales de 1499, los libros fueron llevados a la plaza de Bib-Rambla donde se quemaron en pública hoguera. El edificio de la Madraza una vez clausurada la Universidad fue donado por el rey Fernando para Cabildo (Ayuntamiento) de la ciudad, en septiembre de 1500. (Spanish: La Biblioteca Nacional de Sarajevo fue quemada a finales de agosto de 1992. El incendio fue causado por el fuego de artillería del ejército serbio-bosnio. El edificio no tení­a valor estratégico ni importancia militar, pero constituía el gran sí­mbolo de identidad de un pueblo; poseía unos dos millones de libros y miles de documentos y manuscritos de gran valor, conservados a lo largo de siglos tanto por musulmanes como por serbios ortodoxos, croatas católicos y judí­os.

The above need translating from Spanish.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to User:PRODUCER the Biblioteca Nacional de Sarajevo is covered in the list. Granada still needed.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Granada has been added but the translation is still needed.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Warsaw

Załuski Library in Warsaw, Poland (during suppression of anti-Nazi uprising)

During the Nazi suppression of the Warsaw Uprising of 1944 the Załuski Library, the oldest public library in Poland and one of the oldest and most important libraries in Europe, was burned down. Out of about 400,000 printed items, maps and manuscripts, only some 1800 manuscripts and 30,000 printed materials survived. Unlike earlier Nazi book burnings where specific books were deliberately targeted, the burning of this library was part of the general setting on fire of a large part of the city of Warsaw.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Now added. A second entry has been made for Leuven. This also could be added: "The library of the Serapeum in Alexandria was trashed, burned and looted, 392, at the decree of Theophilus of Alexandria, who was ordered so by Theodosius I."--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Samanid Dynasty Library

The Royal Library of the Samanid Dynasty was burned at the turn of the 11th century during the Turkic invasion from the east. Avicenna was said to have tried to save the precious manuscripts from the fire as the flames engulfed the collection.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Dublin

Irish National Archives (in Civil War)

At the culmination of the April 1922 fighting in and around the Four Courts in Dublin, as the Republican forces hitherto barricaded in the building were surrendering, the west wing was obliterated in a huge explosion, destroying the Irish Public Record Office located at the rear, with nearly one thousand years of irreplaceable archives being destroyed. Responsibility for this act was bitterly debated for years afterwards, the government accusing the Republicans of having deliberately perpetrated the destruction of the archives while they rebutted that it was completely accidental.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Whether the archive was deliberately destroyed by retreating anti-Treaty forces, or carelessly exposed to destruction by storage of explosives in proximity, is debated to this day. The supposition in the article that destruction other than by natural causes must be deliberate, is flawed. RashersTierney (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Barcelona

Pompeu Fabra's library (by Spanish troops)

In 1939, shortly after the surrendering of Barcelona, Franco's troops burned the entire library of Pompeu Fabra, the main author of the normative reform of contemporary Catalan language, while shouting "¡Abajo la inteligencia!" (Down with intelligence!). [1]--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  • ^ "De la destrucció de la biblioteca de Pompeu Fabra".

    • Library of Ctesiphon

    I've removed the story about Umar given as a reference in the main page, quoted below:

    According to an account in Al-Tabari, the Arab Commander Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas wrote to Caliph `Umar ibn al-Khatta-b about what should be done with the books at the Persian capital of Ctesiphon in province of Khvârvarân (today known as Iraq). Umar wrote back: "If the books contradict the Qur'an, they are blasphemous. On the other hand, if they are in agreement, they are not needed." All the books were thrown into the Euphrates.

    No citation was given for this. In fact, some of the citations for the Library of Alexandria given on the article have pretty much the same story - but for a different library altogether! Those very citations state that there is doubt about the accuracy of the story - essentially the story first appeared centuries after the fact, and earlier reports of the event made no mention of it.

    Now it is an often quoted story, so I'm sure people won't have a hard time coming up with presumably authoritative sources for this. I'm actually fine if someone reintroduces this back into the article (with a citation), provided that it is also pointed out that the story is disputed.

    Until someone actually provides a proper citation, though, I think it should be left out. Beetle B. (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

    Libraries and records lost in 9/11

    Mystery surrounds loss of records, art on 9/11. Is this OK for this article? emijrp (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

    User removed info

    Hi. A Wikipedian deleted info in this edit while fixing some stuff. Was it merged into other articles or just removed? Regards. emijrp (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

    Scope

    Can we open the scope to destruction of libraries, archives and museums? emijrp (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

    Good idea. I have done the move to reflect this increase in scope; now we can start adding to the list. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


    I am not convinced it is a good idea to combine these. Currently there is very little on archives and museums anyway, it is still essentially a list of libraries. Similar lists for archives and museum would be welcome. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    Many times libraries, archives and museums are in the same building or area so if we split this list, I guess we will have duplicated info in several lists. emijrp (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

    Occupy Wall Street "library"

    I removed the above from the list - it seemed, frankly, trivial compared to the others on the list and had next to nothing in the way of sources. Kelly hi! 04:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

    I was going to broach the subject, but The People's Library has been recently restored after the raid.--DrWho42 (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    OK, new books are being donated, but, where are the seized books? emijrp (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

    So can we take it down? It seems crazy to have it on such a list.Melancthe (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

    Hurricane Irene 2011

    [1] [2] emijrp (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

    Fictional libraries

    What about destroyed fictional libraries? [3] Do we create a new list or a section in this one? emijrp (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

    California earthquake

    The ruins of Stanford Library after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake

    The 1906 San Francisco earthquake destroyed parts of the Main Quad (including the original iteration of Memorial Church) as well as the gate that first marked the entrance of the school; rebuilding on a somewhat less grandiose scale began immediately.

