Talk:Borobudur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Borobudur is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 20, 2008.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Indonesia (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Architecture (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject World Heritage Sites (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Borobudur, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Help me to add a Link[edit]

I need to add a reference link describing temple architecture but the information is in pdf form and has source link from google.com.When I try to add it Wikipedia says website is blacklisted so can not be added.But I believe the article contains some valuable information.The serial number of link is 2 in the article.Please anybody who knew how it can be added, add this.Thank you in advance.User:Diptiprakashpalai(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

4/21/2014: Not sure where to put this or how to update anything properly - but reference link 58 is a broken link and should be updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.222.142 (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

World Heritage Site box.[edit]

UNESCO World Heritage Site
Borobudur Temple Compounds
Name as inscribed on the World Heritage List
Borobudur Temple Compounds
Type Cultural
Criteria i, ii, vi
Reference 592
UNESCO region Asia-Pacific
Inscription history
Inscription 1991 (15th Session)

I've seen the removal of UNESCO World Heritage Site infobox, twice. My question is, since the Borobudur is a World Heritage Site, why shouldn't it has a WHS infobox?

The box provides important information about its World Heritage status. Every World Heritage Sites have them, why not this one too? - DTRY (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to discouraged your contribution, but I feel having additional box is cluttering the page. The information in the infobox here is not helpful at all to the article. They are not related to the textual content. Why would you inform users that this monument is in criteria i, ii, vi of what? And why should users know which session of UNESCO meeting that Borobudur was put into the list? What is ID? That's why I removed the infobox. It's not helpful at all. — Indon (reply) — 16:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with DTRY. The WHS infobox should be in every article about a WHS. This is the situation in every article about a WHS that I can remember. I have restored the infobox. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Indon. The template consists of pointless trivia - it adds nothing of any real value and it wastes lots of space. The article was reviewed and became a FA standard article without the template, there is no reason to add it now. It would be great if the template was removed from WP entirely. The primary topic of this article is the monument, not any administrative listings it has received. The info in the template may be suitable for a list article elsewhere about Wold Heritage Sites, but not spammed across every article. (Caniago (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

OK so the project looks dormant - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World_Heritage_Sites - and we have some who feel compelled to add the template despite the complaints of Indonesian project members - please do not start en edit war here - best to got both the Indonesian noticeboard and the world heritage bods talk page and get further opinions as there is clearly no consensus here. Please try to work around this issue - thanks SatuSuro 13:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the template adds very little and is large and particularly awkward. --Merbabu (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting UNESCO World Heritage Box[edit]

I agree with DTRY and ברוקולי. Despite if some of you find the informations in World Heritage box is add little information or unnecessary, it is the sign that UNESCO gave acknowledgement (not all archaeological site awarded this status) and I think we should honor it the way Borobudur deserves. For example Trowulan has not yet awarded this World Heritage Site status, and Indonesian govt had propose it. It also gave link to UNESCO's page of this site, which I think a good link. Why Borobudur leave out of it? If you naysayer felt UNESCO infobox is ugly, awkward, unnecessary, why don't you go ahead cracking down all UNESCO heritage sites boxes; from Angkor, Macchu Picchu, Tikal, Chitzen Itza to Stonehenge, and see what other wikipedians thinks about your POV. Why only Borobudur left out and treated this way? (Gunkarta (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

