Talk:Buddhas of Bamiyan/Archive 1

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

File:Bamian valley.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bamian valley.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 31 October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Alleged intolerance

The lead section uses the phrase “the alleged intolerance of the Taliban” [emphasis mine]. Later in the article, the perpetrators are quoted, in multiple cited sources, as openly and unashamedly confessing that their motivation was religious intolerance. If there are no objections, I'll drop that misleading term “alleged”. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Already fixed by User:117.197.61.15. Thanks! 50.181.30.121 (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Pre-destruction photos/reconstructions?

Is there a picture of the Buhhdas before the destruction by Taliban?

There are some pics here and an interesting attempt to reconstruct the statues via photogrammetry: http://www.photogrammetry.ethz.ch/research/bamiyan/buddha/index.html Perhaps this can be included in the article somehow. Allenu 07:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)allenu

What purpose does the numeric paragraph serve?

I can't see the reason for the numerics. RPellessier | (Talk) 2 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)

Neither can I. Edit at will! The article as it stands is terrible; I just haven't had time to work on it. Zora 2 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps it can even stay, but it needs to be rewritten terrible...perhaps i'll take a stab this weekend. ---Lance

The article seems pretty good, if basic, to me, except for the section on numerology, which is in very poor in all regards. What is a 'unit', for instance? I think that chopping that section out would be enough to bring the article up to grade. Ashmoo 4 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)
I chopped out the "numeric" section and did a little rewriting, mostly tightening up the second section, which was a bit meandering and repetitive. Zora 4 July 2005 07:46 (UTC)
Sorry, I put this into a section since there I needed a division between your discussion and the beginning of the talk page. Hope you don't mind. CornbreadFarm 07:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation for this?

The statement wasn't actually issued by the Pakistani Ministry for Religious affairs but by the Taleban ministry for religious affairs. I have put in link to the AFP news that describes the statement. 7/3/2006 Hadi1121

Has the statement mentioned below in Buddhas of Bamyan#Destruction

However, a statement issued by the ministry of religious affairs of Pakistan justified the destruction as being in accordance with Islamic law. 07:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

been verified in a reputable news source or made available (in redacted or complete form) by the Pakistani government? A statement by the Pakistani government in seeming contradiction with their then-recently held position of protest would be incredibly important to this article if it existed. Thanks a lot. CornbreadFarm 07:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

-Edit: Sorry guys, fixed section link CornbreadFarm 07:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, apparently the Ministry of Religious Affairs has conveniently removed the search function on their site as well as any press releases prior to June 24, 2001. Furthermore the link to that page I had to find through Google; the homepage's link is broken as far as I know. This link to the Ministry's page is a redirect. Look for a different source. CornbreadFarm 08:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag Removed

I have removed the NPOV tag placed on 3 March 2006. Please do not post the tag without discussing it here at the same time.Verne Equinox 21:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree the article does have a neutral point of view overall, but the paragraph

Swiss filmmaker Christian Frei conceived a film, "The Giant Buddhas" (2005), that precisely talks about the destruction of the statues, the international reactions to it and all events surrounding this barbary. The feature is provoking, yet universal in its message against fanaticism, ignorance and intolerance, and thus implicitly recognising respect and protection of cultural sites as valid and necessary.

doesn't seem to, does this need rewriting? Astaroth5 20:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Slight Contradiction Problem

Slight COntradiction Problem - It says they were constantly being altered, face, feet, etc being removed, and then it says they were intact.. how odd. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Total nonsense, the Taliban's own militia was quoted by Islam-Online.net as having said, ""the Bamyan Buddhas are being destroyed with everything from tanks to dynamite.". This contradiction tag is unwarranted. Netscott 13:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

In a casual passing I noted over five instances of deplorable grammar. Among many other offenses: Never cite a source within quotations, never italicize quotes unless they are famously recounted (ie, That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind is okay, but italicizing some airbag disseration is not, no matter how holy the speaker may be considered), and my god use spaces after commas.