    Perhaps if more information can be found an entry could be made for Stanford University library.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

    There is now a separate article for Stanford University Libraries.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

    Recent events ? Terrence Mckneaan and Nicals Telsa

    both had their libraries and or workshop destroyed )in fire) after their death, in myerious circimstances....This should be COVEREWD in this list. --84.228.20.22 (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

    Hyderabad

    I was in the museum of Hyderabad and they said there'd been a library there sacked & burned for days, on the scale of Alexandria, sacked by of all people the Afghans. But there's no mention of this here or on the Hyderabad pages.--86.144.101.104 (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

    Do you have a reliable source for this incident? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    Or time-period information, which might be a useful clue for tracking down a source. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

    Enrique de Villena

    His extensive library was burnt by royal order c. 1434 on suspicion of witchcraft and necromancy. Not sure what the cutoff is for notability on this list, though. It was important in Spain and may have cost us some works, but it wasn't on par with the loss of the House of Wisdom &c. — LlywelynII 21:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

    Freezing

    There was a large fire in a Russian library some tie in the last 30 years, but more than 5 years ago. The wet books were stored in an industrial freezer - on the scale of a large building. The international conservation efforts were then spread over a number of years. With the right references this is useful information for this article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC).

    Library fire in Northam Devon?

    Back over a decade ago (!) the original author of an ancestor of this article added a mention of "sun's rays setting fire to leaflets through the action of a hands-free magnifier in a library in Northam Devon." I've not been able to find any source to verify this, despite trying. I've just now asked the author (who is still an active Wikipedian, amazingly) about it, but it should probably be removed until a source can be found. As such, I've done so. Feel free to revert. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

    I suspect a local paper would be the best source. The library avoided being closed in 2014, but their phone diverts to a central system, with long queues, so I am emailing the area manager to see if she has any information. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC).
    User:Cavrdg has resolved this:

    There's a mention here. 3. Northam Library, Devon, England Total loss of building and 90% books. Fire thought to have started by sun’s rays setting fire to leaflets through action of a hands-free magnifier. The Times 17 June 2005 --Cavrdg (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC).
    Great, thanks for tracking that down. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

    Lost links

    Could the reference number 26 - Libraries lost in the 20th century - be redirected to [4] as the current link no longer works. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    What.cd

    This obviously brings some talk, so I’ll start. Can a site like what.cd qualify as a library, though mostly used to share digital media? Wicker (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

    I just want to add to the record (because the emphasis in here seems to be about music and I don't see it clarified) that WCD's coverage of ebooks and audiobooks was highly inclusive, eclipsing sites that are specifically concentrating in those areas. However, their emphasis on metadata was for music so parity rebuilding is less difficult in these areas.Dan (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    As per WP's definition of library, I'd say it does: "A library is a collection of sources of information and similar resources, made accessible to a defined community for reference or borrowing. It provides physical or digital access to material, and may be a physical building or room, or a virtual space, or both. A library's collection can include books, periodicals, newspapers, manuscripts, films, maps, prints, documents, microform, CDs, cassettes, videotapes, DVDs, Blu-ray Discs, e-books, audiobooks, databases, and other formats." tromaster (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    I agree with What.cd's inclusion on this list however I think "most comprehensive archive of music and literature" is misleading in that it is true for music but not literature.71.15.212.4 (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    Should Wikipedia be somehow completely destroyed, it would I think also qualify for inclusion on a list such as this (though obviously not this one- it would have been destroyed). What.cd contained a comparable comprehensiveness of content and quality of curation, and absolutely fits into Wikipedia's own definition of library: "A library is a collection of sources of information and similar resources, made accessible to a defined community for reference or borrowing. It provides physical or digital access to material, and may be a physical building or room, or a virtual space, or both." Agree with decision to include it on the list. 73.133.74.27 (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    You gave us a big oportunity to talk eh Deor? Just locked the thread. This page should be named "List of destroyed material libraries". ikobia (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    As previously mentioned, what.cd certainly qualifies as a library based upon Wikipedia's own definition of the same. Why is this even being questioned? Evanosaurus (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    You see, I've seen more problems like this in other controversial material, and it seems these guys can't accept What.cd as a library, and they surely don't even know what that page was. You know, "unknown" for humans equals to "enemy" ussualy. ikobia (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    I think by definition it counts as a library, but what data was destroyed? The torrents still exist on its members' computers, no?2605:E000:908B:FD00:1DD7:A175:5F84:24D (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    The issue here is not WP's definition of a library, but this article's definition of its scope. An outsider who read this article before the addition of What CD would reasonably think that it is a list of brick-and-mortar libraries that have been physically destroyed. Nevertheless, I affirm the bold addition of What CD, and I affirm the subsequent deletion. At that point, my understanding of WP:BRD is that the next action should not have been the edit war restoration, but this discussion, and I think this discussion should have taken place with the article in remaining in status-quo-ante.
    Now that I've thought about it a bit (I tend to think while my fingers are typing), I'm wondering if, prior to its destruction, What CD was on any WP lists of libraries that included both digital and brick-and-mortar libraries. If it were indeed on such a list, supported by WP:RS, then I'd fully support its inclusion on this list. YBG (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    So basically you're telling me I'm right? The page should be renamed to "List of destroyed material/physic libraries"? And then, we could start a talk to add What.CD to a WP list (which would take some time discussing), but honestly, I don't see Wikipedia adding a "piracy page for most here" to that list. ikobia (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    Actually, I haven't said that at all. I did lay out some specific criteria for whether I think it should be included, but I did not do any checking to see if those criteria were met or not. Another point, which I did not mention, is whether What CD, prior to its destruction, identified itself as a library and whether anyone else identified it as such.
    And I said nothing about whether the page should be moved. An alternative (much better IMHO) would be to expand the lede to make the inclusion criteria clear. WP list articles frequently have such a description. I haven't checked, but I reckon it very likely that having such a statement of inclusion criteria is part of the MOS for list articles. YBG (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    If what.cd is included, all the other notable "destroyed" trackers and digital libraries should be too, so I added TPB. Feor (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    And per WP:BRD, I reverted it pending a resolution of this discussion.
    Now that I see that this is not a single instance, may I suggest that a new list be created, starting with What CD and TPB and any others that people can think of. That article and this one can link to each other in their See Also sections. YBG (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    TPB and other 'public' trackers weren't really collections in the same way that what.cd was: They simply stored a copy of everything, while what was more specific on what could be submitted. 2001:470:1F06:1256:202:C9FF:FE4F:BD60 (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    That seems reasonable to me considering there are two different pages for libraries and digital libraries already. I also reverted one edit I suspect you undid by mistake concerning what.cd having "The most comprehensive archive of music and literature to have ever existed".Feor (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    That's absolutely correct - the Twinkle conveniently (?) reverted both of your edits, and I didn't double check exactly what it was doing. Thank you for your gracious response to my clumsiness. This is what collaboration is all about! YBG (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    TPB content was not curated like What CD apparently had. Completely different thing. TPB's aim was not to curate, moderate, archive. Further TPB is still around. What CD on the other hand was curated and of such high quality and depth there is no alternatives in existence, many have even said "The Library of Alexandria for music". 88.112.78.245 (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

