Talk:Swayambhunath

Article name wrong?
Why has the article been modified in such a way that the article name (Swayambhu) has been replaced in favor of Swayambhu – in all but a few image captions? Is the article name wrong? Richard 09:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Richard, According to Nepal Government official site the real name of this place is Swayambhu so please move this article to it's real name. - Nirmal Dulal (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That was the name of the article until it was renamed a few months back. @Sphilbrick: do you have a good reason not to restore the original name of the article? Richard 07:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the area area and to not know which spelling is correct. However, Wikimedia received an email from someone who seem to know the subject and was quite certain that the revised spelling was better. I did some searching Which indicated to me that the individual was correct so I made the change.


 * However, in my final email to the individual, I express some confusion about whether the issue was about the building or the town and it was never resolved. I left with the advice that the person should follow up with a requested move if they felt the move I made was incorrect. That was in early August and I haven't heard back.


 * It may well be that there was some confusion and I may have misunderstood the explanation so I have no objection if it is changed back.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  11:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. I'll ask an administrator to rename the page: it has been renamed twice so I cannot change it back myself. Richard 07:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The move has been done by user:Anthony Appleyard (thanks Anthony!), I will re-add the correct name in the article text. Richard 09:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

365 steps
On my talk page on the Dutch Wikipedia, someone asked me about the 365 steps as mentioned in this article. The following conversation followed:

So, if anyone has any thoughts, comments and / or sources regarding the 365 steps, please voice them on this talk page. Thank you. Richard 11:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Shortly after starting this section, Josh asked me if we could continue our conversation per email. Being new to Wikipedia, that felt more comfortable to him. This is what followed (with some minor editing such as using wikisyntax):


 * Hi Richard,
 * Namaskar.
 * I think what you have added in Talk:Swayambhu is enough? Like you suggested, now we wait for someone to respond to my query? And, if I wanted to add to it myself, I hit 'edit' and write? Thank you.
 * Regards, Josh 2018-02-19 17:41


 * Yes, just like that. Don't forget to end your messages on talk pages with ~ which will automatically be replaced by your user name, date, and time. Of course, in articles you don't want that. Use it only on talk pages.
 * If you're planning on changing the 365 yourself, add a reference as well. Otherwise, it's your word against what's already in the article and that could lead to a so-called 'edit war' which should be avoided. If you have a source, but don't know how to use it, let me know so I can try and help you. Richard 2018-02-19 18:12


 * Hi Richard,
 * Namaskar.
 * I have no intention of changing that 365 in Wikipedia myself though I am pretty sure it was/ is - how do you say - invented. At least, not in the near future. Like you have suggested, let's wait one or two months and see.
 * Like I told you previously, it's been more than 3 years I have been researching/ studying Swayambhu. I have not found the number in any (old) books or articles written on Swayambhu as of today, Richard. In fact, it's only in Wikipedia I have found the number. And, of course, in a few blogs tourists have written. And, it's not even been a month that I met with Mr. Baikuntha Raj Manandhar who's a grandson of the man responsible for building the stairway more than 100 years now. He has no idea how that figure came up. There are some other examples (written records) I can give you, Richard, but the best one I just gave you.
 * So, unless you take the records in the books or Mr. Baikuntha Raj Manandhar's words, I can't produce a 'source' or 'citation'.In fact, that doesn't really matter because, at present, it's 424 steps to Swayambhu (from Bhagawan Pau to Vajra mandal) up in Swayambhu or how the person saying "there are 365 steps" in that Wikipedia article.
 * Then again, Richard, how did that say 365 in there? What was HIS SOURCE?
 * I do not want to start an edit war in Wikipedia, Richard. I don't even care who/ why wrote it. Now, after 100+ years and that major earthquake in 2015, Swayambhu's landscape has changed. Well, they are doing their best to restore the historical buildings (gumbas and monasteries) up there. So, it really doesn't matter.
 * I simply feel that the number (365) needs to be updated. Yes, updated, Richard. People all over the world come to Wikipedia (take it as a source) for information. They should be informed right (at least, you shouldn't misinform them when you do have the right information with you), Richard.
 * It's very kind of you to guide me through this overwhelming situation, Richard. Well appreciated. I will listen to you. What you said that we wait a month or two makes sense. And, you think, I should write more (about my findings) on that talk page? Thank you.
 * Regards, Josh 2018-02-20 10:14


 * I have no idea where the 365 was based upon, and since the person who first mentioned that number is no longer active, I cannot ask him. I agree that if that number is incorrect, it should be corrected. But to prevent having to answer the question "where is that 424 based on?" in the future, the new number should be verifiable. Counting them yourself is not an acceptable source and neither is a conversation with the constructor or his ancestors. A published source (online or in print) should be presented. Otherwise, any given number can (and probably will) be contested. Worst case we don't give an exact number at all: "a long staircase leading directly to the main platform". Better less information than wrong information. Richard 2018-02-20 10:50


 * PS: I have been meaning to ask you about 'Namaskar'. It reminds me of 'Namasté'. Is it a similar word or ...? Richard 2018-02-20 10:53


