This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
RfC on a graphical illustration of the Sarnath capital of Ashoka
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Agreement was reached between the two main participants (User:Fowler&fowler and User:पाटलिपुत्र ("Pat") through e-mail, and a determination was reached to close this RfC. We would like to thank all the participants who took the time and effort to participate to this discussion, and will endeavour to achieve more succinct and collaborative exchanges in the future. Thank you again! पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 18:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
A referenced reconstitution of the Lion Capital of Ashoka, complete with top wheel.
Clarification for commenters: The statement by the nominator below with the sources is not a part of the RfC statement. It is their vote and justification for the vote. In other words, you are fee to look for reliable sources and see for yourself whether they support the RfC statement. Alternatively, agreeing that the majority of the nominator's sources support such a reconstruction is not proof that a majority of the reliable sources support such a reconstruction. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, of course (nominator) In order to illustrate Wikipedia, we regularly make graphical illustrations of the original aspect of historical artifacts, using various methods such as hand drawings, computer graphics or imagery (see Antikythera mechanism for example). This is an important way to convey information about ancient objects. The proposed graphical illustration is referenced, as it follows quite precisely the following graphical reconstructions from reliable sources (all reconstructions are visible directly online by clicking the links hereafter):
Vasudeva S. Agrawala (Ph.D.) "started his career as a Curator at the Mathura Museum in 1931", in "1940 he came to Lucknow as Director of the State Museum" 8-9. He then became "Professor & Head of the Department of Art and Architecture" at Benares Hindu University [1], and Superintendent of the Museums Branch, Archaeological Survey of India[2].
Asher, Frederick M. (2020). Sarnath: A Critical History of the Place Where Buddhism Began. Getty Publications. p. 76. ISBN978-1-60606-616-4. Asher presents as a "copy of the Sarnath pillar" a photograph of the modern reconstruction at the Thai temple of Wat Umong [5], complete with the topmost wheel resting on the napes of lions. The Thai replica is artistically mediocre, smaller and thicker than the original Ashokan pillar, and the top wheel only has 24 spokes instead of the archaeologically-confirmed 32 spokes, but Asher thus confirms the general appearance of the original Sarnath capital and pillar according to modern scolarship. (this reference and its rationale added by the nominator @ 10:42, 14 August)
Mentions of the topmost wheel specifically are available in (for example):
"The crowning element was originally a large wheel, which is now lost" in Huntington, Susan L.; Huntington, John C. (1 January 2014). The Art of Ancient India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jain. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 47. ISBN978-81-208-3617-4. (reference added @ August 21 by the nominator)
Indian Government communication of 2009, explaining that as early as 1957, the discrepancy between the symbol on the Indian flag (24 spokes) and the topmost wheel at Sarnath (32 spokes) was noted by Mookherjee, and was the object of a letter to Nehru: "We are somewhat concerned to find that our State emblem, known as Ashoka Chakra, is not an accurate replica of the Sarnath pillar ... a chakra of 32 spokes was in the original Ashokan monument, placed on the shoulders of the four lions...", but Nehru considered the modification unnecessary in his written answer (Biswas, U.N. (2009). "Essential Service Values & Banga"(PDF). Administrative Training Institute, Government of West Bengal: 50–55.).
"The wheel that once topped the great Ashokan pillar at Sarnath had 32 spokes" ... '"1.07 meters in diameter approximately" in Huntington, John (1990). "Understanding the 5th century Buddhas of Sarnath"(PDF). Orientations, 40: 90, Fig.8.
"The recovered fragments of Dharmachakra as on the heads of four lions of Sarnath pillar suggest 32 spokes" in Sinha, Nirmal Chandra (1994). Asoka's Dhamma: Testimony of Monuments(PDF). Gangtok, Sikkim: Namgyal Institute of Tibetology. p. 8.
"It apparently had 32 spokes" (quoting the ASI excavation report) Majumdar, R. C. (1 January 2016). Ancient India. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 224. ISBN978-81-208-0435-7.
As far as I know, not a single academic source has been provided so far claiming that the topmost wheel had 24 spokes, instead of 32 spokes. Many sources clearly do not go into this level of detail when discussing the capital, and some casual, especially modern, Indian renderings, will often use 24 spokes due to the influence of the 24-spoked wheel on the Indian flag, but those academics who do go into these specific details invariably mention 32 spokes, and an approximate diameter of 1 meter. These facts have been made clear since excavation ("It apparently had 32 spokes, while the four smaller wheels below the lions have only 24 spokes" in Archaeological Survey Of India Annual Report 1904-5. p. 69., "Total number was presumably 32" Sahni, Dayaram (1914). Catalogue of the Museum of Archaeology at Sarnath. p. 29.). The archaeological remains themselves are pretty straightforward ("Remains of the topmost wheel in the Sarnath Archaeological Museum".), since simple analysis of the remains and basic geometry indeed shows that there can only have been 32 spokes and that the diameter was about 1 meter.
No: Any feature that is not attested should not be included unless there is overwhelming agreement among scholars. The representations I have seen with the Dharmachakra atop have large variances. In some the chakra is touching the mane (in which case there should be markings) and in others they are not. Which is the version we will represent here? And why? It is best to give these speculations the respectful space and time to gain greater acceptance, which is currently lacking, before we represent them in Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Tentative reconstructions of the Lion Capital of Ashoka with variable heights for the top wheel (with sources)
@Chaipau: Thank you for your interesting comment. It is true that there is probably a slight degree of uncertainty regarding the specific height of the topmost wheel above the lions, since the supporting shaft was never found (only the socket hole between the lions, 8") but several of the graphical reconstructions I have given as sources put the wheel just on top of the napes of the lions (and in one case slightly above, aligning with the top of the heads of the lions by Irwin (1973) and Irwin (1990)). I do not know of alternative graphical reconstructions from reliable sources. If necessary, this specific reconstruction can be attributed, such as "Based on tentative reconstructions according to ...." for example. We could also provide the main referenced reconstruction alternatives, as per the attached. As far as I know, reconstructions almost always have a degree of uncertainty inherent to them, and we provide them on Wikipedia all the time, with sometimes a lot of variations, as long as they are referenced from reliables sources (see Antikythera mechanism for example)... पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 08:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Providing multiple images does not solve the problem, instead it makes it worse. Now we have multiple speculations and WP:SYNTH rears it head. WP:FRINGE gets worse with multiple images. Chaipau (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Chaipau: I am also providing the reconstruction by Edith Tömöry Tömöry, Edith (1989). History Of Fine Arts In India And The West. Orient Longman. p. 21. ISBN978-0861313211., which also shows the wheel resting on the napes of the lions. It would seem that this is the most general reconstruction. By the way, as far as I know, there is no problem in showing various possible reconstructions, as long as they are properly sourced. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 07:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
See my reply here. Chaipau (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes. I won't mind it as long it is referenced from a reliable source and apparently I see many. That said, User:Chaipau's concerns are valid and I would like to see them resolved before adding the image.Akshaypatill (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
There is absolutely no evidence (beyond some fringe sources) that a wheel of that size will fit in the space between the lion without using a mounting bock and raising its height considerably or installing it at an angle so that it separates two neighboring lions (as it were) from the other two. I have rewritten the article with more than a dozen modern sources. None mention anything about 32 spokes, let alone the orientation of the wheel above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Irwin did not even go to Sarnath. In his 1990 paper, which user:Pat had not read except for the image, he thanks so-and-so for going to Sarnath and bringing back some pictures. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I have nothing to do with Alamy. Never seen such a weak argument :))) .... Please trust the judgement of other Wikipedia editors, who can very well judge by themselves if a simple image is appropriate or not. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 12:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Just a heads up on the Alamy thing, they scrape commons and sell the images taken as their own stock photos. Probably not related to the editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish: Absolutely, everybody knows this. Fowler&fowler is only attempting to derail a RfC with all the vitriol he can find. Thank you पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 12:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Both of you need to stop the personal commentary. Just ignore each other before your back and forth makes it less likely for anyone uninvolved to weigh in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Strong Noleading to a Topic ban for User:पाटलिपुत्र (hereafter user:Pat) from India-related articles broadly construed, for the following reasons:
user:Pat's practices involving serial abuse of fringe sources have been raising eyebrows for at least five years:
In the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/पाटलिपुत्र/Archive (2017) user:Ms Sarah Welch wrote that under:Pat "used inscriptions and artwork to create POV-y history in a range of articles, pushing fringe and discredited theories such as Sharma's "Greeks devastated/pillaged ancient India centuries after Alexander left"
In the thread, Talk:Brahmi_script/Archive_1#Original_research_and_synthesis I called attention to user:Pat's relentless insertion of WP:UNDUE text and of cutting and pasting of images to create image combinations of the Brahmi script, such as File:Buddha Sakyamuni on the Rummindei pillar of Ashoka.jpg (scroll the image to see how it was extracted from another image) to create a POV-ridden article. It took three months for me to whip the lead into shape so opaquely were the edits made and so relentless was user:Pat's edit warring.
And there are their mating of the Sarnath Lions with the Sandhi lions to perform reconstructive surgery on both and put a halo behind them. Please scroll down to the file history of File:Sanchi Ashoka Capitol reconstitution.jpg.
It is time to stem the rot. It is high time.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment(Summoned by bot): Fowler, this is clearly not the place to be making an extensive argument for sanctions against another editor based on alleged behavioural issues--most of which does not even regard disputes about content on this page. If you think you have colourable and significant issues about this user's conduct that they community should review, take it to WP:ANI and make your case there. Honestly, if you hadn't problematically merged your !vote with on the content issue with your grievances against the other user, I would have just hatted your entire comment here. I have no previous direct experience with either of you or of the issues here, but looking at the conduct in this thread, I have to say that yours is looking like the much, much more WP:Disruptive conduct at the moment. You should be arguing the cogent issues relevant to the disputed addition under policy, not bringing in all of this irrelevant argumentation of the flaws you perceive in the other editor's behavior. That is not what article talk pages are for and it seems you've been around long enough that you should really know that. The other user, whether they are right or wrong on the content issue is (mostly) keeping their commentary focused on the issue the RfC was opened to address. Please do the same, and take any broader concerns you may have about their behavior to an appropriate forum or an admin. SnowRise let's rap 23:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: This is all abusive and totally irrelevant (again...), only to attempt to derail a RfC which you know may not go the direction you wish. In a period of 5 years, I could list myriads of instances of mistakes, editorial conflicts, and inappropriate behaviour on your part. Just in the last few days: copyright infringement above ([8]), constant edit-warring and systematical reverts in this article to the point of breaking the 3RR rule and be warned by Administrators [9], constant incivility from your part on this page (anyone can just read...), and promotion of a historical hoax (the Chiang Mai Wat Umong Ashoka capital with its 24 spokes [10], debunked by no less than historian Nayanjot Lahiri[11]). Your recurrent incivility and distortion of facts has led countless Administrators to warn you to behave. You are the one breaking Wikipedia rules, and Wikipedia's civility standards. Let's remain courteous, and focus on the essential: we are just discussing about the appropriateness of a referenced drawing, and it is a normal process to lauch a RfC when in need to broaden feedback. Please trust the judgement of other Wikipedia editors, who can very well judge by themselves if a simple image is appropriate or not. I, for one, will gladly follow the voice of the Wikipedia community. Have a nice day Fowler&fowler. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 12:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Here is what modern scholars think of Agrawala and Irwin:
Bopearachchi, Osmund (2021) [2017], "Achaemenids and Mauryans: Emergence of Coins and Plastic Arts in India", in Patel, Alka; Daryaee, Touraj (eds.), India and Iran during the Long Durée, Ancient Iran Series, Boston and Leiden: BRILL, originally, Irvine: UCI, Jordan Center for Persian Studies, ISBN9789004460638, Other scholars such as V. S. Agrawala, John Irwin, and D. Devahuti have held that the early stonework was conceived by Indians alone ... The best examples are Asokan pillars with their so-called bell-shaped capitals, decorated with honeysuckle or palmette motifs and smooth un-fluted shafts. Their polish and even their inspirations can be traced back to Persia. There is no archaeological evidence to support V. S. Agrawala's opinion that the technique of polishing stone was a tradition dating back to Vedic times and inherited by Mauryan craftsmen.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Here is also what Kazim Abdullaev thinks of the idea of a wheel surmounting a lion capital without some kind of mounting block, square abacus, or slab to raise the height of the wheel. Where there is real evidence they write about it in great detail.
Abdullaev, Kazim (2014), "The Buddhist culture of ancient Termez in old and recent finds", Parthica, 15: 157–187, A capital with protomes of four lions from Old Termez This capital takes the form of four lion protomes, facing in different directions (the cardinal points) (Fig. 15, 15:a). In its artistic style, and especially in the treatment of the long wavy ringlets of the lions' manes, it is comparable to some examples of Hellenistic sculpture. All the evidence indicates that it belonged to a stambha pillar and was not an ordinary capital. It would seem to be appropriate to a Greco-Buddhist figurative complex. ... As far as its function is concerned, we have one small indication in the form of a detail modeled on the backs of the lions. This is a fairly tall, square abacus, with two parallel relief lines running round the bottom. In the top of the abacus there is a square slot measuring 13-15×13-15 cm, into which another detail evidently was to be fitted. This detail may have been a beam, but is more likely to have been a symbol in the form of the wheel of the doctrine (Dharmachakra).53 This latter theory is supported by the fact that the backs of the lions' necks are higher than the level of the abacuses, which would have complicated the fitting of beams. By contrast, a separate symbol – in this case a wheel – could have been quite easily fixed in the slot with the help of some projecting element; another way of it fastening it would have been with a metal bolt.