    The article currently lists the Perpetrator for What.CD as "French Government" which is incorrect. Law enforcement seized some of their servers, but not those that the site itself resided upon. What.CD staff destroyed the site themselves in response to the seizure of the reverse proxy servers in France, so the Perpetrator should be edited to "What.CD staff." Secret Snelk (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

    It should probably list or at least mention both, since the reason WCD staff wiped the servers was likely in response to the raid by the French authorities. Roquemore92 (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

    Just a note to say that I protected this article because an editor complained, on the Help Desk, that there was an edit war here. I also reverted the article to the last stable version. Since additional input from uninvolved editors would be helpful, my recommendation is that someone create a formal RfC to gain consensus on the question of whether the article should cover digital libraries (and whether What.CD constitutes a "destroyed library"). I myself have somewhat of an opinion on the topic, so I'm probably not the best person to start an RfC, but the opinions of others than the watchers of the article and random passers-by would probably be desirable. Deor (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

    I do not believe this site constitutes a reliable source and this site appears to be a blog. Therefore, it should be deleted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

    If What.CD does stay on this list, I do feel that some discussion needs to be had on the part about "perfect" FLACs. Simply stating that as the number of FLACs would be incorrect as "Perfect" FLAC had a unique definition. A perfect FLAC had a cue file and a log file from Exact Audio Copy that was given a 100%, meaning the FLAC was an exact rip of the CD with no errors. The listed number of FLACs was just for "perfect" ones, the total number of FLAC albums on the site was much more than the number stated. Some sort of clarification on that number should be made. Stating "perfect" is probably not helpful, but some definition or description of a "perfect" FLAC could be made. Roquemore92 (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

    I wasn't even a part of WCD to be honest, but comments like "What.CD "fans" flocking here, as they feel inserting their site into this list somehow guarantees it a place in history" seems a little offensive. I CAN agree with you about getting it sepparated because a different organization might be needed for digital and material libraries, but saying "Many great, significant libraries – important pieces of history... and then a random website at the bottom?"... When even years ago, when you heard "lossless" the first name they told you was "WCD"... I can tell the same for WCD if I want: "A lot of random buildings that will be forgotten in some years... Near the future?". ikobia (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

    I would argue that what.CD was not a library, as per the definition mentioned above. They did not store any music directly on their servers. What they did was enable communication between thousands of private individuals who stored and traded music privately. They were a "torrent tracker". To call them a library is analogous to calling Google the internet. Google is merely an index into millions of web pages that are hosted outside of Google's servers, not owned or controlled by Google themselves. Just as there are other search engines, there are other torrent trackers. Many torrent trackers have been shut down in the past. Perhaps an entry should be created for shut down torrent trackers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Js8887 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

    Hi. Ok, so I've read what's been commented here thus far. What I'm making of it is:
    The version that's being proposed for addition I don't agree with.
    "The most comprehensive archive of music and literature to have ever existed"
    I don't think that's true for the reasons brought up that 1) its archive of literature wasn't exactly comprehensive compared to let's say some specialized ebook trackers (or brick and mortar libraries either). I'll come back to that.
    "..containing over a million unique releases of books and albums"
    I think if we're going to qualify the "the most comprehensive archive of music" part, what Roquemore92 already said above about perfect flacs holds merit.
    There were releases that existed in other than lossless quality, as well, but were unique in that they couldn't be found anywhere else.
    I'd say something like:
    "The most comprehensive archive of music yet known to have existed as of its closure."
    -...-...-...-...-...-
    Is there already main page on wcd that's outlining the story of what happened with the closure? BC as Secret Snelk brought up the French govt didn't destroy the database, What staff did in response to "the raid".
    I have no problem with it being included as a library in the page destroyed libraries, but let's clean it up per standards of being both concise and factual.

