User talk:Navarrro
Emerald Buddha
[edit]Hi Navarrro, I reverted your edit regarding the Emerald Buddha. It was indeed produced in the 17th century and is not ancient like the one in Bangkok. National Geographic refers to it as being Baccarat-crystal. --Dara (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Dara,
- That's not possible, never mind what National Geographic says (source please?). Baccarat Crystal didn't exists until 1764, 18th century. You can check the own Wikipedia article or the Official website. So either the Emerald Buddha is not from 17th century or it's not done from Baccarat Crystal. --Navarrro (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think you may be right. But this is what is purported by National Geographic (and I assume many other publications, especially tourist guides, followed suit with this information). See National Geographic Traveler Cambodia By Trevor Ranges. This tidbit on Baccarat goes far back to an old NG issue from the 1960s or 1970s. Perhaps this is a misreported information in an old French book. --Dara (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Dara,
- I don't have the book but I've tried to find out a bit more and now I'm more thinking about the misreported information is in the century not in what's made of. You're right, most of other publications can use National Geographic as a source, but that doesn't mean that the mistake must be reproduced if it's false. I've found this website saying that the statue was made in the 19th century what also fits with the book Pol Pot, Anatomy of a Nightmare of Philip Short (2004) where it's said (page 22) that the statue was done by Lalique a glass designer who lived in 19th-20th century. That also fits with the time of the construction of the Royal Palace in the second half of 19th century. At least from the 15th century the original Emerald Buddha (in BKK) was never in Cambodia so I don't see why they were going to copy it in 17th century, I think it's more probable that the statue was copied in the 19th century for the new Royal Palace and new Capital. In any case the article must be modified to show that misinformation and to not continue broadcasting it. Maybe somebody with more resources can then solve the issue. --Navarrro (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Would it be fair to say that some sources state it is of Baccarat and point out whats wrong with that claim and also mention the Lalique claim as well? Of course present in a way that is neutral if there seems to be conflicting information. I think a more definitive source would be Julio Jeldres but I can't get ahold of his book. I will try to find if Judith M. Jacob has mentioned anything about the statue. --Dara (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Dara, I completelly agree with that. Take a look to the new sentence I've written please. Regarding Julio Jeldres, I've found this other extract in other book. Notice what the author says: that Julio Jeldres book is "unreliable in some of the information it provides, particularly in relation to dates." So I'm afraid the mistake of dates comes precisely from his book. By the way, Bangkok temple was indeed the model of Phnom Penh temple, so it also makes sense the copy of the Emerald Buddha is done in that time, 19th century.Navarrro (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Would it be fair to say that some sources state it is of Baccarat and point out whats wrong with that claim and also mention the Lalique claim as well? Of course present in a way that is neutral if there seems to be conflicting information. I think a more definitive source would be Julio Jeldres but I can't get ahold of his book. I will try to find if Judith M. Jacob has mentioned anything about the statue. --Dara (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think you may be right. But this is what is purported by National Geographic (and I assume many other publications, especially tourist guides, followed suit with this information). See National Geographic Traveler Cambodia By Trevor Ranges. This tidbit on Baccarat goes far back to an old NG issue from the 1960s or 1970s. Perhaps this is a misreported information in an old French book. --Dara (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)