By contrast, There is nothing Sarnath about which way the wheel would orient and at what height above the lions it would show. No mention anywhere how much below the heads of the lions the mortise hole of diameter 8 inchies and depth 4 inches lies. Nothing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I have rewritten the article with modern sources in the space of a few days. You can view the state of the article before. Not only have I modernized the sources, I have corrected them. Aggrawala was being cited as Agrawala (1965). I was the one who pointed out it was an unpublished paper of 1952 printed privately in 1965. Karel Werner was being cited for a paper of 2019, I pointed out that it was really Irwin, John (1990), "Origins of form and structure in monumental art", in Werner, Karel (ed.), Symbols in art and religion: the Indian and the comparative perspectives, London: Curzon Press, pp. 46–67 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Figure LG Later lion capital from Sanchi (c. 600)
Here is an example of a later lion capital with a mounting block and a wheel oriented in a addorsed diagonal orientation, i.e. its vertical plane separates two neighboring lions from their addorsed twins (back-to-back copiies). The lions are smaller than the Sarnath lions and the wheel, which is correspondingly smaller has 16 spokes. In the Buddhist sculpture in India that was the tradition of display later, why would the much bigger wheel on a huge 1 ton capital atop a very tall column have the addorsed parallel representation, i.e. rise like a halo behind one lion, its vertical plain separating the lion from the other three? And how would it appear from the other side, set way in the back? Why would one cardinal direction and its antipodal pair be favored?
Lion capital on gate, Sanchi, 1st century BCE
The same with the later lion capital on the Sanchi gate. Do you see that the pillar itself rises up as a mounting block on which the horizontal beam of the gate is secured. But the vertical plane of the gate separates two neighboring lions, just like the wheel above.
It does not favor any one lion. The "reconstitution" presented here does and the old references it cites have not discussed these issues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Sanchi gateways : South gateway of stupa 3, 1st century
All this is wild OR. But this relief, almost certainly intended to represent the actual Ashokan capital, should be taken into account. The article should have a mini-gallery of other Sanchi images, mostly on this page, including at least one "reconstruction". But it should made very clear that they are all tentative/possible/speculative. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Note to the closer of this RfC: User:Johnbod above expresses the following position: "The article should have (...) at least one "reconstruction". But it should made very clear that they are all tentative/possible/speculative."[12]
Just in case this gets lost in the clutter... पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 12:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The primitive art of the Satvahannas tells us nothing. It was carved 350 years later.
They can't do perspective were their lives dependent on it. The lions are not facing in the four cardinal directions (well three in this instance); they are more like watching a football game.
500 years after that in the late Gupta period, when sculpture had become more sophisticated, the lion capital on the right (which I will soon label Figure LG) was carved with a wheel atop oriented at an angle so as to separate two neighboring lions from their addorsed twins. They too were copying the original Sarnath capital which was still around in 600 CE. Why would they orient it so? In other words, if the wheel atop privileged one of the four lions, or at best two addorsed, then why were the other two left out? The lions after all are broadcasting the Buddha's message in the four cardinal direction so as to reach the four corners. Why would the wheel favor only two cardinal directions, ie, North-South or East-West. The advantage of the angled presentation to the right (in the museum) is that it does not favor any cardinal direction.
Two are favored on one side of the wheel and their antipodal directions are favored on the other side of the wheel. That the spirit of that presentation is alive in Buddhism, can be seen in the city in Sri Lanka to which Ashoka sent his daughter and son, Anuradhapura (a UNESCO World Heritage Site, which Sarnath is still not), in this modern homage I've left a note at WikiProject Sri Lanka requesting a free copy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Addorsed elephants and perpendicular wheel layout, Sanchi Stupa No. 2.@Fowler&fowler: This is all very interesting, but have you found any reference to back-up your idea of a diagonal positionning of the wheel (I mean references explicitly related to the Sarnath pillar capital, not the Uzbekistan one or the Late Gupta one). If so, we could of course add a mention in the article, but so far the universally-acknowledged fact that there is a 8" round hole between the Sarnath lions for a supporting shaft, and the majority (totality?) of references explaining that, besides this axial shaft, the wheel rested on the nape of the lions (not "in-between"), or the totally of reconstructions showing a perpendicular layout, seem to go counter this theory... I am adding an another rather clear example from Sanchi Stupa No. 2, 1st century BCE, with perpendicular (not diagonal) layout of the wheel, complete with supporting axial shaft, this time on top of elephants. Primitive, I don't know, but quite fine still and the symmetry is quite compelling... पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 15:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
They say nothing about the orientation of the wheel. Parading primitive art or nationalist Hindu historians of a generation ago that no one reads any more (of a profoundly anti-Buddhist land that is modern India) has no meaning. Well, here's a suggestion. Why don't you try to use any of your poor sources in the FA India. If it survives there, I will be happy to accommodate them here. I have rewritten this article, rewritten its every word, found its every reference. In the interim I have rewritten Darjeeling at FAR and its FA label has been restored, not to mention with appreciation by the regulars there. See here.
Now you are making Islamophobic edits in the lead. Please don't play with fire. Utterly shameful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I am not "Islamophobic" at all, quite the contrary. Is someone mentioning Muslim invasions in India automatically islamophobic in your mind? I am only very closely paraphrasing and quoting your "definite" Asher [13]. He himself writes that "writers generally assume that it was damaged willfully", quoting an historian mentioning Islamic invasions and destructions as the cause for the massive damage supported by the pillar. It is well known that Muslim invaders destroyed Sarnath several times anyway... it's nothing new. Writing that the capital just "fell to the ground and was buried", only suggesting some sort natural decay, is unsourced and misleading. If you do not like my rendition, correct it, but do not just revert with abusive edit-summaries. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 16:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I have written, "The lion capital eventually fell to the ground and was buried." It makes no assertion about cause. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Asher sums up Sahni's quote, thus: "The implication is that Muslim invaders were the culprits and that iconoclasm was the motive, even
though the pillar and its capital have no clear religious imagery." It does NOT mean he thinks it is he motive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Asher simply explains that the motive of Islamic destructions at Sarnath was probably not "iconoclasm", but instead more simply and universally: general plunder and destruction, "intended to acquire land and wealth" Asher (2020), p.11). Asher is otherwise extremely specific (on the same page) about the massive Islamic destructions at Sarnath:
"Generally, the blame is placed on invaders, almost invariably identified by their religion, Islam, rather than their geographic or cultural identity, Afghans"
"And then, in 1193, Qutb-ud-din Aibek, the military commander of Muhammad of Ghor's army, marched towards Varanasi, where he is said to have destroyed idols in a thousand temples. Sarnath very likely was among the casualities of this invasion, one all too often seen as a Muslim invasion whose primary purpose was iconoclasm. It was of course, like any premodern military invasion, intended to acquire land and wealth"
This is the reason why Islamic destructions are given as the reason for the destruction of the Sarnath pillar by "most writers": Asher does not deny this thesis, he only challenges the notion that it was motivated by iconoclasm (Asher (2020), p.11p.74). But a case can indeed be made that Hindus also participated to the decline of Sarnath through destructions, particularly through the conversion of Buddhist temples into Hindu ones under the Gahadavala dynasty, per Asher (Asher (2020), p.11), but I have yet to see a reliable author directly claiming that the Sarnath pillar may have been destroyed by Hindus (although I guess it is a possibility, but we would need references). I think we should have a paragraph about the destruction of the pillar and the probable reason for the fall of its capital, along these lines. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 06:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment (my !vote is somewhere near the bottom - with apologies!)No I'm particularly persuaded by Fowler's arguments relating to the actual situation of the wheel here and [alk:Lion_Capital_of_Ashoka here]. We need very strong sourcing if we're going to show an image of something that doesn't actually exist and that strong sourcing is lacking here. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree RP. user:Pat has been making similar wheels for the Sanchi capital. But I was just leafing through John Marshall on Sanchi courtesy Johnbod's mention. And JM says in a footnote: on page 102, "2 In this capital the lions did not support a 'wheel of the Law' {dharma-chakra), as they did at Sarnath."
Personally, I think a weather vane windmill might have been the best form of dharmachakra Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Johnbod: That is a late Gupta age relief. Why is it not a representation of the addorsed diagonal capital I have shown above. It has 16 spokes, not 32, just like the one up top How else would you show a quadruple addorsed capital if you did not show at least three lions. And how would you show three lions in a relief unless one was smack in the middle. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Well there are a number of ways, though the artist has gone for this one. I think it is thought to represent the Ashokan capital, not a different imitation of it (which might actually be later than this relief anyway). I don't worry about having fewer spokes in a much smaller space (I'm just not up for spoke-counting at all, I'm afraid). Btw, it's a pity your man in the diff RegentsPark links to completely fails to mention the orientation of the square slot relative to the lions. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the museum caption saying "c. 600 CE" is visible in the photo of the "addorsed diagonal capital I have shown above", so actually post-Gupta, & surely a good deal later than the relief I've added at left. So much for that idea of yours! Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
But the caption says, "600 CE (Gupta Period). Regardless, see the lions on the gate above. They are the same period as the relief and they are even standing on an abacus with flora and fauna. And there are diagonally positioned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't make a difference. The addorsed diagonal capital represented something. Presumably, like your primative relief, it aspired to represent the Persian capital, same as the one in Sarnath. It was moreover a three-dimensional rendition. It shows a diagonal presentation. How would your primative art represent the diagonal representation? You tell me, if not in the manner of the relief. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
You are also wrong to describe the relief as "late Gupta". Marshall regards it as 1st century, well before the Guptas. The relief could have represented two lion heads in the 3/4 position. it's not that primative, & no doubt looked very smart when gilded or painted. The central lion is shown head on, but the two on the sides in a 3/4-ish view, which the artist is perfectly able to convey. Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC).
Just two lion heads in the 3/4 position are not a representation of four, but of two lions at right angles to each other. They don't betoken addorsed pairs. And if you aren't worried about countining spokes why wasn't the Chiang Mai pillar enough? Regardless of its age, it was in the article. It was removed because it had 24 spokes not the vaunted 32. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
What what about the other addorsed lions on the gate above. Presumably they are just as old as your relief? What are they purporting to represent in their diagonal presentation? They stand on a circular abacus. They are much bigger than the relief. They are on each pillar of the gate. The point, btw, of Abdullaev's article is not the orientation but the need for a mounting block to raise the mortise hole. There is nothing in the Sarnath capital. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I am afraid I have to factually correct you here: the relief in question (, posted by User:Johnbod[14]), has nothing to do with "Late Gupta" (your post [15]), it is actually Satavahana dynasty, circa 1st century CE, about 400-500, maybe 600 years before. Without wanting to be rude, this does throw some doubt on the cogency of your arguments. @RegentsPark:: There may be an issue of editorial competency here: this is standard history/ history of art stuff... (just adressing the facts). पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 05:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I would like to warn everyone that it is rather problematic to post the Wat Umong Ashoka pillar photograph here again in a factual discussion [16]: this is actually a historical hoax that was promoted 2 weeks ago as a "13th century replica with 24 spokes" [17]. This pillar was actually created in cement and concrete a few decades ago, and therefore has zero historical value for this discussion. The fake was debunked by no less than historian Nayanjot Lahiri[18]. It only has value as one example of the numerous more-or-less accurate modern replicas around. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 05:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I didn't see this doozy. I know a lot more and have forgotten a lot more about the history of Thailand than Nayanjot Lahiri, or the other Indian historian, armed with cameras for capturing the material for a book, will ever know. The Thais routinely renew their historical monuments. All the temples in which people worship whether they be The Emerald Buddha in the Royal Palace or Wat Arun across the Chao Phya are routinely renovated, and repainted, their gilded Buddha given a fresh layer of gold leaf, and so forth. The fact that Ms Lahri found evidence of a cement wash on the pillar does not mean it was built a few decades ago and nothing was there before. Thai culture is generally nowhere near as dishonest as South Asian culture. So, please don't present the views of historians of South Asia on Thai culture to be evidence of expertise. There may have been a pillar there earlier that fell and they built a new one. Rick Asher was an exceptionally rigorous writer. Had he thought it was a hoax, he would not have mentioned it, or described it in different words, (instead of "is said to date to the 13th century" (whether for the Wat or the pillar). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I can speak the language by the way which NL I'm sure can't. When I go to Thai restaurants, I get double helping because I can have long conversations with the staff. NL was probably served half with that attitude. AGF on WP does not mean we kowtow to every two bit source about every two bit topic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Historian Nayanjot Lahiri is clear that this is a recent "cement and concrete replica" (not just a "cement wash") and that no connection can be made to the 13th century: Lahiri, Nayanjot (25 June 2016). "Re-searching Ashoka in Thailand". The Hindu. On reaching the environs of Wat Umong, the excitement became more muted. The pillar was certainly a reproduction of the Sarnath Ashokan column, but (alas!) a modern reproduction of it. This could neither be dated to the 13th century, nor did it have any connection with a king of the Lanna line. The cement and concrete replica was set up some decades ago on the initiative of the Buddhist monastic community and its patrons at Wat Umong. They also got copies made of sundry sculpted panels from Buddhist sites in India.. This was just "set up some decades ago on" (as many of the other modern replicas of ancient Indian reliefs at Wat Umong), not a renovation or anything, and there is apparently also no proof of an earlier pillar. By saying "is said to date to the 13th century" Rick Asher only relayed hearsay and local lore, and wisely did not appropriate the claim for himself. No historical value here, just another mediocre modern replica. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 07:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Aren't you contrite or distraught even in the least bit that for someone who claimed that they had hardly ever edited this page, knew very little about its comings and goings, had no responsibility for its deplorable state, you have done nothing but edit it relentlessly after I began to edit it? Look at your history here in July. What have you done here other than reply again and again and again with the same miserable sources? I have not only rewritten this article but I also rewrote Darjeeling and the community has appreciated itFowler&fowler«Talk» 08:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I am, too, quite appreciative of your contributions here. But this does not mean others should not be able to contribute to the same articles you devote efforts to. Systematically deleting or reverting the contributions of others, and then bragging that the article is all yours [19][20][21] (WP:OWN!!) is not the way to go, better to correct or balance the contributions of others. I happen to know a bit about this time period and have written quite a few related articles, and I am confident I can contribute quality content, correct a few very wrong dates (you are again wrongly attributing this relief to the 1st century BCE, when it should be 1st century CE), not to mention some blind spots. This is called "collaborative editing".... पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 16:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
You have not read any quality source I have added to the article. You have not read Asher 2020. I know this because you WP:ISLAMOPHOBIA is based on cherry picking one sentence and this misinterpreting it. Asher speaks about this topic several times in this book, blaming Hindus as well for the destruction of Sarnath. You have directly added a flagrant sentence to the lead without it being present in the sections that the lead summarizes. I wasn't born yesterday. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I am not "Islamophobic" at all, quite the contrary. Asher clearly has his own doubts about the "iconoclastic" motive behind the destruction of the pillar (arguing that its imagery is not clearly religious, a bit unconvincingly in my opinion), but he rightly states as a fact that most writers "generally assume that it was damaged willfully" [22], which is decidedly an affirmation of near-consensus among the academic community: the large majority of scholars do not think the capital just fell by itself, so utter is the damage the pillar suffered, but your sentence actually insinuates rather misleadingly a bening ending without external cause ("The lion capital eventually fell to the ground and was buried"), and without any reference to back up this claim. Then Asher quotes an historian mentioning Islamic invasions and destructions, simply because this is the main academic explanation for these events. Do you actually have sources and quotes claiming that Hindus instead destroyed the Sarnath pillar, as you seem to imply? If indeed there are, it would be interesting to mention this alternative theory... पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 19:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Leaning yes.(Summoned by bot) I haven't done an exhaustive review of the sources, but so long as the image in question actually originates out of an RS (and indeed, it seems it is utilized in multiple RS after having been a primary report itself, if I am reading the image credits and the contextual discussion above correctly--it's been kind of unclear from how the issue has been presented, but that seems to be the case), I don't really think we have a problem here. Obviously if this were an image generated by one of our users based on historical descriptions (even be they in reliable sources), that would unquestionably be a kind of WP:SYNTHESIS an unacceptable in the article itself. However, if we are talking about an image that is primary report or a reconstruction that is itself appearing in multiple RS, then there's really not a problem with using it for illustrative purposes--any concerns about uncertainty in the details or debate among scholars can be addressed by noting these open questions among scholars in the image caption and elsewhere in the text.