    -jif 2607:FB90:17C1:17B9:0:28:E2DB:7601 (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

    Agreed with everything. The term "Perfect FLACs" should be explained correctly. As for the destruction, I would put the Staff, yes, but explaining the cause. We can totally remove the literature part, music-wise it was the best, but literature-wise? I'm sure... no, I know there are some better pages around, that have a much larger library and better organization. ikobia (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

    Seeking consensus without RfC

    I'm not opposed to a formal RfC, but if it seems that the simplest way forward would be to create a List of destroyed digital libraries article and move What CD and TPB to that list. While there is some overlap, the issues and methods involved in the destruction of a digital library are significantly different from those of a brick-and-mortar library, so I think having two separate articles would be a the best way forward. So I propose the following solutions

    • Exclude Exclude digital libraries from List of destroyed libraries and revise the lede paragraph to make the scope of the list clear
    • Include Include digital libraries in List of destroyed libraries and revise the lede paragraph to make the scope of the list clear
    • Separate Create a separate List of destroyed digital libraries, move What CD and TPB over there, include clear definition of scope in both articles, cross link the articles in their See Also sections.

    Let the voting begin.

    Votes for Exclude

    Votes to Exclude digital libraries from List of destroyed libraries and revise the lede paragraph to make the scope of the list clear

    Include your signature and a brief description of your reasoning
    1. Going by the bellow arguments, if what.cd is included, it would open a flood gate comprising of hundreds of private torrent websites which have ceesed to exist. Although TPB is still alive and not curated and hence can be disqualified, hundreds of private torrent and as matter of fact direct link website has come and gone. Certain of them have equally stringent standard if not more. Also, argument regarded size of library is bogus since the definition of library has no minimum size prescribed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.150.248.53 (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    2. What.CD was a website and a torrent tracker, but not a library. They did not store any actual works on their servers. All they stored was user data, metadata pertaining to works (thousands of other websites have similar data), and torrent files which allowed users to connect with other users, outside of what.cd. When what.cd shut down, zero works were physically lost or deleted. If deleted websites or deleted torrent trackers are interesting to Wikipedia, they should go on a separate page. I am a former what.cd member, as most others commenting in this discussion probably are, as the link to this page was passed around. As much as I liked the site, it's ridiculous to call it a destroyed library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Js8887 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    3. YBG (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC) (Formerly Separate) I have now read up a bit on What.CD and have come to a couple of conclusions. It does not appear to have been a library, but rather a catalog and a cooperative of people willing to share.
      • If 30 years ago, a vandal or fire destroyed the card catalog of my local public library, while leaving the collection itself untouched, would that qualify as destroying the library? No, as harmful as that activity would have been, it would not qualify as destroying the library, merely vandalizing the library.
      • Today, my local public library is a cooperative of many different libraries that provide a common online catalog and simple inter-library loan between member libraries, so that it is almost inconsequential whether a book is owned by my library or a different one. If someone took down the online catalog of the library cooperative and then the individual libraries closed their doors to members of other libraries, then would not be the destruction of a library, but merely the destruction of a catalog and the disillusion of a library cooperative.
      • That appears to be what happened with What.CD.
      • The fact that What.CD hosted abundant and high quality meta data, it seems to me, is equivalent to the online catalog (although probably much higher quality than my online catalog).
      • The many individual users of What.CD are equivalent to the individual libraries in a cooperative library system.
      • The actions of the French government are equivalent to the destruction of the online catalog.
      • The shutting down of What.CD is equivalent to the member libraries shutting their doors to members of other libraries. While it is likely that many of the What.CD members were equivalent to libraries of one member, I rather suspect that many of them continue to share using other platforms.
      YBG
    4. I don't see a compelling argument for inclusion. Based on my reading of WP:LSC, this list is in need of some work: many entries, especially under the "Fire" heading, contain no account of destruction and no immediately evident significance. There should be a clear and rather strict criterion for inclusion in the interest of making this a great list, perhaps covering notability of the library, works lost, and impact of the loss. What.CD would struggle to meet the third criterion at this time.Res2216firestar 23:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    5. Instead of making a separate article for digital libraries just because What.CD was added here, why not make a "List of defunct BitTorrent trackers" or similar? The original intent of this article clearly seemed to be historical buildings and landmarks. While What.CD happens to be a library of information, it was first and foremost a BitTorrent tracker. — ThreeDee912(talk/contribs) 06:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

    Votes for Include

    Votes to Include digital libraries in List of destroyed libraries and revise the lede paragraph to make the scope of the list clear