 * Yes. Both – Namaste and Namaskar – mean the same thing, Richard. They are used interchangeably. Sanskrit meaning: I bow to you. I respect you. I guess you know/ knew that, Richard. I prefer "Namaskar".
 * Next, like I have been telling you, Richard, you could find them (different numbers) in books written about Swayambhu. There is one article in Kathmandu post (a prominent newspaper in Nepal) that says there are 360 steps to Swayambhu. There are other books (all authors dead) that say there are 318 steps. All past. Were. Anyway, they are in print (published) and, if I have understood you correctly, they will be acceptable as 'source', Richard? If so, I can supply you with them as attachments.
 * However, it is 424 now. Proof is me, Richard, whether Wikipedia or anybody else contests the claim. Thanks.
 * Regards, Josh 2018-02-20 16:23


 * In that case: Namaskar.
 * If those sources are 'past', they won't help 'proving' the present, that is: 424. What we need is proof for 424. If you can provide that, one could say "case closed". Richard 2018-02-20 16:39


 * Hi Richard, Namaskar.
 * "a long staircase leading directly to the main platform". Better less information than wrong information. We could go with that, Richard.
 * There ARE 424 steps now. I could talk to the Federation of Swayambhu Management Committee to provide a letter. I know the guys there. I know the guys in Dept. of Archaeology (government) that is the authority to look at all the heritage sites in Nepal. I could talk to UNESCO office here. In fact, SFMC knows this. I have told them. I have told them about my intention. They know about you, Richard.
 * I could do that (get a letter saying there are 424 steps), Richard but I won't because 424 steps are there. I told you that the proof is me, Richard. I am writing articles in the magazines. I am starting a blog. I am writing to Lonelyplanet.We (my team here) are starting a guided tour. The world will know. Period.
 * That 365 is baseless. There is no proof.
 * I thought it would be good if Wikipedia updated the information. It is for its own good, in fact. If Wikipedia can't update itself just because it needs proof, it should come to Kathmandu...climb the stairs (count it) and update its article about Swayambhu.
 * I appreciate your help, Richard. I will mention you on my blog. Thanks.
 * Regards, Josh 2018-02-23 17:13


 * Hi Josh, Namaskar.
 * The reason we need proof is Verifiability. If one person says A and the next person says B, an independent third party is needed to help verify who is right. Someone once said 365 steps and until recently, no-one has questioned that number. When someone did question that number (that someone being you), the "citation needed" came into effect. Everything has to be verifiable and if something cannot be verified, it must be stricken. The problem with you being the proof is that you are not an independent factor in this case. I have no reason to doubt you, but proof has to 'clean' and there should not be the smallest hint of personal interest.
 * Yet another problem is explained on No original research. You can count the number of steps as many times as you like, but your own experience is not a valid reference. Would I come to the temple and count the steps, neither would my counting be valid proof. Ideally, Wikipedia only publishes things that have been published somewhere else before. We both know that sometimes this is not the case. We should try to get there though – step by step.
 * I hope you realize that what I've written here is in no way meant disrespectful. I do respect you and I hope you understand the rules that have been laid out. Richard 2018-02-23 18:42


 * Hi Richard, Namaskar.
 * Here Richard. The author Mr. Kamal Ratna Tuladhar sent me that, a few days ago.
 * Sermons in stones
 * That would be a 'clean proof' but, unfortunately, it's 2018 now and then again, like I said, Richard, at present, there are 424 steps. So, it does not hold water. That's how you say it in English, right, Richard? It 'does not hold water' now, does it?
 * In your last (February 23) mail, you said that "We should try to get there though – step by step." Could you explain that a little more to me, Richard? Thank you.
 * Regards, Josh 2018-03-02 17:58


 * Namaskar.
 * That article could be used to document that the stairs were completed in 1912, and that there were 360 steps in 2012. The current (2018) number of steps is not in the article. From the article, we cannot learn that the number of steps is different now from the number in 2012. Strictly speaking, we cannot even learn that the number has ever changed (nor that it has never changed, for that matter).
 * What I mean with 'step by step' is the following. Wikipedia should only write things that have been published somewhere else before. As of now, that is not the case. In an ideal future, it should become that way. To get from the present to that future is kind of a journey. Like every journey, to get from where you are to where you want to be, you have to take many steps – some small, some bigger, but always one step at a time. Richard 2018-03-02 20:30