Furthermore, for those arguments that are being made above that seem to be along the lines of "Yes, this is a primary source image used in multiple secondary RS, but they must be faulty reports, because clear 'this', 'this', and 'this' wouldn't work like 'that'!" ...well, that's textbook WP:Original research, and not a valid argument for exclusion under this project's content policies. It's possible some of those arguments above were meant to relay the WP:WEIGHT of positions in the corpus of reliable sources overall, but if so, they should be restructured and reworded to make that clear. At the moment it looks like we have an argument based in RS on one side, and one based on personal evaluation on the other. And the thing is, the editor observing the apparent issues with this image may very well be factually correct here. But that's just not how WP:verification and WP:NPOV work on this project. SnowRise let's rap 23:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: It is WP:UNDUE, not just ordinarily, but bizarrely. I've written the article. Of the 14 or 15 sources I have added authored by some of the major archaeologists and art historians of India and Sarnath, not a single one mentions a reconstruction. I went to Sarnath myself, I was shown around the museum for some 90 minutes by the director. He never mentioned anything about a reconstructed view. The lion capital was there all all to see, its two lions showing their damaged faces. I could not take pictures because photography was not allowed in the museum. We then went to the site of the pillar outside. I did take a picture there. It is at the bottom of the Description section. There were people standing around. One of them shows up in the reflection; you can see how thick one part of the pillar was. I wrote to them recently. They sent me a picture, which I have sketched with the exact museum specifications. That is in the other part of the bottom pictures. Anyone can figure out what the pillar might have looked like.
By the way, SnowRise, this has been going on for a while, basically ever since I began to edit the article two weeks ago. I eventually posted at RS/N. SammuelRiv who answered there pretty much told user:Pat, that the photographic reconstructions were not kosher on WP: See here scroll to the bottom. user:Pat quickly changed his tune to proposing a black and white reconstruction that he is calling a pencil sketch. I then made a post asking if we should end this; he responding by beginning this RfC. It has the same pattern. One person makes a post. user:Pat replies with the same list of two historians from a lifetime ago, and a museum brochure. Please scroll upstairs to see how many times this has been repeated. Meanwhile, I have rewritten the article in two weeks.
See before (as maintained by user:Pat and Johnbod for years) and after as a result of my rewrite two weeks later. Look at the references. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I have never "maintained" this article. I am actually very respectful of collaborative editing, and have never made a claim to "maintain" anything. I have only contributed to this article in a rather patchy fashion, most of the content has never been my own. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 05:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I have actually done very little on the article since this bunch of edits in 2013, where I notice I added, among much else, that the wheel probably had 24 spokes. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
OK then you're off the hook. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I was kidding. That is the standard disclaimer. If these two editors really had no responsibility for the state of this article then why have they come out of the woodwork to protest so much? On the 13th of July before I began to rewrite the article, this was the state of the article. If you scroll to the bottom, you will see user:Pat's "simulation" of the original Sanchi capital with a 32-spoked halo slapped behind the lions. But Sir John Marshall, the Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India from 1902 to 1930 in his book on Sanchi says on page 102 in footnote 2: "2 In this capital the lions did not support a 'wheel of the Law' {dharma-chakra), as they did at Sarnath."
So what gives @Johnbod: if John Marshall is good for making irrelevant brownie points about how old the primitive relief art is, is he not good enough to for you to distance yourself from user:Pats many splendored "simulations?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
"If these two editors really had no responsibility for the state of this article then why have they come out of the woodwork to protest so much?" Seriously? You may not know much about art history, but you know how Wikipedia works. This is one of currently 33,876 articles on my watchlist, and I may or may not turn up to check any edit. I presume it is also on your watchlist. The edit history shows it is usually others who revert the many inappropriate drive-by edits. But on anything relating to Indian art, an edit to the talk page by you is a thick column of smoke over the redwood forest, that sets the flashing lights & sirens off, given Talk:Priest-King_(sculpture), Talk:Buddha_Preaching_his_First_Sermon_(Sarnath), and Talk:Pashupati seal and others. Anyone tempted to take F&F's comments here very seriously should study those, where the same patterns are evident. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't make any difference. Why are you and user:Pat so worked up now when you weren't for an aeon before? Why is user:Pat in a tizzy about 32 spokes appearing and the lion capital of Chiang Mai not appearing, when the same 24-spoked lion capital been in this article (only nominally watched by you and him) for years?Why is it that everyone gets their epiphanies when I begin to edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
As for where my allegiance and knowledge lies, it is quite the opposite. It has never been to Wikipedia, only to the sources. I may or may not have in depth knowledge about a particular topic area, but I can in short order find the sources comprehensively Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
PS And @Johnbod: I respect you. I had a cordial relationship with you for years and still do for the most part. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
And John Marshall continues: "If these lions are compared with the neighbouring lion-capitals of the South Gateway, their vast superiority will be at once apparent, and the question may well be asked, how this superiority is to be explained, seeing that Indian sculpture achieved such rapid development during the interval of two hundred years which separated them. The answer is: that while the South Gateway is a product of the indigenous Indian school, which had only recently emerged from a primitive state, this pillar of Ashoka is the handiwork of a foreign, probably Perso-Greek, sculptor, who had generations of artistic effort behind him."
We can disregard Marshall's judgments about the primitive and the Persian, but he does mention other capital of 200 years later on the gateway. My question is: is it the same as the one I've posted below the 600 CE capital? If it is, then the diagonal presentation had already appeared 200 years after Ashoka. Look I don't have any dog in this race. I've taken a look at the modern sources. The surmounting wheel at Sarnath is mentioned no doubt but modern sources don't reconstruct it. I'm essentially attempting to say there's is not enough evidence for a reliable reconstruction. If the glove don't fit, then you must acquit. As simple as that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Qualified Yes. Readers will benefit from a visual representation of how the subject was originally built as part of a complete column; it's the fundamental context for the subject. The fact that only a damaged capitol remains does lead to some debate about speculations about several notable details, but that doesn't mean we must prohibit all representations of reconstruction. Several features of the full column - such as the wheel and the column itself - are described in text; the purpose of images in articles is to provide readers a visual summary of the text to help quick and easy understanding - reinforcing the text. We should include the column and wheel in one or more images, though of course clearly stating in the captions they depict speculation on given details. (In articles on dinosaurs, we're currently in the process of adding images depicting them with feathers, even though much of this is still being debated by scholars.)
The reason for my !vote being qualified comes from the current overabundance of images in the article. There's so many, the impact of the images is being lost. I would like to see some effort put towards removing at least as many images as we add here. (Though this is is probably best served as a separate discussion.) --A D Monroe III(talk) 14:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
It is a valid point, but the Dinosaur example is not the most appropriate. In this instance (in addition to the contemporaneous lion capital at Sanchi which did not have a surmounting wheel) there already are quite a few examples of other lion capitals which began to appear a couple of centuries later. They attempted to model the original or the spirit of the original. (Please see the Legacy section which I will soon populate with words.) There are modern attempts, again in the letter and the spirit.
The analog in the bird dinosaur example would be, the preexisting fossil or other evidence showing everything except the feet or showing varying number of claws/talons and you were presenting a sketch purporting to show each foot had seven based on the ruminations by dubious scholars of long ago.
On the FA India if someone tried to cite anything to a nationalist historian of a lifetime ago, the edit wouldn't last a New York minute. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
@A D Monroe III:See for example this modern stylized Lion Capital in Anuradhapura, a Buddhist UNESCO World Heritage site in Sri Lanka.
View the "addorsed diagonal" presentation of the wheel (i.e. its vertical plane separating two neighboring lions from their addorsed twins) not one lion from the other three (as shown in the RfC statement) @RegentsPark: FYI
PS Anuradhapura is where the Emperor Ashoka's daughter or granddaughter (I forget) took a sapling of the original Mahabodhi Tree (under which the Buddha is described in the Pali (and other) canon to have attained enlightenment. In the late 19th-century—when the original tree in Bodh Gaya, Bihar, India, had died long before, the temple there gutted to near rubble, and its votive models for the ancient Buddhist pilgims, picked up by the clueless Hindu peasants of the Bihar countryside for worship in their Hindu home shrines—it was the British, the Sri Lanakans (then Ceylonese) and Burmese (now Myanmar-ese) who put together then resources and restored the temple, now a UNESCO World Heritage Site. A sapling from a later-generation tree from Anuradhapura was brought to Bodhgaya and planted. And today, tourists from India and around the world, for that matter, think it is the original.
Politicians of India make frequent appearances gloating at their nations ancient heritage, but the handful of Buddhists that remain in India are the untouchables who converted to Buddhism in the 1950s: their daughters get raped quite commonly by the Hindus in rural India. We have to be very careful in these Buddhism related pages on WP; there is a nonstop attempt by India- and Hindu-POV editors to spin Buddhism in the way they think is appropriate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with a "better" image of speculative reconstruction, but I'm not sure what criteria we'd use to determine that, and I don't think it's that important anyway. Any such image involves some speculation; as long as the main elements of the wheel and column are included, and the fact that it represents speculation is clearly stated in the caption, it successfully provides our readers useful context for the subject. So far, there's only one actual WP image has been formally proposed, and I certainly favor that over none at all. A D Monroe III(talk) 21:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I was not attempting to give the most appropriate example of images of speculative reconstruction; it wouldn't be worth my effort to try, as each article is unique, of course (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). I merely gave the first example that came to mind; there are countless examples all over WP -- that's my point. A D Monroe III(talk) 21:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but maybe not this specific image. If there is substantive counter-image differing in finer details it could be displayed alongside. A graphical representation is important for understanding.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Replica of Sarnath lion capital in Chiang Mai, Thailand
@לילך5: One might ask: why is the initiator of the RfC proposing an outsize 2-dimensional sketch when a three-dimensional one has existed for years in Chiang Mai, Thailand? Outsize? You might ask. Well, the excavator of the Lion Capital, F. O. Oertel, says in his report, page 69, the lion capital is 7 ft tall, the wheel above 2 3/4 feet in diameter and the pillar 27 1/2 feet. If you examine the proposed graphical representation, the pillar is 39 feet tall, i.e. 50% taller. In contrast, the Chiang Mai pillar conforms perfectly to Oertel's proportions. Its picture was in this article for years, until the initiator had the notion that the wheel up top should have 32 spokes not 24.
The excavator did say the number of spokes judging from the stubs on the wheel fragments was "apparently 32." But what do readers notice first, the proportions, which are correct in the Chiang Mai pillar and outsize in the proposed graphical representation, or the number of spokes which almost no one counts? And there already are historical examples showing both 32 and 16 spokes in the soon to be expanded Legacy section. Go figure. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
In this case, since the proposal is to include an image of speculative reconstruction, a line drawing ("2-dimensional") may be better than a photograph ("3-dimensional"); a photograph tends to give the immediate impression that it's "real" (a fully accurate depiction of the article subject), while a drawing automatically implies it's something imagined by the artist. And, again, as long as the caption makes clear the nature of the speculation, I don't think the specific details in the speculative reconstruction are that important. -- A D Monroe III(talk) 15:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
In that case, @A D Monroe III: why not something that will really edify?