    Include your signature and a brief description of your reasoning
    1. Plenty of sources describing WCD as library or archive (see comment above). TPB is of a different beast I think, as the curation and quality control aspects of WCD are absent. No reason to split at this point, since its a a list of 1 (or 2). ResultingConstant (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    2. It should be included. As time marches on the list will be increasingly dominated by digital libraries anyway. That we start to see digital libraries entering this list is simply a product of the times. I would support breaking the list into chronological subsections though. Leonhard Fortier  (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    3. As stated, a list of destroyed digital libraries would be a list of 1. TPB is not gone, it is still an active website with millions of visitors every day. TPB also was not a library in the sense that WCD was. WCD was not just about being able to access/download the data, but included a vast collection of metadata including similar artists, collages, user recommendations, an extensive tagging system, and much more to contribute to the organization of the site. That metadata is what was destroyed. The music itself still resides on the users computers, but the information that made WCD unique is gone. According to the library page: "A library is organized for use and maintained by a public body, an institution, a corporation, or a private individual." TPB would not fall under this part of the definition as the collection was not organized or maintained. It was simply links added by users for others to download.Roquemore92 (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    4. I would personally remove TPB, as it's not dead, but I would add WCD or any relevant digital library that was well organized and quality-wise, good. I agree with Leonhard Fortier in everything else. This is maybe not relevant to this, but even if the data is not lost, the "library" is gone, and we only have some "books" hidden between the users. As some users weren't using the page or wont use another page like WCD, a lot of 1-2 seeder rare uploads can and will dissapear, and that's a big loss. ikobia (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    5. Creating the article as List of destroyed digital libraries would create a stub. Including WCD as a digital library to this only shows the scopus defined in the article of Library. It is covered by the rule. I also guess a loss of access and subsequent a loss of data will be the result the destruction of WCD. They were propably hundreds if not thousand of releases of which digital copies simply did not exist anywhere else. A persistent loss of information considered to be of value was caused. --Marcus. (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    6. The organization of the material was impeccable, unlike any other torrent -- or even plain -- web site. Same for the depth and breadth of selection. To this day, nothing like it has ever existed in music. This is why calling this a random website is ignorance. I definitely understand the controversy in including What.CD on this page, but being ahead of the time is always controversial. It should also be important to note that this wasn't your average torrent site where music is stolen. It's entirely a sharing site. It's not possible to pay money to purchase upload space. You have to actually purchase albums and music for other people in order to join the party. What.CD contributed to me purchasing more music than I had ever done before. LXXIII (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    7. That derogatory speech like "what.cd fans" and "a random website at the bottom" just made me sick. People saying those things have nothing but an irrational disdain for digital information in their subconsciousness. Is Wikipedia less valuable than Brittanica just because it's digital? What.cd was a library and a very valuable one. Nozulani (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    8. Be it brick and mortar or digital, a library is still a library. Delineation via a separate article seems unnecessary, especially since it would be a stub. TPB does not qualify, it still exists, nor would it be defined as a library. Potatofondant (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    9. The distinction between TBP and what.cd comes down to what.cd's rigorous moderation and curation. While they were/are both trackers (note that TBP still exists), what.cd's rigorously upheld standards of quality (both in terms of the fidelity of the uploads themselves and, critically, the metadata of those uploads such that the site served as a comprehensive, usable index for those uploads) is what makes it a library. what.cd was a tracker in the same way that the Library of Alexandria was a building --- both were only so such that their function as a library could be achieved. James.DenholmTalk to me... 05:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    10. Creating a stub article is pointless. What.CD was a library by any definition, and it was destroyed by any definition. Goyston talk, contribs 09:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    11. I agree with the reasoning that there is no need to make a distinction between digital and brick-and-mortar libraries. However, I wouldn't agree that TPB constitutes a library, any more than a warehouse filled with a massive variety of media constitues one. WCD's organisation and active community made it a library. Jacoman891 (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    12. The purpose of what.cd was to archive in the best quality all the music produced by humankind. It is the purpose of a library. And to achive this purpose, it was decided that the digital library was the best way to do it. So separate article won't be logical. To make a compararison: if the servers (witch are physicals btw) of Gallica BnF was destroyed we don't even have this discussion, there destructions will be in this article. B3nd3m (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    13. All the libraries mentioned in the article only contained copies of what was existing elsewhere in their time, still we believe that the destruction of libraries has strong effect on preserving culture. Canonising, commenting, curating - all this is important, no matter if the item is a book or a file. Vote for including it therefor. Pontiuspilatus (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    14. Refusing to include a library that was purely electronic seems like a bad precedent, because more and more human activity takes place in the electronic-digital realm and not in the physical world. This happens to be the first notable non-physical library to be destroyed, but it will not be the last. As human activity broadens and includes new media, this list should reflect that change. We should not start a new list. In the votes for "separate", many people say "it looks out of place". The first gasoline-powered cars looked very out-of-place on roads full of horse-drawn carriages. Laptops once looked out-of-place in university lecture halls where everyone else was taking notes on paper. New technologies very often look strange and alone, but I have no doubt this list will grow to include many digital libraries. Fluoborate (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    15. Digital library is still a library, destroyed digital library is still a destroyed library. --Human. (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    16. I have nothing to add to Goyston's words. Wicker (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    17. I concur with Goyston & Wicker, and would say a consensus is clearly forming. Separating between digital and physical is a dangerous precedent, as in our library infrastructure themselves, they are becoming more and more intertwined. Look to physical libraries becoming more digitalized and taking cues from the What.cd model over time. I additionally want to take time to address GhostOfNoMeme's notion that a number of What.cd "fans" are flocking to the page as highly dismissive of many editors here. Some of us choose not to make accounts, and are happy to contribute to the wiki from whatever IP we're working on at the time, content to let our contribution meld with those of the community. I think it's wrong for you say that this outpouring of support is coming from any sort of 'fandom', rather than recognizing the value of the preserved information and metadata that was lost. 104.32.175.110 (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    18. I'm not sure this is completely in line with the current argument, but I feel I need to add this as I don't believe the scope of what exactly What.cd was has been described to those who did not have a chance to experience it. In response to the general argument that the information contained on What.cd was not destroyed along with the site, because it exists on the users computers. 1) The purpose of What.cd was to act as an archive for music and information about music so that when future generations discover an artist who has been all but forgotten, they can not only experience their music but also understand the context of the music created by that artist. This information is not available on users' computers, nor is it stored anywhere else in the world, in such a complete and organized system. The loss of this archive means the loss of a significant amount of metadata relating to not only the music, but the artists themselves. There has never before in history been a library that existed in as complete a form as was present on What.cd, neither in relation to music nor literature. 2) Although a lot of the data was stored on users' computers, the possibility that it will survive there long enough to be shared with anyone else is not absolute. When any of the other great brick and mortar libraries were destroyed, I'm sure that a great amount of the content that was stored there was loaned out to various people within the community; and I'm sure that much of the content existed in several forms, however, that doesn't mean that the content survived long enough to make it back into another library after the disaster. 3) Although some people may believe that music does not compare to literature, I believe that musicians and historians alike would disagree. Music has been a part of human culture for most of history, possibly dating back as early as 40,000 BCE. [1] It describes our culture and our beliefs as they have progressed throughout our history. A great deal of the content stored on What.cd was in all likelihood the only remaining copies in existence (including the physical media it was originally recorded on). If the destruction of What.cd resulted in the erasure of any music from existence, it should be considered a loss to all mankind, as it is erasing a piece of human history. Timba047 (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    19. A lot of physical libraries are starting to build a larger and larger collection of digital literature - so seperating between digital and physical libraries would be a terrible precedent. Cburja (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    20. Seems clearly worth including, and there doesn't appear to be enough relevant content to warrant a separate "digital libraries" page at this point. --Rcombs (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    21. What.CD may not have stored the content directly, but the content/torrents it provided access to were only available through What.CD - unlike TPB, where torrents are available via DHT and PEX and thus elsewhere. What.CD was the world's largest music archive, and also provided access to a large amount of literature and software. All music (and literature) was meticulously organised and the metadata alone was highly impressive. What.CD clearly fits Wikipedia's definition of library (previously mentioned), and it also fits conditions people may put on this, such as size and curation/organisation. On a different note, separating digital and physical libraries would cause some interesting situations in determining whether a library was digital or physical in an age where an increasing number are both (situations I would argue are best being avoided). CoreyW. (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    22. Digital libraries are the future. Data was permanently lost. I would go to on to say a majority of the data was lost. It will take a long time to figure out what "books" were loaned out when the destruction happened and if they will be returned to a new library that is being built. In the end, it is impossible to deny this library was destroyed. If my hometown library got burnt down, I would still consider it a destroyed library even though their digital catalog still shows what WAS there and many other libraries have copies of the same book. Yeah other copies exist; this library was destroyed. TPB is in NO way a library. It's is a pile of books on a street corner, filled with disease.
    23. WP definition for library: "made accessible to a defined community for reference or borrowing." What had an unparalleled collection of reference information about music. It's expanse was immense; it's accuracy impeccable. Just the meta-data alone should make it qualify as a library. Tolosthemagician (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
    24. I'm on board with Goyston, though to be honest I'm just very sad what.cd is gone, and including it on this list would give me some vindication. Ametheus (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    25. I never used What.CD though I feel that in terms of importance, the data which will be lost as a result of this site going down is not small, and surely greater than a number of the sites in the middle east. I would be fine with there being a separate and linked article for loss of digital information though. 108.175.226.223 (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    26. A significant amount of time has passed since this incident, and now that the damage to informational access and data freedom has become more clear, I must change my vote from Exclude to Include. 98.110.163.20 (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