Additionally, the article seems strange in that there are two seperate paragraphs devoted to the Taliban's defense of the destruction. These should probably either be condsensed into one, or the global outcry be given more space of its own, to avoid seeming biased.

Given these issues, I marked the article for cleanup, hopefully by some kind and able Wikipedian. I personally can only tolerate so much Islam before my inner Troll of the Western Imperialists starts coming to life, so I can't do much more myself. --Nugneant 22:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

All those insults, you found one wrong apostrophe, one minor misuse of quotemarks. And unislamic in this context was quite correct, thank you. If you were to read the Taliban paras carefully, you would note that although they say what the Taliban defence was, they are not at all complimentary to the Taliban, so to characterise them as biased, if anything thye are anti-taliban. Which is quite different from anti (or pro) muslim...Bridesmill 23:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC) And your record speaks for itself. Interesting Talk page...Bridesmill 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only insults but pots and kettles as well. It's 'separate' not 'seperate', it's 'condensed' not 'condsensed',and who knows what is meant by 'dissertion'(dissertation?'). There should be commas before and after 'my god' and the use of 'I personally' is tautologous. 'Hopefully' is wrongly used as it applies to a Wikepedian - what was meant was 'I hope' - Jim

The Third Buddha

According to Xuanzang, there was a third Buddha located. This was a sleeping Buddha, and was around a 1000 feet long. It was located in a monastery not far from the other two standing Buddhas. AllStarZ 00:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Image caption

Why does the photograph state 1963 in its description page if it's actually from a much later date? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I double checked the UNESCO page and their caption for the image is: "The World's largest statue of Buddha (53 meters) -Bamyan Valley 1963 - Phtoo UNESCO/A Lezine". It's from 1963. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You are completely justified in reverting my edits, but i think it is wrong (even if the caption mentions it). I will try to find a better image for it though, where the buddha is in a better position before 1999.nids(♂) 20:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen any pictures that would indicate that they were in a better state than that. Perhaps you saw a picture of the other buddha or a reconstruction? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Bamiyan --> Bamyan rename?

I think this should have been discussion before the big rename. The mostly commonly used name and spelling in the English speaking world should be used. Also, it was done in a sloppy manner since all the interwiki links are now broken (unless you planned to rename it in every encyclopedia). --MarsRover 17:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Bamiyan is the normal spelling for an English-language encyclopedia. PHG 20:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Arbitrary, at a minimum. Blondlieut 03:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I understood that official Wikipedia policy was as follows :-

"Generally, place names are romanized according to the official romanization system of the country the place is a part of" That was the reason the name was changed as Afghanistan's Ministry of Interior appears to have decided that Bamiyan is now Bamyan, and refers to it as such in recent documents. As with many countries, Romanisation of Afghan names is a nightmare, with up to five versions current for some towns or provinces. Surely some consistency is needed here, and the rename was in accordance with the policy adopted for names in China, Japan, Korea and other countries that do not use the Roman alphabet. Skinsmoke 01:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Plans to (not) rebuild...

I'm pretty sure I've heard sources say a few times recently that Unesco has declared it will not rebuild the statues, and will let them stand as a testament to Afghanistan's history... can anyone verify this and should we update the article to reflect that? Cacahuate 06:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The article at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070708/wl_mideast_afp/worldculture_070708192933 indicates that UNESCO does not support the rebuilding of the statues.
"But Manhart said 'UNESCO is not in favour of rebuilding the Buddahs,' pointing out that valuable remains of the old statues remain in the rocky niches that make up the site.
I have removed the claim accordingly. If anyone finds a contradictory source, feel free to change it back.
- Tspike 04:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
A new BBC article... Debating the future of Afghan Buddhas – cacahuate talk 18:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

India's Bamiyan

Why is it never mentioned in this article that Bamiyan was a part of India until the 12th century?

Then add it. With sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.182.134 (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Another wrong image caption?