Counter proposal:A schematic reconstruction of the *:::Lion capital of Ashoka at Sarnath based on the measurements and estimates of the excavator, F. O. Oertel, 1908? I've done this quickly, as I have the Darjeeling FAR and TFA coming up, and am flat out of time, but you get the idea. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
PS Note, one lion has a lower jaw missing, which we cannot reconstruct. No disrespect is meant, but that is the nature of archaeology or for that matter fossil hunting Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm impressed and appreciate the effort put in this, especially given limited time. I prefer the original proposal, however. This new image relies on several specifics stated in text that give details that are mostly just distracting from the overall purpose of using an image in the first place. I also don't understand the reason for including multiple copies of the capital, excluding mounting the wheel atop the capital, and insisting that one lion be reconstructed without its jaw. -- A D Monroe III(talk) 18:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Support/Yes The illustration is reliably sourced and deserves a place on the article as proposed. The article is relatively not too big and surely needs more information about such illustrations. Agletarang (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment Maybe, both Pataliputra and F&F can try summarizing their respective arguments in no more than 500 words? I doubt that any uninvolved editor will bother to read through the mountain of verbiage in this section and above. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam: You can simply read my opening statement to this RfC above "Yes, of course (nominator)...": it is about 300 words + refs, and it has all the essentials. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 20:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment I have voted no above. But since the upper wheel is speculative, only published RS images (or their high fidelity reproduction) should be used. Any diagram that is original would be WP:OR. Chaipau (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Chaipau: I am afraid we cannot fairly say that "the upper wheel is speculative": all major sources affirm its existence and even its positionning, see for example the "definitive" Asher: "Even more pointedly referring to the Buddha's sermon, is the large stone wheel whose rim was supported on the backs of the four addorsed lions" in Asher, Frederick M. (25 February 2020). Sarnath: A Critical History of the Place Where Buddhism Began. Getty Publications. p. 75. ISBN978-1-60606-616-4.. As to the size and number of spokes, all reliable sources that go into this level of detail mention about 1 meter in diameter and 32 spokes, based on the archaeological report or the archaeological remains in the Sarnath Museum [23]. Finally, the illustration being proposed is entirely based on RS illustrations, please see again the details in my opening statement. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 18:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
It is speculative because there is no original representation of the wheel. The constraint this imposes is straightforward. You should provide a visual depiction that has been RS published, and not provide your own details that do not appear in published RS sources. This should also be WP:DUE since, you admit, there is a variation in the speculations. If you provide details beyond what is published, that would be WP:OR. Chaipau (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Chaipau: What is important is that what you call "speculations" (here actually: archaeological reconstructions) are made by reliable sources, either textually or through drawings. It is then our job at Wikipedia to reflect these reliables sources as accurately as possible (without "copying" them , which would lead to copyright issues). Then, could you describe specifically which parts or details of the proposed drawing would fall "beyond what is published" in your opinion? पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 05:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Since there is a history of visual enhancements via photo-editing software, we should expressly avoid them. We should be clear that only those visual depictions are made which are already reported in RS. I think this requirement is in line with the opinion at WP:RS/N. Chaipau (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@Chaipau: This is exactly why I have taken the pain to specially develop a drawing for this reconstruction, instead of the initial photographic reconstruction similar to that from the Sarnath Museum [24]. The proposed drawing is entirely based on Reliable Sources, which you can consult directely in my opening statement. You are right with the general principle that "details beyond what is published" should be avoided, but as far as I know, every detail is sourced from the drawings from reliable sources, and backed-up by RS textual evidence. If any detail seems problematic in your view, please point it out concretely. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 12:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I am afraid a visual depiction is very powerful, as has been pointed out, and Wikipedia should not insert itself into these speculations. Describing them in the text is fine---within limits set by RS and DUE. Chaipau (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@Chaipau: These are serious academic reconstructions, based on objective archaeological data, not just "empty speculations". Reporting the work of academics is what we do on Wikipedia, be it in textual, graphical or photographical form, as long as we do not simply copy their work slavishly (this would constitute copyright infringement) but properly "paraphrase" and "adapt" them. The proposed drawing is completely consistent with these principles. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 11:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Sure, do report from RS but in the same form and within the limits set by OR, SYNTH and DUE. This is all within the Wikipedia policies. Chaipau (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
You have provided this list of sources many times and they have been challenged. You will need to obtain consensus on their use. From my point of view, Agrawala is not RS for this since it presents the top Dharmachakra as a fact. Tomory shows the Dharmachakra in dotted lines, but the number of spokes is 24, not 32. Irwin places the wheel much higher, and they do not show 24 spokes, let alone 32. I do not consider the brochure as RS for this purpose---nevertheless they show 24 spokes, not 32. The pictures you have drawn OTOH (e.g. [30]) have 32 spokes, and not 24 as shown in most of the sources you have provided above.
This brings us to the original objection I had, that there are too many variations in the speculated images that differ in number of spokes, placement, etc. You cannot represent one and ignore the others. And showing even two of the various speculations are one too many, since obviously the original capital did not come in any variation at all. This problem is not solved even if you were to redraw your diagram(s) with 24 spokes. Chaipau (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, your position is now clearer. There will always be slight variations among academics of course (by definition a "reconstruction" involves a level of interpretation), but, as afar as I know, all sources agree to the existence, the general shape and size of the wheel (determined through archaeological reconstructions), all sources agree that the wheel was located axially on top of the lions (because of the 8" shaft hole appearing between them), perpendicularly to one of the lions (because of similar depictions at Sanchi in particular [31][32]), resting on the napes of two opposing lions (except for 1 source, Irwin, elevating it slightly above on its supporting shaft). As to the number of spokes, the vast majority of reliable textual sources (my introductory statement) confirm the proper number is 32 spokes, based on archaeological reconstructions visible in the Sarnath Museum (secondary source in Huntington, p.90 for example). This provides ample academic consensus for the general visual aspect of the original capital and corresponds best to the reconstructions by Agrawala [33] and the Sarnath Museum brochure p.2 (to which the proposed reconstruction drawing is virtually identical), but we can of course describe possible variations in a note. The Wikipedia community will make this judgement, this is what this WP:RfC is for. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 10:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
If sources agree to the existence, then it can be fairly and accurately represented in text. Images create problems. Chaipau (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Formal counter proposal: Let us keep the article in its current state at the time of this post. If someone wants to show a reconstruction of the capital, they can add a picture to the gallery and add their sources or short text in the footnote. I have done something similar in the caption of the Dominion of India postage stamp issued on 15 August 1947, which after all is a reconstruction of the Lion Capital. As for the pillar, there already is a page Pillars of Ashoka, edited by the proposer, where they have proposed many reconstructions including the lion capitals. Any extensive discussions of the Sarnath lion capital's pillar should be conducted on that page. However, they may post a picture with a short explanation and sources in a footnote in the caption, in the gallery as explained above. Discussions of the Republic of India's emblem with a Sanskrit shloka-fragment below it should go to State Emblem of India. But reconstructions do not belong to the article body of this article, i.e. in a text section above the gallery. Otherwise, we are essentially sanctioning original research. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
1) You write "Let us keep the article in its current state at the time of this post", a state in which "all have been added by me (...) and all have been paraphrased by me"[34]... Well, on Wikipedia we do not "freeze" an article to any given state preferred by any single individual, especially when he has deleted all previous content, regularly reverted alternative contributions, and rewritten everything to his own liking: this would be typical WP:OWN. If you wish to create your own unalterable version, you should create your own website or blog, or publish books. But Wikipedia is a constantly evolving collaborative endeavour, nobody will ever agree to "freeze" anything to a single version.
2) The closer of this RfC will notice that your position has now moved from Strong no[35] to something like "Yes, if it is in the gallery" ("If someone wants to show a reconstruction of the capital, they can add a picture to the gallery and add their sources or short text in the footnote."[36]). This is essentially an admission that your repeated claims of OR or UNDUE were wrong (we don't include OR or UNDUE content in galleries either). At this point, a majority of respondents have already expressed their support for the proposed referenced drawing, as an especially adequate way to illustrate the textual content of the "Description" paragraph as proposed, not for it to be "put aside" in a gallery: let's respect the voice of the community and move forward.पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 06:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam: Here is a short (less than 500 words explanation): I began to edit this page on July 14, 2022, when I noticed some unusual activity on the page in my watchlist. This was the state it was in. I scrolled down, and it stated, "The capital was originally crowned by a 'Wheel of Dharma' ... with 24 spokes" I scrolled down further and noticed this section. There was a picture of the Sanchi lions (contemporaries of the Sarnath) and reconstruction with a wheel atop. The caption said, "The capital of the Sanchi pillar of Ashoka, as discovered (left), and simulation of original appearance (right). Sanchi Museum.[11] 250 BCE." I clicked on the picture and looking at its history realized the proposer of this RfC had pasted the Sarnath lion heads on the Sanchi lion torsos. I looked at the references at the end, and this was their list. At that point, I became impatient and began to edit the article. You have already seen what state it was in. It is now in this state and it uses these references. All have been added by me except Harle, which was there before, and all have been paraphrased by me. This is not to brag, but to state that I have actually added something of value. Soon after I began to edit the article, the proposer appeared and (through means which you can read about upstairs) began to change the emphasis of the article. I took them to RS/N. The editor who answered there, finally made a post here, saying, "@पाटलिपुत्र: none of your photo-style "reconstitutions" are appropriate for WP, including the one you did of Sanchi." At this point, the proposer changed their tune and began this RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Arbirary break
No This is bordering on WP:OR. A lion capital exists, a part of a wheel exists. Scholars generally support the view that they belong together but it is uncertain how exactly they were placed together or what the capital looked like in situ. Selecting one encoding of this placement and placing it on Wikipedia is doing our readers a disservice because the image will make far greater lasting impression then is warranted. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree uer:RegentsPark. This was my original position. I was attempting to be flexible by proposing something that met the proposal one-tenth-way, relegating it to footnoes of the captions of the gallery. But on second thoughts, I agree with you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I too agree with u:RegentsPark. This has been my observation as well. My opinion is that we not use visuals to depict speculations, especially in this article. Chaipau (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The proposed reconstruction (black and white drawing) is a faithfull illustration of the reconstructions offered in the references detailed in my introductory statement above, and directly accessible online. If variations there are, we could list them in a detailed subnote. There is no WP:OR here. By the way, User:RegentsPark, are you voting twice in this RfC? [37] Shouldn't your two "No" votes be coalesced into one? पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 04:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
&::Thanks for the heads up Pat. I forgot I'd already !voted (and there is too much to read here!). I've changed the first !vote to a comment with a note and an apology. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Temporary tally I will note that at this point of the RfC, 7 users approve, and 3 are against. I intend to ask for closure in a few days, when it is clear that no further input is forthcoming. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 04:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment The nominator has been altering their first statement without a signature. When I attempted to refactor what they had done to properly place the addition at the end in a new post, they haven't allowed me. They have now added the 17th source still without a signature:
Asher, Frederick M. (2020). Sarnath: A Critical History of the Place Where Buddhism Began. Getty Publications. p. 76. ISBN978-1-60606-616-4. Asher presents as a "copy of the Sarnath pillar" a photograph of the modern reconstruction at the Thai temple of Wat Umong [38], complete with the topmost wheel resting on the napes of lions. The Thai replica is artistically mediocre, smaller and thicker than the original Ashokan pillar, and the top wheel only has 24 spokes instead of the archaeologically-confirmed 32 spokes, but Asher thus confirms the general appearance of the original Sarnath capital and pillar according to modern scolarship. (this reference and its rationale added by the nominator @ 10:42, 14 August)
My reply: Asher also says in the same paragraph: "Thus, copies of the pillar were produced far from India — for example, at Wat Umong in Chiang Mai, Thailand, where the pillar is said to date to the time of King Mangrai in the thirteenth century (figure 3.3), and at Mandalay Hill in Myanmar, where there is a much more recent copy. A reasonably accurate copy stands at the Todaiji, in Nara, Japan, ..."
Nominator's 1,174-word "Yes Of Course" with 16 sources at 06:32 28 July 2022
Vote 1
Clear No 08:37, 28 July 2022
Vote 2
Contingent yes, based on resolving objections of Vote 1 09:45, 28 July 2022
Vote 3
Clear No 10:50, 28 July 2022
Vote 4
Leaning yes 23:50, 28 July 2022
Vote 5
Qualified yes 14:20, 29 July 2022
Vote 6
Yes, but maybe not this specific image 04:29, 31 July 2022
Vote 7
Clear Yes 16:36, 31 July 2022
Vote 8
Clear No 20:41, 10 August 2022
Comment
about a mini-gallery with one or possibly more reconstructions 20:07, 28 July 2022
Note by Fowler&fowler
Although it has become customary for nominators to add a yes, as nominator to their extended RfC statement, they don't really count. Why? Because if no one responded, a score of 1 to 0 would give no indication of support. It is the other commenters who are responding to the nominator's statement whose 1,174 words, including 16 sources, were added within one minute of filing the RfC. I certainly thought it was a part of the RfC. Responding became forbidding. Had it been the unvarnished RfC, it would have been a different matter.
As anyone will see the votes are nuanced. Many are no longer talking about the picture being added to the Discussion section.
At the very least this needs to be renominated by the closer for further input and advertised at WT:INDIA and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism where the expertise lies, but not now by the nominator. Perhaps it might even be better to have the vote anew in the renomination with those who have voted here adding (voted before) to their vote. We are all a little wiser after the first round. and the RfC will not be so confusing.
Also, in my view, the closing should be done by an administrator. This is a contentious page. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I must agree that it is far too soon to be requesting a close here. An RfC typically runs for a minimum of 30 days, unless the issue has become moot, or there is a clear avalanche of support from experienced editors favouring one approach to the content over all other proposed alternatives, new participation has slowed to a crawl, and the closer can see that the endorsed approach is consistent with broader community consensus. That is clearly not the case here: the !votes are roughly even in support for the two options, participation is ongoing, the issue is a complicated one with no abundantly clear answer under policy, and we are only half way through the first month with the first tag up. If anything, I can easily imagine this RfC being listed for a second month. Closure would be premature, and I doubt any experienced admin or community member would close this particular discussion at two weeks. I would recommend against even requesting it, in fact.
But there's a more vital piece of advice I have to offer here. Fowler&fowler, पाटलिपुत्र, in my opinion, you both need to pull way back here and give this discussion some space to unfold. There isn't a single !vote (or indeed comment) in this entire thread that one of you hasn't responded to, and all but one has been responded to by both of you, carpet-bombing style. In fact, often you are both adding to your own additional comments (or responding to eachother's) before anyone has had a chance to respond to your original thoughts on their !vote. Despite the fact that there are seven respondents to this RfC, posts from just the two of you account for more than 95% of the content on this talk page, often in the form of long walls of text that are making the discussion effectively impossible to track and engage with. In short, this has become one of the most WP:Bludgeon-y RfCs I've ever seen (out of more than a thousand that I've been randomly bot-summoned to in the last ten years).