    References

    1. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-18196349

    Votes for Separate

    Votes to create a Separate List of destroyed digital libraries, move What CD and TPB over there, include clear definition of scope in both articles, cross link the articles in their See Also sections.

    Include your signature and a brief description of your reasoning
    YBG (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Includes all information in separate articles which have different issues (Changed Separate→Exclude, see above) YBG (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    1. FosterHaven (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Doesn't lose information or throw off those that are interested in physical libraries. A hatnote at the top would also satisfy: "For digital libraries that are no longer available on the web, see (list)."
    2. PremiumBananas (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Definitely doesn't belong in the current list and looks very out of place, but still deserves a mention (like other cases) so seperate is the best option.
    3. In addition to what others have discussed, What.CD contained user-created content including, but not limited to, collages and metedata used to index and organize the site's content. The site was a library, and its destruction is noteworthy, but it does not fit in this article. The "City" and "Country" columns especially look out of place, and the destruction of a digital library is different from a physical library, with or without a human cause. ayane_m (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    4. I agree with PremiumBananas; this looks very out of place. Many great, significant libraries – important pieces of history... and then a random website at the bottom? No. I think much of the attention this talk page is receiving is due to What.CD "fans" flocking here, as they feel inserting their site into this list somehow guarantees it a place in history. I think there ought to be a separate page for websites or digital services considered "libraries" of sorts, but this article not the place for it. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    5. In agreement with GhostOfNoMeme et al. Rationale: with the onset of the digital era, this new kind of "libraries" aimed (among other goals) at curating and preserving digital data are gathering momentum and public fame (or shame...); a list might help track sites that bring/brought a prominent contribution to the broad dissemination of such digital data. This should likely include defunct sites, whatever their then/current legal status and cause for their demise. In this respect, there was more to What.CD than a mere catalog of links, owing to the substantial amount of work by some of its users (tracking and digitizing works that did not previously exist in digital form; cataloguing; reviewing; classifying...). The same would apply to other "library" sites dealing with specific topics featuring original user-contributed (meta-)data and functionalities, e.g. Library.nu/Gigapedia - which incidentally was closer to a book library sensu stricto. Cardioceras (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    6. Raskolnikov6 (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC) In agreement with other posters in this section. I'm a former what.cd user but it doesn't classify as the intent of this page (to catalogue destroyed physical libraries). I think the appropriate title would be "destroyed digital libraries" or "destroyed digital catalogues."
    7. Separate, either by adding a digital libraries subsection on this page, or by making a wholly new page. -- turdastalk 16:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    8. Like others have said, what.cd doesn't quite seem to fit with the other entries as they are all physical libraries. However, there appears to be justification for its inclusion in a different list. I feel this brings up some interesting precedent questions, however. Would other torrent trackers (or potentially, other kinds of P2P) merit inclusion and if so, which ones? Captain panda 04:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