There is no point to the box. See discussion above - what does criteria i and iv mean? The only reason that you're giving is "it's down elsewhere". That's not a good reason. And we don't have to remove it from others. The only good thing was the photo which you've added to the infobox - thanks. Btw, how is this a WP:POV issue? --Merbabu (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually criteria i, ii, vi etc. does means something, and it is provided by Reference 592 link to UNESCO sites. The good thing about this UNESCO box is it offer links to the UNESCO's page on this specific archaeological site, which offer reader for further reading and understanding of this UNESCO Heritage Sites and its category. Sorry my mistake, it's not about POV but your the reasons of action. (Gunkarta (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC))
This is absurd; it *is* a world heritage site and there is a box that goes with that status and it should be used. Don't like some aspect of the box? Take it up on the templates talk page. I don't know what the criteria bits mean, but they mean something. Merbabu, I've commented before that I'm less than thrilled with some of the cutting I see you do to Indonesian articles; what gives? This keeps coming up and it's not just me. Jack Merridew 13:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no justification for the display trivia about the world heritage listing in a prominent position on this page. These are details relevant an article or list of world heritage sites, not to this article. Just because someone decided to create an infobox doesn't mean it should have been done or that it should be displayed on this article. You need to put aside your gripe with Merbabu and consider the issue objectively. (Caniago (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC))
This is not about Merbabu, but I'd still like an answer. World Heritage status is hardly trivia; it's major. I was not specifically arguing for placement top-right, although that's where I just saw it appearing and disappearing. Under the other infobox, perhaps? Or integrated with the main box? But simply cutting it is savage, and unwarranted. Jack Merridew 15:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing savage or unwarranted about trimming trivia and wasted space from an article. Any salient information about the world heritage listing can be included in the article text. (Caniago (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

It's not about modifiying the template - there's just no need for it. The only things that the template provides that benefits the article is the pic (now added by Gunkarta - thanks) and identifying the structure's World Heritage status - but this doesn't need a whole infobox listing categories, etc . Why not put a few words ("UNESCO World Heritage Site"?) into the existing box? This monument has been around for centuries - while significant, the WH status is not the most important thing about it - far from it. --Merbabu (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at the contents of the infobox. I break it down like this:

  • Name - already mentioned in building box
  • UNESCO World Heritage Site - I've now included this in the image caption as I agree it is an important aspect - in bold and linked. And it can be tweaked and improved further but do we really need a whole infobox just to get this phrase prominent?
  • "Picture" - certainly needed - now in the existing infobox
  • "State Party:" Not necessary. The first sentence tells us it's in Indonesia, as does the map and infobox
  • "Type:" It's listed as cultural. Doesn't need to be in prominent infobox - but I've added it to the text as it wasn't there.
  • "Reference:" Is this really that it needs to go at the top of the article? INdeed, does it need to be there at all? Put it in the prose section if it is.
  • "Region". So it's the Asia-Pacific - well duh. looks like people are searching for things to fill up an infobox with. redundant.
  • "Inscription history:" Year 1991 is significant enough for inclusion in prose, as for session number - come on - we need that in a prominent infobox? Do we need it at all - if so put it in the prose.

What this tells me is that there are two items (picture and to a lesser extent WH status) that are deserving of being listed in the infobox. I've put them in. The rest can either go in the prose (as I have done with some) or doesn't belong at all. As per last year's discussion, a lot of bulky infobox for not a lot of pertinent info. This gets back to Caniago's point - just because someone makes an infobox, doesn't automatically mean it must be used. --Merbabu (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Buddhist Ceremonies Banned[edit]

This article sites that Buddhist ceremonies are held annually at Borubudur, but following a 1983 decision, the government banned any form of practice or worship at the site. See Shelly Errington's Article " MAKING PROGRESS ON BOROBUDUR:AN OLD MONUMENT IN NEW ORDER" in Visual Anthropology for more information on the subject, but it is quite clear the Borubudur is closed to worshippers and is now solely a tourist destination... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.229.7 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Prof John Miksic [1], communal ceremonies are banned but individual prayer and meditation is not prohibited. (Caniago (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
There is more to this than one version or another - there have been collective and group ceremonies since 1983 - I think any one source or authority might be insufficient to explain the issue - also there was the question as to whether prior to the re-building and renovation as to whether any practitioners of any belief actually had used the site for any form of religious practice at all for centuries SatuSuro 22:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Discovery[edit]