What's more, there's a fair bit of WP:OWN apparent here to--not going to say who seems to be the worst in this regard, because I don't think that will be helpful, but suffice it to say I think it is apparent to any FRS respondents at this point. I think it is fair to say you are both on the record here as regards just about every possible facet of the dispute, so my strong advice is that you both let discussion evolve a little more organically from here, if you want there to be any chance of a useful consensus outcome, and to each avoid accusations of disruption, because it really is getting to be a bit much at this point. If you can't see yourselves not commenting further, I really would advise at least picking your battles here and not replicating points you have already made at length, even if a respondent or your rhetorical opponent seems to be missing those points. SnowRise let's rap 02:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Incidentally, I am considering changing my own !vote, because it was predicated on the belief that the precise reconstruction proposed came directly from an RS. Or to be more clear, I was confused as to whether this was the case from the start, but reviewing the file descriptions at the time suggested to me that the precise reconstruction was to be found in an RS (or multiple such sources). But it now seems to me that this was not the case, which is likely to push me from leaning yes, to leaning no on the question of inclusion. Even if the reconstructions proposed here are extremely faithful to those found in the RS, it is still an entirely different matter to add an image developed by one of our own editors. However, there are still arguments militating for inclusion, so I will need to try to parse the now incredibly dense record of this discussion further before I formally switch my !vote. SnowRise let's rap 02:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Snow Rise I'm not proud of my long replies. And certainly in any future vote I'll be pithy. All I can say in defense is that this had been going on for a long time before the RfC. I was being asked again and again to point out the problems with the sources. I responded several times that it property belonged to RS/N. I was told: RS/N requires exhaustive and inconclusive discussion on the talk page first. In the end, out of frustration, I opened: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_380#Mauryan_Art_(unpublished,_1952)_and_Flickr_picture. The answer by SamuelRiv (very articulate fellow; made me a little jealous) was good enough for me, but it kept being prolonged. Eventually they posted on the article's talk page, and told my interlocutor, @पाटलिपुत्र: none of your photo-style "reconstitutions" are appropriate for WP, including the one you did of Sanchi. The Sanchi capital has more than enough surviving structure that the reader can infer the size and composition of the crowning wheel, in my opinion. Also, all such images need to be labeled as "illustrations" or "photoillustrations" (there might be a new term, but those are the terms I learned) -- the Commons "retouched" template is not sufficient, nor is the non-standard term "reconstitution". ...SamuelRiv (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC) I jumped in joy, thinking it was the end. But the next thing I knew, this RfC began, and I groaned. The only saving grace was that I was working most of the time on Darjeeling, which was a joy to write. (It will appear as TFA on August 15.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
That may all be true, and it may even be the most accurate representation of the history here, but even if it is, nobody would be able to figure that out, because of the mess that has been made of the page from the two of you endlessly debating increasingly arcane details of the research of particular primary authorities. Look, the two of you are making this entirely more complicated than it needs to be. Either the image here is as a free-use image directly from a reliable source, in which case it is almost certainly appropriate, or it is a reconstruction generated by one of our editors, in which case it probably is not. Let me be blunt: if we had a free-use image that definitely came from an RS, there is almost no chance it would stay out longterm, and I definitely would not support its exclusion: I honestly don't care even a little about your opinion of this researcher's methods versus those of another, and what is likely in your opinion to be the most accurate conclusions about the original dimensions and orientations of the various elements of the historical capital. Because those are fundamentally not the kinds of questions we are meant to be asking as Wikipedia editors, nor are those relevant opinions.
In short, one of three things are true here: the image comes from a reliable source and is substantially unaltered and free-use, in which case your efforts to keep it out based on your complex opinions about it's veracity are original research; or the image is mostly Pat's creation, based on descriptions (textual or visual) in other works, in which case it is WP:SYNTHESIS; or the image is entirely accurate, but non-free, in which case it is a WP:COPYVIO. It's not any more complicated than that, and the tens of thousands of KB of text above are mostly just useless armchair scholar one-upsmanship, which is all but useless to the FRS respondents here, because a) most of us are nothing approaching experts in ancient Brahamanic architectural techniques and are not made more certain about which of you is right by the fiftieth verbose post any more than we were by the first, and b) (and I cannot stress this enough) it is functionally irrelevant to the policy determination here. SnowRise let's rap 05:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
It is actually none of those things. Its simply that its inclusion in the article is WP:UNDUE because it is based on very obscure sources; that's why 16 are needed in the RfC statement. That was SamuelRiv's first response at RS/N. The article, on the other hand, as it stands right now has about dozen modern 21st-century sources. None have a reconstruction. They mention a wheel surmounting the capital, but that's it. Nothing else. That we already do in the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler's hand drawing from a photograph published in 2020: "A replica of the Sarnath capital at Wat Umong in Chiang Mai, Thailand"Just to be factual, actually, your "definitive" source Asher (Asher, Frederick M. (25 February 2020). Sarnath: A Critical History of the Place Where Buddhism Began. Getty Publications. p. 76. ISBN978-1-60606-616-4.) goes as far as showing a full-page photograph of a real-life modern reconstruction [39] (the Ashoka pillar reconstruction in Wat Umong) in his book. He also labels it as "a copy of the Sarnath pillar" [40], confirming that the Thai replica reflects in his opinion the general shape of the original Sarnath pillar. This shows perfectly well that Asher has no problem with reconstructions and with publishing images of them, and is confident that the Thai replica broadly reflects the design of the Sarnath capital, complete with the arrangement of its topmost wheel. And of course, when describing the original Sarnath capital, he confidently mentions "the large stone wheel whose rim was supported on the backs of the four addorsed lions"[41]. The only issue is that the Wat Umong reconstruction is a mediocre modern replica (like many others), with poor proportions (smaller and thicker than the original) and rough artistry, and has 24 spokes instead of the historical 32 spokes for the topmost wheel. You even made a drawing of it and promoted it: File:Lion Capital Wat Umong Chiang Mai 13 C copy of Sarnath 250 BCE.jpg (attached), but in addition to the fact that this replica is archaeologically problematic, your drawing constitutes a copyright infringement due to the perfect similarity of the outline with Asher's original photograph. My own drawing is really not very different, except that its proportions and caracteristics (32 spokes) are based on RS recontructions and archaeological knowledge, and it is free of copyright. So no, modern sources do not have problems with showing reconstructions of the Lion pillar of Ashoka, and how come your copyright-infringing drawing of a defective reconstruction is OK, and my copyright-free, archaeologically-correct, RS-based, reconstruction drawing is not? Hopefully my last post here for the next few days, but the facts are the facts... पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 13:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Per Snow Rise's advice. I will not be engaging you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Neither will I. I've already expressed my intention to standby a few days (as much as possible) while the rest of the community gives additional feedback, but I restored the content from the post above which you deleted. I'm sure we can do this! Cheers पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 10:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments and responses below
I am perfectly fine with letting this RfC run longer. It's been 2 weeks already, and the tally at this point is already quite significant, but we can of course keep things going. Let's continue the discussion and revisit 2 weeks from now per User:Snow Rise. Let's not forget though that the RfC procedure is flexible, depending on its advancement: "The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time, and one of them can remove the rfC template." and "If the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion."[42]. Thanks पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 04:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: In respect to your counter-tally [43], as far as I know, the vote of the nominator does count as much as the vote of other participants, so you cannot just throw it away. Also, you are forgetting to take into account User:Johnbod's position: "The article should have (...) at least one "reconstruction". But it should made very clear that they are all tentative/possible/speculative."[44], which is indeed an affirmation of support for a reconstruction, or several reconstructions, provided they are labelled as such (RfCs are not just resolved by "yes" and "no" and positions expressed in different ways also count for the closer). पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 04:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
They said mini gallery, not the description section. It is included. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Fine, so User:Johnbod's comment should count as support for one or several reconstructions (in a mini gallery, with proper labeling), it is not just a "Comment about reconstructions" as you portray it. And please take my own yes vote into account as well in your temporary tally. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 04:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
My friendly colleagues, this too is what I am talking about above.. What do you think is being accomplished by this pedantic bickering about which !votes count and for what weight? An experienced closer is going to use their own best judgement to distill a consensus result (if any) from the forgoing discussion. They aren't going to get caught up in a rough count, because that's not how this process works. And let me 1,000% clear about this, as someone who has participated in many, many RfCs over the years and closed dozens: if this discussion ended today, there could be no possible other interpretation than "no consensus" at this time: the !votes are all over the place in terms of which approach they support, how firmly they support them, and the particulars of why. Bickering about this, especially at this stage, and especially when you two are already arguing about literally everything else here (and have been asked by more than one respondent to slow it down) will not move the needle here. It will only make the process more painful for those trying to engage and break the deadlock.
Honestly, this is the last I am going to say on the matter, but I again urge you, for your own self-interest if nothing else, to take a breather and both let the page alone for a while--ideally a few days. Because at this stage I honestly feel like this is destined for ANI if you two can't take a pause for the cause. I say that as someone with no skin in the game and who has not intention of pursuing the matter myself, but who knows the signs that a situation is about to attract attention. WP:DROPTHESTICK for a bit or I genuinely think you are both likely to regret it. SnowRise let's rap 06:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: I will gladly follow the advice and intend to take a break from this page for a few days, while the Wikipedia community can further weigh in. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 06:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Nonetheless, he has a point that F&F has been blatently misrepresenting my comments. But you are correct that this will close as no consensus. I'm not sure this will "attract attention" - this is just the latest of a number of very similar rows initiated and kept going by F&F over the last year or so - see Talk:Priest-King_(sculpture), Talk:Buddha_Preaching_his_First_Sermon_(Sarnath), and Talk:Pashupati seal . He was already warned over this article some 2 weeks ago, with no discernable effect. F&F has built up a lot of goodwill with senior editors over the years by beating off persistent Hindutva nonsense on various Indian political and general articles, but his conduct over the last year or so must be draining this away. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Those articles, two from the Indus Valley Civilisation (back in capital C because of my efforts) predating the birth of Hinduism by 2,000 years, had nothing to do with Hindutva, only with poorly sourced writing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
That's not entirely true for the IVC ones, especially the seal, but my point is you should stick to what you do best, and try to restrain your inventive (especially when your arguments are skating on very thin ice). Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Johnbod, I'll tell you exactly the same thing I told Fowler&fowler himself a couple of weeks back: this talk page is not in any way, shape, or form the appropriate place to be broaching the topic of perceived longterm behavioural issues of other editors, even be they active here, and even if you think this article is a part of the pattern. If you think there is problematic behaviour (here or elsewhere) necessitating oversight or discussion, then you are always free to take the matter to an admin or the community at large at WP:ANI, or another community discussion space fit for that purpose. None of this is advancing the content issue in dispute, nor improving the article in any way, which are the sole purposes upon which comments on this talk page are meant to be focused. Rather it is just extending the existing disruption further. Please keep efforts here on point to content inquiries alone, and save the peripheral behavioural/broader concerns for the appropriate forums. SnowRise let's rap 18:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Here is the schematic reconstruction of the topmost wheel, as presented in the Sarnath Museum, with actual fragments recovered from the excavation site. There are three large fragment of the rim, suggesting the approximate diameter and curvature of the original wheel, complete with around 19 "spiggots" or regularly spaced fragments on their inner periphery, showing the approximate spacing and layout of the spokes, and three free spoke fragments. The museum reconstruction gives a total of 32 spokes, for a diameter of around 1 meter. The material is the same shiny polished sandstone as the rest of the capital. It is thought that it was fixed by a shaft on top of the four lions, because of the 8" shaft hole that has been found in the central portion between them. This is the actual archaeological basis for all the secondary sources describing the original structure of the capital (see nominator statement at the start), with its 32-spoked, 1 meter in diameter, topmost wheel. References:
Fragments of the big wheel surmounting the lion capital at Sarnath found by F. O. Oertel in 1905
We've already had a perfectly acceptable sketch of the fragments of the bigger wheel (made on 22 July 2022) found at Sarnath by F. O. Oertel based on his specifications in the article. I took it out because of some concern in this RfC about too many pictures. I have thereafter limited the pictures to no more than two in each section. I don't see why there is a need for a picture based on a museum reconstruction whose specific form is not supported by peer-reviewed sources.
Just before I began to edit this article on 14 July 2022, (see here) you had been copying and pasting ghosts of the lion heads from Sarnath on the headless lions of Sanchi and had a 24-spoked wheel hovering over both. Below that image, there was an Ashokan pillar in Thailand with a 24-spoked wheel.
After I posted at RS/N and after SamuelRiv told you both there and on this talk page above that those kinds of sources were WP:UNDUE and additions of those color images were not an acceptable practice, you changed your proposal to that of a black and white 32-spoked wheel.
There is a discrepancy between the diameters. Oertel's is 0.84 metres (2+3⁄4 ft). Yours is 1 metre (3.3 ft) I am not sure what "spiggots or regularly spaced fragments" are. Are they the ends of spigot-and-socket type joints? If so, the spokes seemed to be aiming at the empty spaces between the spigots. On the right there seem to be more spigots than spokes. All very unhelpful.
