Talk:Buddhas of Bamyan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Buddhas of Bamyan article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Bamyan Buddah, Hazaras cultural heritage

Hazaras built the Buddah of Bamyan when they were buddist during their Kushan empire. Kushan period was one of the greatest era in the history of Afghanistan.

Hazara people never throwed an stone to it at whatever relegion they converted overtime. But evil people over the last 200 years periodically broked its leg, shaved its face and evil Taliban completly destroyed it.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Sleeping Buddha?

Is there any article on the lost Sleeping Buddha? http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0807/p01s05-wosc.html

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)