Talk:Hawulti (monument)

Destroyed or Damaged

Yom is concerned that the wording of the article is incorrect. While some sources say it ws destroyed others say it was repaired, perhaps leading to some confusion. The reference that is quoted in the articles says that it was destroyed. It appears in pictures (photo) that only the base/foundation was destroyed and that it conceivably could be repaired. In the following article & photo you can see that it has indeed been repaired. So it seems that it was indeed destroyed and repaired. --Merhawie 19:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The destruction of a part of it is a damaging when speaking of the whole. If it were destroyed, then the whole monument would have been rubble (which it is not, just the base). I don't really see how we can say that it was destroyed considering its condition after the toppling. This image makes it clear that it can be said to have been damaged but not destroyed. The usage of the term "destroyed" is contradicted by the site that you quote. He says "Hawulti now lies shattered on ground after being damaged by invading army (see below and check Current Status in menu) during recent warfare" and titles the page "Decision Reached on Claim of Damage to Hawulti." [1] The Buddhas of Bamyan can be said to be destroyed, but Hawulti was damaged, not destroyed. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, you are right, damaged. --Merhawie 22:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hawulti (monument). 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20070527140205/http://www.dehai.org/archives/dehai_news_archive/apr-may05/0791.html to http://www.dehai.org/archives/dehai_news_archive/apr-may05/0791.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311064020/http://www.metimes.com/print.php?StoryID=20050517-045753-8291r to http://www.metimes.com/print.php?StoryID=20050517-045753-8291r

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) 22:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)