There are 28 sources in the article. Of these, 24 have been published in the last 30 years and are high-quality. I have also added Oertel's report and Sahni's museum catalogue both from a century ago. And there is Irwin's 1990 article. Only the two century-old articles and (perhaps) Irwins mention 32 spokes. None of the remaining 24 sources, which include Frederick Asher's book on Sarnath and Lars Fogelin's on the archaeology of Indian Buddhism, mention "32." Some mention a surmounting wheel, for sure, which we do as well, but nothing about the spokes. We are talking about additions that have the support of (no more than) one in 25 modern sources. It is a staggering indictment of your edits, staggeringly against them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Apologies SnowRise for disregarding your advice, but this editor has already filed an unsuccessful 3RR against me and has been advised there to post on the talk page. I have to reply in order to avoid giving the impression that I am not engaging them here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
2) Diameter of the wheel: "about 1 meter". Various sources have various estimates: Huntington has 1.07 meters "The wheel that once topped the great Ashokan pillar at Sarnath had 32 spokes" ... '"1.07 meters in diameter approximately" in Huntington, John (1990). "Understanding the 5th century Buddhas of Sarnath"(PDF). Orientations, 40: 90, Fig.8. Since the diameter is an estimate based on reconstructions of the pieces, it seems obvious there will be slight variations between sources...
3) Number of spokes: 32. Many sources do not go into this level of detail, but those who do overwhelmingly confirm 32 spokes. I don't think you have provided a single reliable source claiming 24 spokes for the topmost wheel at this point. Most of your sources do not go into the details of the design of the lion capital and its topmost wheel, hence the lack of mention in most of them, but the archaeological facts are rather incontrovertible, and sourced (6 sources in my original statement above + Sarnath museum).
4) "Spiggots". My understanding is that what we are seeing on the inner periphery of the rim fragments are the small knobs between each spikes in the original design (and seen on most dharma wheels in art). These knobs (I do not know the technical term for them) are numerous and well polished, well aligned and well proportioned (not broken), so are not broken spoke fragments (except for one, which you are seeing in-between as an additional knob).
5) I trust a museum reconstruction is as worthy as any, provided it is labelled as such. Cheers पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 13:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Please don't misquote me. I have absolutely no interest in the number of spokes. Again loud and clear, "no interest" in the number of spokes. I mentioned them only to point out your inconsistency. Mentioning the number of spokes and making a big to-do over them is entirely undue and beyond a certain point a disruptive quest. The overwhelming (24 of 25) modern reliable academic sources do not mention the number of spokes. What I have posted above is not a reconstruction, only the sketch of a picture of the wheel fragments, along with Oertel's dimensions. The ASI is notorious for boosterism. Forget their museum labels, even their field reports, especially after the 1980s, are not considered reliable by archaeologists. Otherwise, everyone would be agreed that Lothal had a dock, and Lothal's report was published earlier. I think the main point here is that attempting to prove the "number" of spokes by pictures is both undue and unreliable in this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm, the fact that the Sarnath Museum reconstruction of the wheel is directly and unreservedly endorsed by such a modern and reliable source as historian of art John Huntington (1996) p.90, without any sources to the contrary, is sufficient to vouch for its quality. Your preferred sources may not mention the number of spokes for the most part, because they are rather generalist ones: most of them do not go into details of dimensions and design. But in a dedicated article about the Lion capital of Ashoka, it is perfectly legitimate on Wikipedia to go into details of design, specifications, academic reconstructions, close-ups of specific parts etc..., relying on specialist sources as necessary (history of art, archaeology, technology...) (look at Antikythera mechanism, Pascal's calculator, Zeppelin for example). These are object-specific articles, which customarily deserve a high-level of detail and precision, which no generalist sources will ever provide. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 16:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Sources do not provide evidence for non-existence of something. They simply don't mention the thing. As for your examples, you might as well add my Indian_mathematics#The_Sutra_genre and any book on Euclidean geometry. The diagrams in either are reconstructions, but the reconstructions are available in 24 out of 25 sources on those topics, not one of 25. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
"it is perfectly legitimate on Wikipedia to go into details of design, specifications, academic reconstructions, close-ups of specific parts etc... (Pat)
Absolutely. But what we can't do is WP:SYNTHESIZE information into a unique interpretation, and if it comes down to it, I do suspect that's the most likely consensus outcome here is that your proposed reconstruction is in fact SYNTH. If we had an actual reconstruction from an actual source that wasn't a copyvio, that would be one thing. All of your comparison images are imperfect matches, in inductive terms: the Antikythera mechanism images all seem to represent visualizations of a single proposed model. The second image in the zeppelin article does combine features that presumably lean on multiple sources: but we have lots of extant documentation in primary sourcing--indeed astronomically more than required to be satisfied of veracity--on how zeppelins are constructed. And that image concerns zeppelins generally, not a particular ancient Zeppelin of which only fragments remain. So you should feel highly motivated to compromise here, if possible.
"Sources do not provide evidence for non-existence of something." (Fowler&fowler)
Yes, a very valid argument. But it cuts both ways: you have ignored the absence-of-evidence-is-not-evidence-of-absence principle in dismissing the level of support for elements of Pat's take on the weight of certain claims. And honestly, your argument is no less predicated in your own verbose WP:Original research bluntly. You could be prevailing in keeping the content out simply by avoiding OR altogether, but instead you've engaged in a massive pedantic screed as two armchair archeologists, drowning out all other input by a factor of about 5:1, and now there is a very real chance new contributors, fatigued by this discussion and trying to draw conclusions from a massive pile of conjoined OR/SYNTH and take a lead from the trend in earlier !votes, will endorse Pat's perspective. So you too, should be highly motivated to compromise, if possible.
So, can I ask a question? (And please, please, if you do answer, try to keep the answer limited to one or two sentences max). Do I gather correctly that neither of you is in principle opposed to a user/editor-generated reconstruction based on multiple RS? Because, honestly, I'm not sure if I can agree that would be a good idea in this situation, but if it will move us past this loggerhead, perhaps we can start with what you agree on and build from there. Perhaps some sort of complex image showing variances in elements and possible combinations from across different sources? It would have to be very carefully approached, but if it illustrated some of the main elements of Capital and expressly notified the reader where elements were uncertain (and thus variable in the presented reconstructions), would that not add the facility that pat seeks to add, while also cautioning/not misleading the reader, as F&f is concerned about? Again, mostly just want to know if you agree to the idea of some sort of reconstruction in principle? SnowRise let's rap 21:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Forget the reconstruction, the very mention of 32 spokes is WP:UNDUEbeyond one sentence; this is that bizarre.
Here are the 25 listed by their publishers and year of publication, that say not a word about the number of spokes: 1) Fabrizio Serra Editore, 2014; 2) Cambridge University Press, 1995; 3) Getty Research Institute, 2020; 4) Wiley-Blackwell, 2011; 6) Oxford University Press, 2006; 7) Harvard University Press, 2020; 8) Bulletin of the Asia Institute, 1998; 9) BRILL, 2021; 10) Cambridge University Press, 2015; 11) Springer, 2021; 12) Oxford University Press, 2000; 13) Oxford University Press, 2006; 13) Oxford University Press, 2015; 14) Alkazi Collection of Photography, 2010; 15) Yale University Press, 1994; 16) Routledge, 2021; 17) Oxford University Press, 2001; 18) Routledge, 2021; 19) University of California Press, 2016; 20) Routledge, 2014; 21) Harvard University Press, 2017; 22) Princeton University Press, 2019; 23) Routledge, 2008; 24) Harvard University Press, 2012; 25) Routledge, 2021 [1996]. And only one Richard M. Eaton's book (which I added yesterday, so I was right about the 24) is not specifically about the lion capital, but about the end of Buddhism on the subcontinent and its various causes; it is employed in the history section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Not a word is said by them about the number of spokes. This whole quest is that bizarrely bizarre. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Btw, Snow Rise, what original research, bluntly or obliquely, are you accusing me of? Let's hear the details. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: In short, I do agree that showing reconstructions is legitimate and necessary in an object-specific article such as this one (per User:Johnbod above "The article should include at least one "reconstruction"). In my view, up to four possible images can be shown, if it is necessary to shown variations: the capital with topmost wheel, with one variation, and a reconstruction of the full pillar (nobody denies it was a pillar with a topmost wheel, including Fowler&fowler), and the reconstruction of the wheel from well-known archaeological remains by the Sarnath Museum (nobody denies there were 32 spokes, many confirm it [50][51][52][53][54][55]..., and F&F only says that most of his sources do not mention it). Actually, this is all very uncontroversial stuff. Fowler&fowler's only argument against reconstructions is that they are "non-existent" in his sources (except when Asher offers a photograph of a reconstruction [56] for example...). But this is because these are comparatively generalist sources that don't go into technical details, and barely even bother with showing one photograph of the Lion Capital. On the other hand, I have provided many other sources which do go into these details (Sarnath Museum, Huntington, Irwin, Agrawala, Tömöry etc... more than 20 sources [57]). For a low level article focusing on a single object such as this one, generalist sources are not sufficient, except for background: many other sources (design, technical, archaeological, history of art...) are necessary to cover the object with the level of detail it deserves, and which we customarily provide on Wikipedia (details of design, specifications, reconstructions, technical drawings, plans, close-ups of specific parts etc...) पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 05:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
All this Wikilawyering is useless. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. We can all search in Google Books for "sarnath" "lions" "thirty two" "spokes" and recover all your out-of-print books available in snippet view. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Where are their ISBNs of the ones that utter "32 spokes?" They don't have any. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
You can find most of the details (including ISBNs...) in my initital statement above [58], which apparently you have never bothered to read [59][60]....पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 04:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
User:पाटलिपुत्र Agrawala's books have been published by his son, without peer review. Quite a few were published years after his death in 1966. Would you like me to give you the details? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
If you use these sources. I will revert your edits and request you to make a case for your source on the talk page, as thus far you have given no evidence that they have had any independent peer-review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
However those of his books that are published independently are fine. One such is:
Agrawala, Vasudeva Sharan (1964). The Heritage of Indian Art. New Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
It has a section on Maurya Sculpture. It mentions the lion capital and makes quite a few interpretations. It talks about the surmounting wheel. But there is nothing about 32. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Actually Agrawala does mention the 32 spokes of the Sarnath pillar in this book: "The mahachakra on the top of the Sarnath capital also had 32 spokes."p.169 note 9 Let's reflect this in the article. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 15:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler:Vasudeva S. Agrawala (Ph.D.) was Curator at the Mathura Museum, Director of the Lucknow State Museum 8-9, "Professor & Head of the Department of Art and Architecture" at Benares Hindu University [61], and Superintendent of the Museums Branch, Archaeological Survey of India[62]. The two books used here are:
I have provided many primary and secondary sources describing the 32 spokes. If you are interested about disputing this point, can you at least provide reliable sources that actually challenge this fact, and claim that the archaeological remains actually correspond to 24 spikes? I have never seen any. As far as I know, this is completely uncontroversial.पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 10:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know all that. I just gave you a book of his published by the Publications Division which is a mark of his notability, but the two books above have been published by his son, without any peer review Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Prithivi Prakashan in Varanasi owned by his son Prithvi Kumar Agrawala. The father died in 1966.
The father's published and unpublished material was published by the son both just before and long after his death as in:
Agrawala V.S. (1969) The deeds of Harsha: Being a cultural study of Bāṇa’s Harshacarita. Varanasi, Prithivi Prakashan (see here)
Agrawala V.S. (1977) Gupta Art. Varanasi Prithivi Prakashan (see here, it says, edited by Prithvi < Agrawala)
Agrawala V. S. (1984) Varanasi seals and sealings, Prithivi Prakashan, Varanasi, (see here)
and it goes on and on. There seem to be at least a dozen books of the father published (or more likely republished) after his death by the son.
They included the notes of the fathers lectures to his MA classes at the Benares Hindu University. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Prithivi Prakashan is a publishing company, which also published many other books about India [63]. Do you have proof that "Prithivi Prakashan" was owned/managed by his son? This son Prithvi K. Agrawala was a PhD and a Lecturer of Ancient Indian Art at Benares University [64]. It substracts nothing to the fact that Vasudeva S. Agrawala was a prominent and respected academic. And how about the other publishing company Vishwavidyalaya Prakashan? And how about all the other sources that explain there were 32 spokes such as Oertel's report, Sahni's report, Huntington, Maxwell etc...[65]? Will you also claim that they amount to nothing? When all the while, you do not have a single source disputing this well-attested archaeological fact. You are creating controversy out of thin air again. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 11:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Oertel and Sahni are different. Oertel's is the excavator's report. The whole world of Sarnath scholarship pays attention to it. Same with Sahni. It is not Sahni per se, it is the Catalogue of the Museum of Archeology at Sarnath which again the whole world of Lion Capital scholarship has to pay attention to. Of course we will use them. They mention 32 and we do as well. But they don't reconstruct the original. That is your failing here. The sources you are rounding up to support your reconstruction are all fringe sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy to use Agrawala's Heritage of Indian Art, New Delhi, Publications Division, 1964 in the Symbolism section. But the other two are fringe. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
The Buddha preaching to the nobles of Kapilavastu, represented by a 32-spoked wheel. Sanchi, Western gateway architrave@Fowler&fowler: If you're happy to use this book by Agrawala, you'll be happy to see that he does mention the 32 spokes of the Sarnath pillar: "The mahachakra on the top of the Sarnath capital also had 32 spokes."p.169 note 9. Let's reflect this in the article. Context: a relief in Sanchi (1st century BCE) has a 32-spoked wheel, which represents the Buddha symbolically (on his throne, under an royal umbrella), preaching to the nobles of Kapilavastu during the First Sermon in Sarnath, in aniconic manner.(Agrawala, Vasudeva Sharana (1964). The heritage of Indian art. Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. p. 45.) In the note to the photograph: "The mahachakra on the top of the Sarnath capital also had 32 spokes." in Agrawala, Vasudeva Sharana (1964). The heritage of Indian art. Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. p. 169, note 9.).पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 15:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Prithiv Prakashan has published 19 books by the father and son, and 17 by others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
So it seems you do not dispute that there were 32 spokes right? That's a good starting point. And Huntington or Maxwell who also confirm it are certainly not fringe, however you construe it. So, let's see:
1) there was a topmost wheel. We all agree on that.
2) the topmost wheel had 32 spokes. We all agree on that.