In the picture of the Buddha being destroyed, the caption says March 21, while the article it links to claims to be from March 12. Ummm........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.125.30.218 (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bamyan or Bamiyan?

Both are common ways of spelling it but which one is the correct one?

This was discussed above -MarsRover 22:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

move to Buddhas of Bamiyan

There is an "i" there according to UNESCO and other Encyclopedias. TheNewPianist (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a topic of great discussion. Please read the above discussions to get a clearer understanding of the thoughts on this issue. The article name may need more review. Kingturtle (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Bombs instead of food

The article states that "tank barrages and were demolished after almost a month of intensive bombardment." Tank shells are very expensive. They could have bought food for the children with that same money instead. Since this alleged behaviour would be cruel and inhuman beyond comprehension, perhaps we need a citation to support the tank statement above? DanielDemaret 18:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Dear DanielDemaret, you seemingly do not understand the islamic mindset. It has nothing to do with reality or observable facts. After all, the fact is that -- for instance -- the Qur'an says f**k all about destroying idols. No matter how much a muslim spins it, it does not. Never did. Still, to the islamic mindset, it does. Never mind what the facts say. --82.181.48.38 00:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's be serious ! The Taliban government asked for an UN aid of 15 millions $ for the starving children of Afghanistan. But during the same year they spent abb. 300 millions $ for weapons and ammunition for Jihad. If they where really caring for the children, they would use some of the money to feed the children, not to wage war. But they preffered to let the children die from starvation ! So, the argument that the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas as a retaliation for the UN refuse to transfer the money for the statues toward the feeding of the children is totally hypocrite and void ! This is only primitive Islamic propaganda, as usual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.150.157 (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Destroyed because were idols?

In the lead it says they were intentionally destroyed because they were seen as idols. Is this true? It seems their is a different story not put accross by Wikipedia in the transcript on Robert Fisk's site: http://www.robert-fisk.com/taliban_lecture.htm 86.154.227.185 (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry the link says the site is under construction. Have you got any idea where else one could access the article by Robert Fisk? Thanks, John Hill (talk) 10:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone got any pictures of the Buddhas before their final destruction?

Has anyone got any pictures of the Buddhas before their final destruction? It would be great to see how they looked sometime just before they were finally totally destroyed. I know they had been badly damged long before the Taliban - but, even so I think there is a place here so that they are not only remembered in their present form. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got 3 I took in 1977, 35mm slides scanned to 6mp 1)Larger Buddha from near base 2)Smaller Buddha from near base 3)Smaller Buddha looking down from near head; but no idea what to do with them. Willing to gift to the Public Domain. Phecda109 (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC) OK, I managed to upload 3 pictures to Commons in the Buddhas of Bamiyan category. Use as you will!Phecda109 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Bamyan or Bamiyan?

Which do we want to refer to it as? The page title includes Bamyan, but the majority of the uses of the word are "Bamiyan". 24.41.47.147 (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction: destruction on Feb. 26 or March 2?

The article starts with the statement they were destroyed on Feb. 26, and then a few paragraphs later it says demolition started on March 2. I think a fact check might show the order was given on the 26th as I recall there were several days of protests before the actual work began. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the unsourced anon edit that introduced the Feb. 26 date a few days ago. Hopefully there's no more contradiction. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Revert

As I said in my edit, I made the edit to revert to a more global wording, and to make it more concise and relevant to the actual article. For one, prehistory and pre-Christ are not synonymous, and there was too much in the lede that has nothing to do with the article, such as "when Seleucus Nicator gave control of the region to Chandragupta Maurya (Sandrocottus) upon terms of intermarriage and of receiving in exchange 500 elephants" which has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Therefore, I reverted the changes per WP:LEDE. Per WP:BRD, I ask that it be discussed first, if the information is to be restored. Thank you. - SudoGhost 20:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden involvement: dead link

The link in the citation for the claim OBL ordered the destruction of the statues is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.115.179.107 (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed pending citation

Still, over the years Muslim iconoclasts hacked away at some of the statues' details, mostly the facial features and hands. Aurangzeb, the last Mughal emperor, employed heavy artillery in an attempt to destroy the statues since orthodox Islam considers any form of idol to be the highest sin ("shirk").