    Further discussion

    • Is a library still a library if none of the content has ever been within it? What.cd had considerable data ABOUT works, but in theory it never actually contained anything more than data locations. If every album entry on Musicbrainz had a link to Spotify, would it be considered a library? I'm not sure. -BalthCat (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


    1. I'd like to be objective here, but as I do feel strongly about this, so I apologize if this comes off as opinionated. I agree that with respect to how traditional libraries work, torrent trackers appear to work as simply an index of pointers referencing content located in remote locations. For the most part this is in fact true. There are however, a number of differences which do factor in.
      • The main difference in my mind is that, if a traditional library were to be destroyed while all of it's content is checked out to people within a certain proximity to library, the people who hold the content can, in some way or another, all be informed of a new library being built and in all likelihood many of those people would bring their content to the new library and that library could rebuild the index (to an extent). In the case of the destruction of a torrent tracker, however, there isn't exactly an easy way to communicate to all of the members where to bring their content to. These users are located all over the world, and in the case of What.cd, many users were not members of any other trackers or forums. Not only that, but openly notifying people in public of a new tracker is generally a bad idea as it paints a bullseye for law enforcement to target.
      • Trackers aren't exactly the easiest thing to start up or maintain either, and with the fact that trackers are constantly being hunted by law enforcement they rarely stick around long enough, nor become large enough to become a reliable place to store content/indexes. I have no doubt that new trackers will emerge which will be able to reorganize much of the content that existed on What.cd, but unfortunately, in the case of What.cd (being the largest private tracker in the world), that content consisted of well over a million unique releases divided among over 150,000 users.
      • This particular scenario is presented with several problems:
        1. There are currently no trackers that even come close to being able to accommodate that many users.
        2. Many of those users have no way to hear about where to bring their content, let alone being able to gain access to a new tracker if one happens to be created.
        3. Most of the data was not stored on safe media, many of the users were using their personal devices to store their content, which if you have ever worked in the IT field you know is very likely to suffer storage device failures during the amount of time it will take to create a tracker capable of handling the load generated by that many users.
      • I do agree that for the time being, most of the content still exists which supports the argument that this situation does not technically qualify as a library being destroyed; however, it is my opinion that, during the time it takes to build a tracker which can take What.cd's place, the loss of content resulting from What.cd being destroyed will likely be devastating. I do hope that I'm wrong, but this possibility has to be considered in this situation.
      • I would very much like to hear others' input on this topic, as I can understand why there is disagreement about this situation. Timba047 (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
    2. It was hard for me to conceptualize the discussion here, so I tried to break things down in a kind of digest with inline quotations on my user talk page. Gregarobinson (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm rather concerned about the number of SPAs and inactive accounts who are showing up in the "Votes for Include" section above. Has someone been canvassing offsite? Deor (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    This list was discussed on a bittorrent tracker related subreddit (though not a what.cd-focused one), and I'd suggest it probable that more than a few folks have come from there, but I don't think it was actively canvassing. Regardless, WP:VOTE rules the day as always, and a substantive argument still holds regardless of who gives it. A SPA isn't wrong purely because of being a SPA. James.DenholmTalk to me... 02:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    This is the most I've been able to find regarding external discussion. Potatofondant (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • It's been over a month since the last activity on this discussion. Has a consensus been reached? 5.157.16.42 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I would say so. Fairly overwhelmingly on the side of include. Potatofondant (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I would concur that a consensus has been reached in favor of inclusion, and would encourage a user to revert the article history accordingly. 104.32.175.110 (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Let me quote one of the reasons for inclusion "I'm on board with Goyston, though to be honest I'm just very sad what.cd is gone, and including it on this list would give me some vindication". How many others voted this way and just didn't have the honesty to mention their bias? Not to mention this page was on the front page of a subreddit about trackers, which I would wager was the main source of traffic to this talk page. That is made even more obvious by the fact that the majority of comments were made in the days following the closure of What.CD. These votes are not the votes of people who stumbled upon this page because they were interested in destroyed libraries, and they don't represent the general population either. If this page was linked on an anti-torrent subreddit and suddenly dozens of people came here to defend "exclude", would you say that is fair? In fact, shall I do that right now to balance out the votes? I hope you agree that would not be desirable. 109.30.236.167 (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I think a second vote may be appropriate now this event has passed. 93.20.41.4 (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2017

    Should the latest US EPA data deletions, as instructed by the US Government, be added into this list? Or later, after more data has been deleted? 147.69.4.98 (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

    • Not done: Please only use the {{edit semi-protected}} tag if you have a specific request to edit the article, such as "change X to Y" or "add X before/after Y". —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

    External links modified

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 4 external links on List of destroyed libraries. 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:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

    External links modified

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 3 external links on List of destroyed libraries. 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:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

    Did the Government of Canada really burn that library?