Latest reconstruction by Fowler&fowler
3) Reconstructions of the topmost wheel are provided visually by the Sarnath Museum (ie Archaeological Survey of India) [66] and fully endorsed by Huntington p.90, with a mention of the 32 spokes, based on archaeological remains that are acknowledged textually by many sources (on the line "the remains of the topmost wheel are in the Sarnath Museum"). So it is obvious that this reconstruction can be used, with attribution if necessary (ie "Sarnath Museum reconstruction"). I hope you will not try to claim that John Huntington is "fringe".
4) Complete reconstructions are shown by Agrawala ([67], as published by Vishwavidyalaya Prakashan, an independent publishing company), Tomory [68] (fringe too?), the Sarnath Museum (ie Archaeological Survey of India) [69][70], Irwin [71] (whose approach, although sometimes controversial is nonetheless highly respected), and Asher who shows a "copy" of the Sarnath pillar [72]. So even if you can argue that one book by Agrawala may have been published by his son, also a PhD in Indian history, this does no disqualify all the rest, and there is certainly no ground to say "all fringe". Again we can provide reconstructions with attribution of course, which is the spirit of the 4 images I am providing above.
Frankly, these reconstruction are uncontroversial, and you know it (appart maybe for a slight doubt about the high of the top wheel above the lions, but this is minor, and we can show variations if necessary): you have not provided a single source attacking them, or claiming that reconstructions should not be made as you have been saying. You yourself have been making reconstructions such as the one attached, so besides countering my every proposal, you do not seem to have any particular issue against providing illustrations of the Sarnath pillar. But showing a wheel hovering in the air on the side as you have been drawing (attached) is frankly unheard of, not seen in any source, and totally WP:OR I'm afraid. Let's just position the wheel on top of the lions, as everybody does and common sense dictates, and draw it more nicely without infringing copyrights, and we can indeed have an agreement. Anyway, this RfC is precisely for the community to weigh in. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 12:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Let me repeat this. I have no interest in the number of spokes. The traditional definition of the dharmachakra has only eight spokes (one for each noble truth of the Buddha). Some wheels have 16 spokes. Some have 24 spokes. I have more interest in the meanings. No one who mentions 32 spokes speaks to what special meaning 32 has in contrast to 24 or 16 or 8. There is a lot that needs to be done in the article in each section, let us abandon this RfC and concentrate instead on the more important things. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I am not so interested in the meaning of the 32 spokes. I am mainly interested in archaeological accuracy. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 14:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment - @पाटलिपुत्र:, did you draw the image this RFC is based on, or does it come from a WP:RS? I'm struggling to understand how that could be anything other than WP:SYNTH, indeed it seems a textbook definition of combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. If so, are there any other instances of this happening on-wiki (namely, a Wikipedian constructing a diagram based on RS, but that doesn't appear in any)? BeReasonabl (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi BeReasonabl. I drew it (here) so as to have a copyright-free image of a reconstruction. It is precisely based on Vasudeva S. Agrawala[73][74] and the Sarnath Museum reconstructions [75][76]. Other sources may have slight variations, but I have not represented them in the proposed drawing. We could have additional drawing to show variations if necessary (such as this one). पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 12:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the qualification, Pat. @Fowler&fowler:, could you please briefly summarise your objection to the proposed image. As someone summoned by WP:RFC/A, the back-and-forth above is near-impossible to follow. BeReasonabl (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
BeReasonabl It is very simple. These are fringe sources, out and out fringe. In contrast, there are 25 high quality sources being used in the article, published by the major academic publishers (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Columbia (university presses), Routlege and so forth. Most do not mention the number of spokes. A few do, and we mention that number in the article's description section. But none of these sources have a reconstruction. This article is about the lion capital's history, its excavation, its symbolism and its influences, and its legacy.
user:Pat's is not a reconstruction based in an an explanation or theory, for example, how the tectonic plates moved to form the continents (based in the convection in the earth's mantle) There is no underlying explanation as to what 32 means in Buddhism or Buddhist symbolism, and to that extent this becomes off-topic.
Also, I think this obsession with 32 ultimately is disrespects Buddhism. The Buddhist wheel represents the Buddha's message. Turning it means broadcasting it to the world. Buddhists and Buddhist lands think about the message and its meaning, not the number of spokes, which might be 8 in Lhasa, Tibet or 24 in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka, both beautiful.
So summing up: this obsession with showing 32 in a "reconstitution" has WP:SYNTHESIS (as you state); it has WP:OR (the sources are fringe and unreliable), and ultimately it is WP:UNDUE for it turns a page about a sculpture and piece of architecture about Buddhism into a warped page that begins to disrespect Buddhism.
I took user:Pat to RS/N (Reliable Sources Noticeboard). They told him to lay off, but it has had no effect. I have written most of the text in the page (about 90%). I've tried to be true to basic Wikipedia principles. I have never met this kind of bickering in my 16 years on WP and many more in academics. Never. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
user:पाटलिपुत्र I have just rewritten the Vasudeva Sharan Agrawala page. So, I know his biography. I have cited him (Heritage of Indian Art) in the symbolism section, and I will cite a little more in the influences section, or move some of the material from symbolism to influences. Here is my proposal. Let us end this bickering.
You can add two reconstructions or reconstitutions at the end of the "Related sculptures" gallery
with no more than two citations in each caption, but you cannot cite anyone who does not have a reconstruction or reconstitution. The mere appearance of 32 in a source is not grounds for a citation for reconstruction. So not only can you not cite Asher, Coningham and Young, Allchin, but also Oertel and Sahni; but you can use Agrawala, Irwin, Tomer, and Huntington.
But no museum reconstructions, and nothing goes into the main article body, only in the captions of the two pictures and up to two citations in each caption. And you cannot use any other publication of Agrawala (i.e. other than Studies in Indian Art, 1965) in any other photo captions in the Related sculpture. Only Heritage of Indian art in the main body, and only Studies in Indian Art(1965) in the gallery at the end.
This is as far as I can go. As you can see, I have conceded a lot. Let us shake on this and move on. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC) Updating. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you F&F for your explanation above. To summarise – Pat has recreated an illustration, based on several sources, to illustrate the missing dharmachakra wheel that the lions supported. F&F disputes this illustration as other sources are either unclear about the number of spokes on the wheel, or mention different counts.
Given the contested nature of the spoke count across a significant number of sources, I would see an argument for a new section or subsection that discusses the top wheel and could include examples of possible wheels based on RS. We report what they say, after all. I would Not include this depiction in the Description section, as I believe that section should be reserved for a straight description of the retrieved artefact. If you look at an example such as Antikythera mechanism#Description, there is no imagery in that Description section.
Finally, I echo SnowRise above and implore both of you to avoid WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion and let the RFC play out. F&F, talk about concession and saying you can cite this source but not this source could be interpreted as WP:OWN. BeReasonabl (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Response to Fowler&fowler's proposal, and counter-proposal, by पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk)
@Fowler&fowler: I note that now you accept that these reconstructions can be in the article [77], which is important progress, and dispells any doubt about their intrinsic value.
However you insist that they should be "drowned" in the "Related sculpture" gallery at the bottom of the article (a proposal which is not different from your "Formal counter proposal" of 2 weeks ago [78]). But this is hard to understand: academic reconstructions are not "related sculptures", and we cannot just mix artistic creations over the ages (many of them very valuable, but quite remotely influenced by the original) with modern academic reconstructions. However, I would agree to a separate "Reconstructions" paragraph (per User:BeReasonabl), located right after the "Description" paragraph, the Description paragraph then being reserved to actual archaeological finds (good idea). It would look a bit like the proposed Academic reconstructions paragraph hereafter.
In terms of specific details:
I don't think we should use the Nara photograph of a modern replica in this paragraph, as it is not an academic reconstruction, and goes against the general academic recognition of the existence of a topmost wheel [79]. It would be best placed in a "Modern replicas" gallery.
I am reluctant to add the Wat Umong photograph, since it is not an academic reconstruction either: it is an approximate modern replica made by Thai Monks, and would be better located in a "Modern replicas" gallery as well.[2]
The Sarnath Museum (Archaeological Survey of India) reconstruction of the topmost wheel, which is based on the authentic archaeological remains, is directly supported by highly RS John Huntington[3] (and of course Agrawala)[4] and supported in substance by all other sources mentioning the number of wheel spokes, and is therefore perfectly acceptable (reminder: there is no controversy on the number of wheel spokes, as all academic sources mentioning it give 32 [80]).
Academic reconstructions (proposed paragraph by पाटलिपुत्र Pat, after the "Description" paragraph)
Various reconstructions of the Sarnath pillar and its capital have been proposed. The topmost wheel, whose remains are in the Sarnath Museum, is generally reconstructed with 32 spokes, with a diameter of around 1 meter (3 feet).[3][5][6][7] In global reconstructions of the original aspect of the capital, the topmost wheel is generally positionned centrally on top of the four lions, usually resting on their backs,[8] although it is sometimes positionned slightly above (the exact length of the shaft supporting the wheel being unknown).[9] Finally, the full pillar is generally reconstructed straightforwardly from its archaeological remains, with the tall column supporting the capital, and the larger wheel on top.[10]
Archaeological remains of the topmost wheel, with proposed reconstruction in the Sarnath Museum.[3][4][11]
Reconstruction of the complete capital, with its topmost wheel.[12][4][13][14]
^Lahiri, Nayanjot (25 June 2016). "Re-searching Ashoka in Thailand". The Hindu. On reaching the environs of Wat Umong, the excitement became more muted. The pillar was certainly a reproduction of the Sarnath Ashokan column, but (alas!) a modern reproduction of it. This could neither be dated to the 13th century, nor did it have any connection with a king of the Lanna line. The cement and concrete replica was set up some decades ago on the initiative of the Buddhist monastic community and its patrons at Wat Umong. They also got copies made of sundry sculpted panels from Buddhist sites in India.
^ abcHuntington, John (1990). "Understanding the 5th century Buddhas of Sarnath"(PDF). Orientations, 40: 90, Fig.8. The wheel that once topped the great Ashokan pillar at Sarnath had 32 spokes (...) 1.07 meters in diameter approximately
Like I said, that was my final offer. As I had long suspected, Agrawala is not just a nationalist historian but a Hindu nationalist historian, who attempted to give a Vedic spin to the lion capital. I have modern sources that state that I will now be adding that to the article as well. As I have long suspected also, you have done nothing but add Hindu subnationalist POV to various Buddhism related articles. You are on your own now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: These are totally gratuitous and ridiculous accusations Fowler&fowler (just because you are on the minority side of an RfC?). I have no interest whatsoever in "Hindu nationalism" (and frankly, zero connection with anything Hindu), just a certain level of interest in ancient history, and sometimes ancient Indian history. I'm afraid you should put aside your modern political gripes and chimeras or imagined battlegrounds, whatever they are. Anyway, I don't know how relaying precise, referenced, archaeological facts about the Lion capital of Ashoka could have anything to do with "Hindu Nationalism", this is meaningless. This RfC is long, but fruitful, and I trust we will continue to have a large majority of editors in favour of reporting academic reconstructions, a majority which could even be qualified as a "consensus", so please accept it gracefully.पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 10:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Please do not ping me. I am done with this conversation. As I have repeatedly said, you are a serial abuser of fringe sources and as I suspected someone who pushes Hindu-sub-nationalist themes on Wikipedia.
You attempt to have fake talk page conversations which don't really engage anyone, only parade the same fringe sources, again and again, ad nauseam. Agrawala is one of the nationalist cultural historians who attempted to put a Brahmanical or Vedic interpretation on the Lion Capital of Ashoka by linking the wheel overhead which it was held had Vedic significance to India's national flag. That I see, as I look at this page's history, has been your gripe as well. You have added nothing of encyclopedic value as yet. In the Vasudeva Sharan Agrawala page, it is I who actually makes it encyclopedic.
You have no interest in creating an encyclopedia, only in promoting your narrow worldview.
It is the same with this page, I do the work; you do the talk page showboating. It is the same thing elsewhere. I write the FA India. You make talk page comments trying to bait me, to which no one responds. I'm done with this conversation. Again, do not ping me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Dear Fowler&fowler, I am only on this Talk Page because you have been mass-reverting me since you started editing this article on July 14th, all the while intimating me to discuss issues on the Talk Page. So, discussing on the Talk Page is what I have been doing, essentially blocked by you from contributing content to the article (you were warned by Administrators for your systematic reverts, and for breaching 3RR in that respect [81]), so no wonder 90% of article content is now yours... But now, do not be sorry if the discussion is not going your way. We are a community of contributors, who should edit collaboratively, we do not practice WP:OWN by ostracizing the contributions of others. And please refrain from personal attacks, and try to maintain civility in your exchanges. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 10:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Please note,
I am not the one who had attempted to make
Hindu nationalist additions to this article. As in this edit where you changed "The lion capital eventually fell to the ground and was buried." to "The lion capital eventually fell to the ground and was buried, or may have been overthrown by Muslim invaders in the 10-12th century CE." in the lead no less, with no presence anywhere else in the article, not evening bothering to write coherent English.
You have made sectarian or xenophobic attacks on Wikipedia. You argued for different pictures on the FA India because you thought here our son did not like like an Indian, which he doesn't, but who says, non-Indians cannot model Indian clothes? You shed crocodile tears for our violating his rights, though that picture was taken in 2007 and he is an adult now. "An actual Indian," is what wanted apparently here. It is the same as your other remarks there there
You objected to a picture of a mosque that has been in the FA India since 2004, with the comment,
"The "Society" paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar... This is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country..."
You object to a WP:FP of a church with the remark, "Why has the unique photograph in the religion paragraph have to be a photograph of a Christian church??... Again, this is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country..."
What else is Hindu nationalism? Admin Vanamonde93 who replied to you later in that thread said pretty clearly, "The argument that "society" and "religion" ought not to be illustrated with images of Islam or Christianity is the sort of sectarian nonsense that I would almost recommend sanctions for."
