Talk:Lion Capital of Ashoka/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"The small details and the high-level narrative"

@Fowler&fowler: I think we are moving in the right direction, but... my edits today are simply meant to balance, on the same level of detail actually, your sentence "Wheeler did suggest that free-standing pillars had not appeared in Europe before the advent of the Roman empire" (which is a factually doubtful claim), by showing that other authors do claim precedents from Ancient Greece or even Egypt. "Collaborative editing", to which we both agreed and signed, supposes a certain level of tolerance towards the edits of the others, i.e. you are not alone writing this article (or any article). You might have notice I never (almost never?) delete your content, but only try to balance it, or tweak it if necessary. I would expect the same from you. This is how we build an article together. Please. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the article is already too chock full of details. New additions yours, mine, or anyone else's should be presented on the talk page first. Otherwise, it will begin to look more disjointed. In the collaborative spirit, please present it here. And we can both look into what is the best way forward. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Please no, Fowler&fowler, this is not what collaborative editing is about. You get to put everything you want (60k!), but now everything new should be discussed first? This is not possible. Let's edit reasonnably as we go: my two or three lines are not going to "kill" the article (far from it I believe). "Collaborative editing" is in our agreement and what we both signed for, so we have to edit collaboratively per normal Wikipedia procedure.... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

That is not the point. Everything I have added is at a high level. In other words, Irwin is mentioned only when he is mentioned by Partha Mitter. Boardman is mentioned only when he is first mentioned by Richard Stoneman. Agrawala is mentioned only when he is by first mentioned by Bopearachchi or Guha or Irwin. In that form of tertiary editing we cannot add secondary sourcing unless it offers a vignette of the tertiary edit. (It is only in the last couple of days, in order to accommodate your sources that I added a few lines directly from the Irwin or Agrawala about something.)

If you don't observe that principle, the narrative soon descends into undue. If you have a proper secondary source that discusses the work of Arora, then we can add it, and if need be add something from Arora shedding more light on it. But the direction of the example or counter example has to come from the tertiary edit. So summing up: if Asher or Irwin in their review begin with Vincent Smith, John Marshall, and Mortimer Wheeler, we cannot counter them by a counter example offered directly in a paper by Arora, especially not when the narrative is chronological. We can only do so when someone else cites Arora's counter-example, thereby giving it notability, and then use a sentence or two from Arora shedding more light on it. And we can only do that at the proper time in he chronology. If Wheeler's work is from the 1950s and Arora's from the 1990s, then obviously those references will be discussed at different periods. That is a basic principle. Collaborative editing, yes. But there are ground rules of narrative and high level writing that underlie the collaboration. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: If you don't hold your end of the bargain, it's going to be very complicated (nightmarish actually, this is a perfect case of WP:OWN)… Do I have to call off the deal? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no bargain if it involves contradicting the basic principles of narrative high level prose which is:

a) Use a textbook, a review article, or a review of sources in a secondary source, or a reference to another secondary source (in that order of preference) to establish the general backbone of the narrative. So, again: we can't summarize a secondary source; the summarizing has to be done by another tertiary or secondary source, preferably as a part of a review (e.g. Asher's or Irwin's on the sequence of the debate about foreign influence.)

b) Once that is established a source that is summarized in a) can be fleshed out with an illustrative example directly from the source.

c)If a source that has been summarized in a) has a counterexample, then it has to come from the summary of another source summarized in a) and then we can again illustrate that with an example directly from that source. But we cannot contradict a summary in a) by an example that is not in a) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with WP:OWN All the big articles I have written, the FAs India and Darjeeling. The articles British Raj, Company rule in India, Dominion of India, Partition of India, ... all follow the same pattern. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Of course I am ready to discuss sources/sourcing anytime you want, but you cannot just systematically delete/vanish all my edits in the minute, and demand that everything should be discussed and approuved first (this is typical WP:OWN). As I contribute, please just tweak my edits, or raise issues on the Talk Page if you have to, this is the normal way to do it. If your argument makes sense, I will naturally remove or correct my text. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, then please tell me where is Arora's claim contradicting Wheeler summarized? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