    It is listed as the perpetrator.

    Also, the sentence makes little sense, "and that scientific records and research created at a taxpayer cost of tens of millions of dollars was dumped, burned, and given away". Especially the part about taxpayer money. Ans the incorrect grammar. It all reads like some emotional propaganda. Please, salvage.--Adûnâi (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

    Ireland: Burning of the Customs House 1921

    I am wondering why this event, that caused the loss of centuries of local government records in Ireland and has caused no end of grief to genealogists and historians as a result since, is not included in the list of destroyed libraries?

    I note the burning of the Public Records office during the Irish Civil War in 1922 which was also a disaster for history is already amongst the list, and am wondering whether political considerations (this IS Ireland!!) are behind the ommission of the earlier destruction of the Customs House? KynosCavan (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KynosCavan (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

    1728 Copenhagen University Library Fire

    By the Copenhagen fire in 1728, the entire university library's approx. 35,000 books and manuscripts was lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.122.77 (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

    page probably should mention the Chinese CCP book burning somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.205.245 (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2021

    Hello,

    Here is the list of libraries that have been destroyed. Since we can't edit the page, we are happy to suggest the following adds.

    Human destructions

    • Library of the University of Oriente in Venezuela - 2020 - Link

    More information: The Universidad de Oriente (UDO), located in the state of Sucre (Venezuela), was the target of an attack by a group of criminals, which caused a fire in the institution's general library, losing thousands of books and studies due to to the flames. • Acuicultura - Aquaculture. • Administración Hotelera - Hotel Administration. • Administración de Empresas - Business Administration. • Administración de Recursos Humanos - Human Resources Management. • Agricultura - Farming. • Anestesiología - Anesthesiology. • Arquitectura - Architecture. • Biología - Biology.

    • Public Libraries of Bachoura, Geitawi et Monot in Beyrouth - 2020 - link An explosion in Beyrouth's harbour detroyed a part of the city center.

    Three public libraries and additional archives have been detroyed: Bachoura, Geitawi et Monot.

    • Mosul Library in Iraq (war) - 2014 - Link

    In early 2015, IS loaded about 8,000 books onto trucks, took them outside of the city and set them on fire. The director general of UNESCO, the United Nations’ cultural organization, called this a “cleansing,” and a “systematic destruction of heritage.”

    • National Library of Belgrade in Serbia (war) - 1941 - Link
    • National Library of Bosnia-Herzegovina (war) - 1992 - link
    • National Library of Cambodia (war) - 1976-1979 - link

    Fire

    • National Library in Armenia - 2020 - link and link

    A fire took place in the National Library of Armenia, damaging servers on which digital versions of books and periodicals in Armenian were stored.

    Because of the coronavirus crisis in Armenia, library staff are working online, in remote mode. When it was noted the site was not available, the library staff, along with the police guarding the building, came in to check on the building and found the burned-out servers.


    • University Cape Town Library in South Africa - 2020 - Link
    • Scientific Library of the Natural History Museum in Rio in Brazil - 2018 - Link

    Climate change

    • Library of Saint Martin (hurricane) - 2017 - link

    The Library has been detroyed by the hurricane

    • University of Houston Law Library in the USA- 2001

    flooded during Tropical Storm Allison. IFLAHQ (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2021

    1. Ctesiphon is the former capital of "Persia (Iran)".

    2. Ray, is in Persia (Iran). .

    3. Library of Susa, was burnt at the order of Alexander II Macedonian king circa 330BC. According to Diodorus of Sicily he ordered all of Iran to be burnt, every Iranian man beheaded, every woman raped and every child slaved. Remains of the library and city along with Pasargad were under a billow of ash when uncovery began in 1930 AD. See "Searching for Zarathustra". FD Apolonaire (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

     Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    We certainly need a better source for the library of Ctesiphon. The late Islamic anecdote makes no mention of a library, only books. The same anecdote is also more commonly linked to the Library of Alexandria, where it's often rejected or questioned. Wiqi(55) 22:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    The second source (Books on Fire) seems valid enough, what justification are you using to claim its not reliable or good? --Qahramani44 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    It's not written by a specialist in Persian or Islamic history, nor does it indicate from which sources specific facts were drawn. If this event is notable then you should find multiple high-quality sources giving more details and directly analyzing the primary sources where a library is mentioned. Wiqi(55) 20:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

    Destruction of Theological Library of Caesarea Maritima and of the Library of Zimri-Lim at Mari

    Can someone add the destruction of the Theological Library of Caesarea Maritima (c. 638 AD) to the list? And the destruction of the Library of Zimri-Lim at Mari (c. 1762 BC)?

    Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.110.106 (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

    Invasion of Ukraine

    It's very likely that many libraries in the eastern part of Ukraine were looted and destroyed during the Russian invasion. This is considered a war crime. CourtlyHades296 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

    Reformatting the explanation column(s) for size

    The size(s) of the explanation column(s) need widening. Will someone who knows how to do that fix this? It's kind of silly that a single word gets as wide a column as a table field with paragraphs of information in it. Misty MH (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_destroyed_libraries/Archive_1&oldid=1183263600"