I'm not comfortable with the term "discovery" with ref to Raffles and co. As stated in the article, the structure was well known at the time, but seems to have been considered cursed. how can one say that it was "discovered" by Raffles? it seems to imply things are only "discovered" when the west finds out about them. rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.245.114.132 (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that Borobudur was known to exist, and there were stories about it, but nobody knew its exact location? Possibly like Atlantis? (Bad example, but you get the point.) In that case, it wouldn't be so strange to say that Raffles "discovered" it. Alphabet55 (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the article: "On an inspection tour to Semarang in 1814, he was informed about a big monument deep in a jungle near the village of Bumisegoro.[25]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talkcontribs) 19:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Evangelist[edit]

The article calls the man convicted for planting bombs a Muslim evangelist; since the word 'evangelist' refers to the New Testament, it is inappriopriate to use it for a Muslim (unles he belonged to some strange sect that I don't know about). Maybe 'missionsry' or 'preacher' is better? Energyworm (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Borobudur lantern slide2.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Borobudur lantern slide2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 15, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-06-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary events[edit]

When a governmental planned and organised event occurs at a monument like this one - there is no inherent meaning to that event beyond the governments action - the monument itself exists as a vandalised and increasingly degraded structure that can hardly survive domestic tourism, let alone inernational attendtion - that the government adds stresses on the monument by promoting it with a dance spectactular hardly relates to the meaning of the monument - I strongly suggest there is good reason to have contemporary events as a separate article - they are in effect a large subject quite separate from description of the site...

Please note this is being put at the Indonesian Project notice board as well SatuSuro 12:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Entirely agree. This is trivia really. Government sponsored trivia. This is a 1000 year old monument - all the info in this article will be relevant in 100 years, except for the mention of the event. It's not well-written, and seems out of place with the rest of this high quality Feature Article. Indeed, passages like this undermine the article's FA status. --Merbabu (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the Trail of Civilisations already has it's own article. This should be simply a link in the see also section, and the paragraph removed. --Merbabu (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it is not a trivia at all, it demonstrate today Borobudur "economic" value as tourism attraction to generate local economy. Borobudur is treated as magnet to attract tourist which generate local economy and exploited by govt. Similar modus operandi also has been done in Thailand temples and Cambodia that performed colossal dance in Angkor Wat. Don't get me wrong, I'm into preservation of Borobudur and wish it to be treated as sacred religious monument than ancient Disneyland. Btw I'm agree on moving the pasage to Trail of Civilizations, but the Mahakarya Borobudur collosal dance as byproduct of this symposium is performed annually in June right before Vesak. It is today become part of Borobudur contemporary event.Gunkarta (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion is to separate Borobudur article into "Borobudur restoration project", dated from history of its rediscovery by Raffles, restoration during Dutch colonial era, UNESCO sponsored massive restorations back in 70s and 80s, all the way to some of contemporary events, such as restoration from Merapi eruptions ashfalls. Just my two cents.Gunkarta (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Btw I've seen a book solely dedicated to write about this restoration project. I think Borobudur restoration project deserve separate article.Gunkarta (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with having government usage in any way as an economic incentive for local tourism as having anything to do with the original purpose of the monument - and believe it needs to be a separate article SatuSuro 14:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Ofcourse Borobudur is not originally built as tourist attraction to generate economy. It was the pilgrimage monument to guide human beings from worldly desire to enlightenment. But we surely can't neglect the current fact of Borobudur economic-tourism value exploited by govt, it is sadly a fact that is far from the builder's original intentions.Gunkarta (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The over-use and vandalism by domestic tourists - and economic tourism promotion - are separate articles - and there should be maybe 4 or 5 smaller articles broken off the main article - it is too big and would be better worked if smaller linked articles than one large article SatuSuro 14:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Although I'm agree to break the restoration effort into a separate article, I'm afraid breaking-off this article into several parts would undermine the wholeness, comprehensiveness and FA status of this article. Let's not go too far shall we?!Gunkarta (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
For a start lets realise that it is no long FA status as it is (If you dont understand that, I could explain if you wish) ... and wholeness and comprehensiveness and so on - have a look at the separate Krakatoa articles - they could (if they were cleaned up) be comprehensive and complementary - even if it was only 3 articles that are linked - and cleaned up it would be better than one large former FA article SatuSuro 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I understand today Borobudur article is too large and too long, yet it is very complete. I'm agree to move some details to complementary articles to make this article more concise yet still comprehensive. Let's cleaned up a little bit.Gunkarta (talk) 05:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
slowly does it - I have very little time before Christmas - hoping to work on it over the christmas new year break - I would suggest (a) proposed sub articles are identified and talked about here - slowly - also maybe some of the images might need to have a separate gallery. If we do start a Borobudur Portal - a lot of the images and plans can be placed there rather than in the article (b) no immediate action - discussion first ... SatuSuro 05:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- belum mengerti? I had asked we talk about it first - omong omong/bercakap yang pertama - sesudah itu, mungkin action? - there is a lot of material that needs talking about... SatuSuro 10:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with the approach of keeping "contemporary" events mostly out of it. So would maybe something like Recent history of Stonehenge be a good start to keep recentism sorted out? --Elekhh (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry.., I had went ahead on moving details to complimentary articles, so far part of "location" section has been moved to the Borobudur Temple Compounds and Borobudur ancient lake. Some of details of Mahakarya Borobudur dance has been moved to Trail of Civilizations. My suggestion next is creating a separate article "Borobudur restoration project" span from rediscovery to contemporary events and rehabilitation section after Merapi volcano eruption.Gunkarta (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
No worry - the new articles look ok - we just need to have the bigger picture here in discussion first though - I am sure the 1800's attempts at reconstruction were not thought of as a 'restoration project' - I think some english usage might need to be modified in the new articles - but they are in the right direction - well done!~ SatuSuro 13:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Affiche voor het herstel van de Borobudur TMnr 20018452.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Affiche voor het herstel van de Borobudur TMnr 20018452.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
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.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Affiche voor het herstel van de Borobudur TMnr 20018452.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Video[edit]