So please do not pretend to be neutral in all this. You have a long history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: this is irrelevant, meaningless and completely far-fetched. And certainly not RfC stuff.... पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 11:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I now have a modern source that speaks to Vasudeva Sharan Agrawala's fringe-worthiness and Vedic if not Hindu agenda. I have quoted the source and Mr Agrawala at length before I paraphrase and summarize him. In one place, he describes the abacus in such words:
The carving on the round drum of four wheels and four animals is in no way parochial but covers a very wide range both in time and space. It has been shown for the first time that they illustrate a metaphysical idea of world creation conceived as central Mount Meru, or Lake Mansorovara or Apavatapta Lake, or the central throne in the palace of a Chakravartin, each of them possessing the glory of four-fold ramifications following the four regions of space. The evidence about the belief in the association of the four great animals with the four quarters of space is quite surprising and comprehensive collected from more than fifty texts and sources spread over the last five thousand years and from such different parts of the world as India, Ceylon, Burma, Siam. Cambodia, Tibet, etc. It is a wide canvas both in time and space and is to be greeted as proof not only of the antiquity of the motif on the drum but also of its persistent continuity.</blockuote>
As I say, I will paraphrase him, but please help me with one question. He suggests, "fifty texts and sources spread over the last five thousand years." What texts existed 5,000 years ago? Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article Ancient literature states, "The earliest written literature dates from about 2600 BC (classical Sumerian). The earliest literary author known by name is Enheduanna, a Sumerian priestess and public figure dating to ca. 24th century BC. But that is only 4,622 years ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Fringe source
The foundation of user:Pat's quest for the 32-spooked wheel is the work of fringe pseudo-Hindu-nationalist scholar Vasudeva Sharan Agrawala, whose page also I have recently rewritten in the manner of a WP biography. Mr Agrawala has written a whole book on the lion capital as a matter of fact. It is:
"The presence of four animals framing the seated figure of ... Prajapati Siva, on the famous seal from Mohenjo-daro".
"The next important element on the Chakra-stambha is the round abacus (phalaka) or drum (andu) carved with four smaller wheels (Dharma-chakra) and four noble animals (Maha Ajaneya Pasus), namely, Elephant, Bull, Horse, and Lion. It should be stated at the outset that to restrict the significance of these four animals to a Buddhist context is to miss their real significance in Indian culture through the ages. (p. 29)"
"In the Rig Veda Indra is the Foremost Man. Like Buddha ... whose lion-roar reached the four ends of the earth, Indra also is several times compared to a Roaring Lion. The dreaded lion was the symbol of royalty for whom the use of tiger's skin was prescribed in the ritual coronation."
"The presence of the four animals framing the seated figure of a divinity, often identified as Prajapati Siva, on the famous seal from Mohenjo-daro takes back their depiction to greater antiquity and shows that it was known outside the orbit of the Rigvedic thought also. Three of the animals in the group are the same, namely elephant, lion tiger and the bull, only the rhinoceros preceded the horse. And it seems to have been a deliberate choice, since the was the favourite of the Harappans and the horse of the Aryans."
My question is: Mr Agrawala seems to think that the lion and the tiger are the same or are somehow related. But having written the biodiversity section of India#Biodiversity I know that the Indian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) came to India many years ago through a zoogeographical pass in the eastern Himalayas from southeastern Russia, whereas the lion came equally many years ago from northern Africa through Persia (Panthera leo persica). So, why is Mr Agrawala seeing them as one animal? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
John Irwin
@पाटलिपुत्र: You have used John Irwin in one of your reconstructions. I have been looking at some of his papers written in the 1970s and 80s. I must have missed it, but where does he say that the upper wheel had 32 spokes? He does have pictures, but upon magnification, I seem to be counting only 16 clear spaces between the spokes. Any help will be greatly appreciated. He does say that the four wheels with 24 spokes each on the rim of the abacus represent chariot wheels, not the cardinal direction. But nothing about the spokes in the big wheel, Best regards Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Sarnath PIllar of Ashoka per Irwin (low resolution)The drawings made by Irwin are abridged, low-resolution ones: they are meant to show general proportions, not to peruse details and count spokes. For example Fig A p.706 has many details which cannot be distinguished (the wheel of the abacus is just a blurry black spot), and Fig B p.720, where you can indeed count 16 spokes for the topmost wheel, you also clearly have 0 spokes for the abacus wheel (and the lions don't have faces...). The Internet equivalent of a low-res drawing such as Irwin's would be something like the attached file: so low-res that you cannot really count anything: as an article thumb image, the impression is roughly the same, but if you zoom it, you cannot see the details. I'm afraid it's a bit ridiculous, but if this is the road to a compromise, why not?
I don't know if Irwin has ever written anything specifically about the number of spokes for the topmost wheel (I am only using him for the general proportions of the pillar). He says for sure that the wheel on the abacus (24 spokes) is different from the topmost "Wheel of the Law" p.643. In another article (The ‘Tree-of-Life’ in Indian Sculpture, page 1-2) he also describes as "Wheel of the Law" a wheel on top of a pillar in a relief at Amaravati (this one), which by my count does have 32 spokes (or maybe more), so I suppose this is what he means by a topmost "Wheel of the Law". पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 15:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello @पाटलिपुत्र: I did not see this earlier. The two articles of Irwin where he has the pillars in some resolution (unlike the one in the Karel Werner edited volume) are:
The 1975 one is the slightly higher resolution but neither is very high. I have attached it here (but please do not use this again on this page or anywhere else on WP; it is a non-free image.)
File:Sarnath Capital Reconstruction by John Irwin 1975 Low Res.jpg As I have indicated in the symbolism section (citing Irwin): "According to the Indologist John Irwin, the wheels on the rim of the abacus do not represent the Buddhist wheels of the sacred law but chariot wheels of the period which typically had 24 spokes." But that does not mean the uppermost wheel had 32 spokes any more than it does 16.
As of now, I see the following issues:
Irwin has a reconstruction of the placement of the wheel above the lions but does not say anything about the number of spokes, and his one semi-clear picture seems to indicate 16.
Your reference John Huntington's paper, page 90 has a picture from the museum indicating 32 spokes, but has nothing to say about how the wheel might be positioned (at what height and in what orientation) above the lions.
The picture from the museum as shown on John Huntington's paper, page 90 is problematic as the three spoke fragments are too thick for tapering down from where they are placed to where they are destined to end at the inner wheel; if not that, they are too thick for expanding upward and fitting between the little knobs. The post-independence Archaeological Survey of India has a long history of publishing unreliable field reports that are not peer-reviewed and a museum "simulation" is not WP:RS.
As you can see from the section above, large parts of it read like stream-of-conciousness. Several scholars such as Sudeshna Guha and Irwin himself have doubts. I have attempted to point to them in the last two paragraphs of Lion_Capital_of_Ashoka#Symbolism
the other of the capital and the column, cited to John Irwin (but nownot showing a 32-spoked wheel)
I will add two pictures of the modern capitals,
one of Wat Umong capital and pillar, Chiang Mai, Thailand which I won't label "replica" only "reconstruction" and cite it to both Edith Tomery above and Frederick Asher (as she has a 24-spoke wheel in exactly Wat Umong's configuration) and Asher refers to Wat Umong and has a picture. I will add a caution that the pillar is only few decades old
the this modern lion capital from the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka when I am able to get a copy-right free copy. I have posted at the Sri Lanka Wikiproject. When I am able to, its caption will read: "A modern stylized lion capital of Ashoka in Anuradhapura Sri Lanka." In my view it is very important to have the POVs of the Buddhist lands which India has not been for nearly a millennium.
Let us shake on this and end this saga. I apologize for the state of the article, it has a lot of "according to X," and "according to Y," but that is because there is so much literature on this (going back to 1911) that each time I have a narrative of sorts, I find new sources cropping up. So, again, I urge you to accept this proposal. I have now added three dozen sources to the article and there are probably three dozen more waiting to be added. It is a complicated topic. Pinging all those I think have posted here: @Chaipau, RegentsPark, Snow Rise, Johnbod, A D Monroe III, and Agletarang:@TrangaBellam, Akshaypatill, SamuelRiv, and BeReasonabl:Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the civil tone Fowler&fowler, but I don't see much change in actual content (essentially placing reconstructions in a "Related sculptures" gallery at the end of the article), and the WP:OWN issue in this article remains. Overall, I think this article would gain considerably by having an "Academic reconstructions" paragaph with the various references and a small gallery with the reconstruction drawings derived from our sources. My proposal remains per this RfC. We'll let the community decide. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 20:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
@पाटलिपुत्र: Why will you not be adding Edith Tomery's reconstruction of an overhead wheel with 24 spokes? It is your own source that you have quoted a couple of dozen times above. The community does not know anything beyond some generalities. We all believed you when you offered John Irwin as a academic source for a wheel of 32 spokes, but it was left for me to read his four papers and note that he does not say anything about 32 and the simulation he has seems to point to 16. So now you have blurred the wheel in his reconstruction. You were also citing Edith Tomery for your reconstruction of a 32-spoked wheel riding the "napes" of the lions, but it was apparently left for me to actually count the spokes and note that she has 24, which is the same as Wat Umong. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
PS I had posted a non-free copy of John Irwin here, but they removed it, saying I could only add it to the article. I have taken the liberty of adding it at the bottom of Lion_Capital_of_Ashoka#Related_sculpture gallery, where everyone can actually view it, and count the spokes it seems to point to. I'm happy to trade my would-be Sri Lanka for this version of John Irwin and use Wat Umong cited to Edith Tomery for the second. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Self-collapsing some extended advice, which is only indirectly related to the content determination. SnowRise let's rap 21:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
}}
Pat, you are within your purview to refuse the compromise if you feel it is not in the best interests of the article, but I would urge you to reconsider. You should both know that I have already requested a closure of the RfC, since it has run for the standard month at this juncture and I don't see how anything is likely to change to break the deadlock, the way things have been going, so a relisting is dubiously valuable. If the discussion were closed as is, I don't see any chance it will result in anything but a "no consensus", unless a highly motivated closer looks at the discussion in its entirety, decides one of you is clearly in the right with regard to policy/community consensus and goes out on a limb to close on those grounds. And in my opinion, the chances of that are less than one in a thousand here. A no consensus result would mean the status quo would be maintained and Fowler would get much of what they prefer here, in terms of keeping out the content that they object to. Of course, that result would not look good for either of you, since I don't doubt a close on those terms would highlight the disruption here.
Further, some of what you are asking for here just will not and cannot happen in this space: if you have concerns about WP:OWN, and you think they are systematically preventing progress here, the place to address those is ANI or direct discussion with an admin. I pointed that out to Fowler when he made broad-ranging claims about you that were not relevant to the content issues here, so it's only right I point it out to you now. However, remember that those processes will result in scrutiny of all parties, and I'm not sure the results will be desirable for either of you, or productive generally, so you could be forgiven for feeling you have good cause to avoid that approach. But if you don't want to discuss those accusations in the right place, I'd urge you to just drop them. I very seriously doubt you are going to get Fowler to agree their behaviour rises to the level of OWN here, so there is no value in repeating that accusation here unless you are prepared to act on it--it'll just be another distraction--and it's certainly not a valid content reason for rejecting a compromise proposal.
All of which is to say, are you sure there isn't a counter-proposal (ideally with minimal changes that Fowler can stomach) which you would like to make? If you and Fowler can come to an agreement, and the other respondents mostly sign-off on it, I will happily amend the closure request noting that an agreement among the active editors has been reached here, which I suspect the closer will more than happily embrace to put the matter to rest. I will say this: I don't necessarily disagree with your impressions about gatekeeping here, but your own bludgeoning doesn't exactly leave you with clean hands either, and I think Fowler's position of permitting (I don't really like the way they frame this, but let's ignore that for the moment) two reconstructions is, in a way, a generous one. And in my opinion, even if the RfC were re-run, I honestly think your reconstructions would be regarded as synthesis. To be fair, they still may be challenged as such by another party to this discussion or at a later date. But for the moment, a compromise feels like the option that gets you closest to the outcome you want.
Of course, if you'd rather duke it out at ANI, that is your prerogative and I'll wish you luck, and I hope the community sorts things out equitably. But bluntly those are your options as I see them: 1) compromise now and get some of what you want; 2) Hold out and have the status quo prevail for the time being at least, and both you and Fowler end up with self-inflicted black eyes, with each of you still left unsatisfied overall; or 3) Go to ANI and make a case that Fowler should not be editing the article at all, probably instigating a long and combative behavioural discussion that may or may not be in the project's best interests. I am predisposed to middle ground solutions personally, but the purpose of this post is to spell out for you in candid terms what your realistic options are, not to urge you one direction or the other. Regardless, please understand that due to urgent off-project obligations, this will have to be my final contribution to the matter, at least for now. Good luck and best wishes to you both in resolving the matter at last, whatever the course taken. SnowRise let's rap 21:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.jpg)
, posted by User:Johnbod [14]), has nothing to do with "Late Gupta" (your post [15]), it is actually Satavahana dynasty, circa 1st century CE, about 400-500, maybe 600 years before. Without wanting to be rude, this does throw some doubt on the cogency of your arguments. @RegentsPark:: There may be an issue of editorial competency here: this is standard history/ history of art stuff... (just adressing the facts). पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
here again in a factual discussion [16]: this is actually a historical hoax that was promoted 2 weeks ago as a "13th century replica with 24 spokes" [17]. This pillar was actually created in cement and concrete a few decades ago, and therefore has zero historical value for this discussion. The fake was debunked by no less than historian Nayanjot Lahiri [18]. It only has value as one example of the numerous more-or-less accurate modern replicas around. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
does report from RS in the same form... you've seen the reconstruction drawings given in reference [25][26][27][28][Sarnath Museum p.2][29], haven't you? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
![[30]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sarnath_Lion_Capital_graphical_reconstitution.jpg){kind=link}
![[31]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carving_of_Ashokan_pillar_at_Sanchi.jpg){kind=link}
![[32]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sanchi_Stupa_2_elephants_and_Dharmachakra.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