- FrancisTyers 13:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, shirk is the sin of polytheism, the failure to recognize the unicity, the irreducible oneness of God. It is a sin from which even (trinitarian) Christians suffer, in the eyes of many Moslems. The Islamic prohibition against images, human and divine, is of a different magnititude, with origins in the hadith (collected sayings of Mohammed), not in the Qu'ran (the putative recitations of God bestowed by the angel Gabriel to the Prophet). Blondlieut 03:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


The prohibition against icons is implicit in the Qur'an -- in Surah 7, much of the life of Moses is described including the giving of the 10 commandments and other laws.

7.145. And We put together laws for him (written) in tablets (of stone), regarding all matters, both by commanding and by explaining all things, (and said to him): "Take and hold these (laws) with firmness, and instruct your people to firmly follow by the best in the standards (of conduct): Soon I will show you the homes of the rebellious- (How they will be destroyed)." (http://www.biharanjuman.org/Quran/Quran_English_Vickar_Ahamed.pdf , p. 93):

Thus according to the Qur'an, the Torah is included as an explicit part of Islamic law. This would include the 3rd commandment, given in both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." So while one may not agree with the interpretation related to icons (which has actually been contested within the Judaic and Christian churches as well over the centuries), one can't just write it off as un-Qur'anic.Cygnature (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

See also

I don't see a compelling reason to have Armenian cemetery in Julfa in the see also. All other four present articles listed there have a greater relevance. Armenian cemetery in Julfa was neither a UNESCO World Heritage site, like the Mausoleum of Sidi Mahmoud Ben Amar and the Bamiyan Buddhas themselves, nor was it destroyed by Islamist radicals citing sharia, like both of those monuments. As such having it there looks more like a POV issue. Brandmeistertalk 23:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

And why do you think only monuments destroyed by Islamist radicals should be included? Armenian cemetery was the largest cemetery with khachkars (about 3000), which are included in UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage List. One quarter of this unique medieval monuments has been destroyed, so its destruction is equivalent to a destruction of a UNESCO World Heritage site. Furthermore, there have been direct comparisons between the destructions of Julfa cemetery and Bamiyan Buddhas. Хаченци (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Buddhas of Bamiyan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Buddhas of Bamiyan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Buddhas of Bamiyan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Built in which time frame?

AT the beginning of your article it states that the smaller Buddha was built around 507 AD and the larger built around 554 AD. Later on it states roughly 544 AD-593 AD for the smaller and 591-644 for the larger--which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collins.alia (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Buddhas of Bamiyan. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Buddhas of Bamiyan. 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) 05:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Buddhas of Bamiyan. 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) 14:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buddhas of Bamiyan. 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) 05:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Initial dirty Jaap Boon suspicion

Initial dirty Jaap Boon suspicion that the oils might be attributable to contamination from fingers, as the touching of the painting is encouraged in Buddhist tradition, < why you clean that dirt ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"Were" Statues = unacceptable

I think you will find the Bamiyan Buddhas *are* statues, as no authority on Earth can ever possibly hope to dispute, and the text of the article should be changed to reflect this undeniable fact.

Ummunmutamnag (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC).

"Another giant statue unearthed"

I saw that news in 2008. Unfortunately I have seen nothing that that would confirm the find -no photographs or diagrams. I am not sure if the third Buddha was ever found. Does anyone know aboput this? Malaiya (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Lol; this has an interesting story. I will try to source and add. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Aurangzeb

The current citation is to M. Jain: the legs were reportedly broken on orders of Aurangzeb. Cited to this work which, in a similar vein, mentions of a speculation but doesn't bother to cite any source. All the odd 20-30 sources, which accuse Aurangzeb of firing a cannon at the statue, are similar. Most often, no source is quoted at all and if sources are quoted, they don't lead to any further sources.