Borobudur

Hi, to support more video on Wikipedia I uploaded a video i made at Borobudur. You may find it appropriate for the article but i'm not sure where in the article it would be included best. Thanks, Mutante23 (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Borobudur Architecture[edit]

Recently there are addition on Borobudur architecture crediting India, ranging from Kalinga architecture to those of Guptas. As far as I know Borobudur was designed in Javanese Hindu-Buddhist architecture, or more precisely Javanese Sailendran art. The Javanese architecture deserved to be credited on the construction of Borobudur. This Sailendran art later influenced Srivijayan art especially in sculptures and temple ruins discovered from Java, Sumatra, Malay Peninsula to Southern Thailand, while some of Cham architecture also bears Javanese influences. Most of the books written by experts are crediting more on local Javanese architecture genius that interpreting Indian influences that mainly only gave its dharmic frame of reference, ideas and theme. The design did incorporate Indian origin dharmic ideas, from stupas to mandalas. However another suggestion mentioned that it is also the continuation of Java's megalithic culture that created structure to honor ancestral spirits, locally called punden berundak (stepped pyramid). I think it is more correct to state that Borobudur is built in Javanese Buddhist architecture that was influenced by Gupta architecture (I don't know about the Kalinga architecture influences, but is seems to be based on reference with long shot suggestion made by Indian media/writer).Gunkarta (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Base size[edit]

Which is it? This: "The foundation is a square, approximately 118 metres (387 ft) on each side."

Or this?: "The base is 123×123 m (403.5 × 403.5 ft) in size" --Nazroon (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the correct size of the base is 123x123 meter according to most of references. I remember it since the figure is actually easy to remember. The 118x118 meter is probably the original size of Borobudur foot, prior to addition of stone-casing structure that cover the Karmawibhanga bas-reliefs, once again it need references. Gunkarta  talk  03:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)