 * Namaskar, Richard.
 * Of course, he (the author) couldn't possibly have known there would be this massive earthquake 3 years later and, after maintenance and repair, that the steps would become 424?
 * In any case, the article establishes a fact that there were 360 steps in 1912, yes?
 * In a similar way, there are records in other books that establish the fact that, in various times, there were varying numbers of steps leading to Swayambhu, Richard. The books are in Nepali, of course, but a fact is a fact in any language.
 * Most of all, the books are written by authorities. A prominent Nepali TV Channel has also made a short news story of the stairs some 6 years ago, Richard.
 * Here's my conclusion, Richard.
 * Whoever wrote that '365 steps', wrote it without having any proof or past reference, right? Yet, we cannot change that even if it's true because of the rules Wikipedia has set, right, Richard?
 * No problem, Richard.
 * I will not do anything. I mean, I will not even take however small steps towards the direction of Wikipedia-edit.
 * I already have sent an article to one magazine. I am writing to a few more to different travel publications. I will have a blog too. I told you I (my team) am designing a guided tour of Swayambhu, Richard? It would have been nice if we could change (update) the number in Wikipedia, Richard. Well, I ain't pursuing this Wikipedia thing no more, Richard :] I simply see no point in doing so.
 * The truth is there for everybody to count. In time, let somebody else bring out the issue with Wikipedia, Richard. Thank you.
 * Regards, Josh 2018-03-03 17:29


 * Namaskar.
 * As I said before: we can strike the 365 since no proof exists. We cannot change it into 424 since that number remains to be published (in other words: other than your word – which I personally don't doubt – there is no proof for that either). We can mention the number of steps that were there when the stairs were completed. I will do so, probably next Monday.
 * The 365 has been in the article too long. That is wrong. Putting in a different number without a prior publication confirming it, would be wrong as well. If we put in 424 without backing that up, in a few years someone might ask 'where is the proof for that? I was there and I counted a different number'. That someone might be mistaken, but he or she would have the right to ask where that number came from – just like you had the right to question the number 365.
 * I think this concludes this discussion. I have one question left: would it be okay if I copy this email conversation to the article's talk page? Of course, I will not disclose your real name (that will be replaced by your Wikipedia user name) or your email address. Richard 2018-03-03 22:31


 * Namaskar, Richard.
 * Yes. I understand. I mean, let's not put 424 in there. But, let's strike out that 365 then. Instead, let's put that, the phrase you suggested previously, "a long staircase leading directly to the main platform", Richard? Can? Well, you know better. I will trust your judgment, Richard.
 * However, please, do not say, "the number of steps that were there when the stairs were completed", Richard.
 * He (Mr.Tirth Raj Manandhar – the guy who commissioned the stairs) started the construction sometime in 1909. It took 5 (five) years (completed in 1914). There were 318 (three hundred and Eighteen) staircases then. Source: Boudha (Buddhist) Darpan (Darpan means Mirror) Published: 2010
 * And, yes, you could copy the conversation to the talk page, Richard. I have no problem with that. And, I also have a question for you, Richard. Please, do not mind my directness, Richard. I am not being rude here.
 * What's your interest in doing all this (contributing/ editing), Richard? Why Swayambhu, in particular? Maybe you contribute to other pages as well but why Swayambhu?
 * I told you, I am approaching various publishers here in Kathmandu. All of them have websites. I will send you the links to my English articles when/ if they publish, Richard.
 * Anyway, thanks for your patience and guidance, Richard. I really appreciate it. Let's keep in touch. Take care.
 * Regards, Josh 2018-03-04 15:09


 * Namaskar.
 * The article you provided earlier (http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/printedition/news/2012-11-02/the-first-word-241331.html) tells me that "in 1908, Tirtha Raj hired a team of skilled stonemasons and launched his project. The stairway on the eastern side of the hill was completed four years later in 112" (literal quote). Since 1908 + 4 = 1912, I figured that '112' was a simple case of a missing '9'. That would mean that the Kathmandu Post and the Boudha Darpan give different information – for the number of steps and for the time needed.
 * Yes, I do contribute on other pages as well. The first time I came across this page is when I wanted to learn about it myself. Some sentences were a bit unclear so I rephrased them a little. After that, I kept an eye on the article. Someone once deleted large portions of text without giving a reason. I restored the text. Another time, a picture was added that was already in the article. That was not necessary. Stuff like that.
 * Keeping in touch sounds good to me. Until next time, then. Richard 2018-03-04 19:02


 * Hi Richard, Namaskar.
 * Yes. 360 vs 318. 4 years vs 5 years.
 * In all my 3+ years of researching/ studying Swayambhu, it's only that 365 number I have not come across (until now) in books, Richard, except in Wikipedia, of course. I am truly "fascinated" how that 365 came into being, really. There's one story though.
 * A year has 365 days. Each stone step represented a day. So, when you got to the top (Swayambhu temple), you would have erased all the sins you committed in a year (365 days). That's what one guy told me. It is not a popular belief. In any case, it doesn't matter now. There are 424 steps at present so...
 * Well, Richard, now that you know the story, please, do (edit) what/ how you see fit. Just take that 365 out of the page :]
 * Regards, Josh 2018-03-04 19:48


 * Since there has been no input of any kind on this talk page, I will proceed as mentioned above. Richard 11:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrong article for this title
This article is about Boudha, not Swayambhu. They are different places. I have been to both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.34.74 (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Is Swayambunath being moved to Hainan Island in China?
I encountered it being rebuilt there and surmised that after the earthquake is was being saved(?). 68.147.185.137 (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Swayambhunath story about its origins
All story in English 110.44.120.5 (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)