Finbar Flood writes (p. 657), ...the Buddhas are said to have sustained subsequent damage at the hands of the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb (a stock figure of Muslim iconoclasm in South Asia) and the Persian ruler Nadir Shah. His particular choice of words is telling and unless a prim. source is available, I am removing the claim. If you have better explanations, please explain and reinstate. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Johnbod is aware of something. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Petzet (ref 2) covers this on pp 18-25. The "it is said" for Aurengzeb goes back to the first Western visitors in 1824 (p. 19), & Nader Shah firing cannons to 1885, also with an "it is said". Actually to 1843, see note 15 on p. 28. We should say something like "early Western visitors were told that..." in respect of both I think. Interestingly, Petzet's account doesn't mention the attacks after 1880 by the Afghan Emir or King (nor Babur of course). There is also a theory that the faces were originally wooden (note 14, p. 28). This is a good ref, which should be used more than it is. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Johnbod, nice find and I concur with your proposed format. Also, interesting is note 7 in page 28. See this. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I am spotting nothing concerning the claimed destruction by Abdur Rahman Khan. Removed. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
It appears that the "Western visitors" were also told of destruction by Genghis Khan, Timur, and Timur Shah Durrani. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The hoax about Babar stayed for about 30 months. Wow! TrangaBellam (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
And TheTimesAreAChanging, I don't appreciate you restoring hoax content. If you have objections, you need to lay them bare at this thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your disruptive editing, mass removing well-sourced content based on "objections" that you have proven to be incapable of coherently articulating. Your behavior amounts to vandalism and will be sanctioned if it continues.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:BOOMERANG. We should not be using some unnamed journalist on an American magazine as an RS for what the Quran does or does not say. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The content is not controversial; in fact, other reliable sources cited in this same article say the same thing. Time is a reliable source per WP:RSP (specifically, "There is consensus that Time is generally reliable," let alone for noncontroversial facts stated with attribution); if you disagree, the WP:BURDEN is on you to go to WP:RSN and get consensus to remove this long-standing content, which countless editors have implicitly or explicitly supported for many years. "Two versus one" is not a "consensus on talk," especially when we are talking about two obvious sock- or meatpuppets that edit war within minutes of one another, one of whom publicly canvassed the other. I don't know or much care about the political/religious agenda that the two of you are openly promoting, but you cannot remove long-standing sourced content based on personal disagreement with RS backed up by edit warring, canvassing, and a total rejection of Wikipedia's sourcing/content guidelines. It doesn't work that way.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
It was not well expressed, and overemphatic. "Generally reliable" does not mean "reliable on Islamic theology". There's too much crappy journalistic sourcing here already. If you can find a better source, and a better way of putting the point, fine. "I don't know or much care about the political/religious agenda that the two of you are openly promoting" -no, you certainly don't! Liikewise "obvious sock- or meatpuppets" - better keep that away from the admin boards. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Distance Bwtween Buddhas

Does anyone know how long is the distance between these two buddhas? ZakiFrahmand, 29 April 2022, 10:03 UTC — Preceding undated comment added 12:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Discrepancy between different sections of the article

In this article there is conflicting information.

Section "Destruction: 2002-present":

"In 2015, a wealthy Chinese couple, Janson Hu and Liyan Yu, financed the creation of a Statue of Liberty-size 3D light projection of an artist's view of what the larger Buddha, known as Solsol to locals, might have looked like in his prime."


Section "Restoration: Rise of Buddhas with 3D Light Projection"

"After fourteen years, on 7 June 2015, a Chinese adventurist couple Xinyu Zhang and Hong Liang filled the empty cavities where the Buddhas once stood with 3D laser light projection technology."


Only one of these can be correct, does anyone know which one? Snooze Dogg (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Wrong dates

Buddhas were built in 1st century CE by Kushans not 6th. 99.247.34.39 (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buddhas_of_Bamiyan/Archive_1&oldid=1163113407"