In other words, we cannot ourselves read Arora, decide that something there contradicts Wheeler and summarize it. The summarizing has to be done by another source, and at the last resort by Arora him/herself mentioning Wheeler's argument. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

But isn't this called WP:BALANCE? i.e. "describe both points of view and work for balance." As far as I know, we do not need a source that balances in order to balance sources... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Not at different levels. Take any article from Britannica. If we do not follow the principle, I can within a day reduce it to shambles. For every major assumption I can find a non-notable counterexample, i.e. one not summarized in other sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

In this specific case, the sources used for balance are very high level as well (Boardman, Irwin, Arora...). I don't see any contradiction with WP:BALANCE. Can you give me your arguments based on Wikipedia policy? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

No, Boardman is used to illustrate something that is mentioned in Richard Stoneman. Irwin is used to illustrate something summarized in Partha Mitter. Arora has not been summarized anywhere that I can find in the context of Wheeler. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:TERTIARY Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize, and often quote, primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is considered to be a tertiary source.[i] Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.

Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, as far as I know we do not necessarily need a source that balances, in order to balance sources. We present various view points according to their notability and we "work for balance". We do not necessarily need a source that does the balancing for us. Sure, tertiary sources can help, per policy, but they are not a prerequisite to presenting various notable sources. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

They are in controversial pages. Balancing in Wikipedia is not that achieved by editors; it is that achieved by sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Not true I'm afraid, and the points in question are not particularly controversial either anyway (just minor academic divergences). Let me take an example: highly notable source A affirms a theory. Notable source B affirms the contrary. But if no source mentions their dispute, then you're saying we cannot present source A's theory, and balance it with source B's theory?? Or worse, F&F happens to have presented theory A in an article, but then no other editor would be allowed to can balance it with theory B?... and theory A is the only theory we would ever get to read about? This would be absurd and anti-encyclopedic... Sorry, I have to go for now. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BALANCE says, "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources both contradict one another and also are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." So, I'm asking which secondary or tertiary source summarizes Arora's disagreement with Wheeler? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it is quite obvious from the combined policy statements above that policy never makes it an imperative to have secondary/tertiairy sources in order to WP:BALANCE sources: of course Secondary/Tertiary sources can help (WP:NOR) in assigning due weight, and we can draw on them (WP:BALANCE), but we should describe both points of view and work for balance, and be describing the opposing views clearly (WP:BALANCE). So clearly, when notable sources have diverging opinions, we should strive to present them, in a balanced manner, possibly relying on secondary and tertiary soures as we do so. It would be much more detrimental to the encyclopedia if we were blocked from presenting various notable viewpoints, or worse, if only a single viewpoint could be presented in an article, simply because a tertiary source doing the balancing is not available. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we stop here, and we resume our normal editorial activities. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BALANCE:

For Wheeler we have a clear source. It is:

'Aśokan' Pillars: A Reassessment of the Evidence Author(s): John Irwin Source: The Burlington Magazine , Nov., 1973, Vol. 115, No. 848 (Nov., 1973), pp. 706-720 Published by: (PUB) Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/877526

Irwin begins his summary of the history of the topic on page 706 with

"The story begins with James Prinsep who, between 1834 and 1837, placed the study of Indian history on a scientific footing by being first to decipher the ancient Brahmi and Kharosthi script."

By page 713, he's reached: "All this brings us up to 1911 when Vincent Smith, after twenty years research on the subject of 'Asokan' pillars, published conclusions which have since provided the background of all debate" (clearly notable).

Below on the same page after he has discussed John Marshall, he has,

"The next leading Indologist to give considered thought to the subject was Sir Mortimer Wheeler. Like Marshall, Wheeler reasoned within the framework of Vincent Smith's basic assumptions. He maintained that up to the time of the Mauryan dynasty, India had achieved nothing better than a kind of folk-art, and that the sudden appearance of the pillars was inconceivable without the intervention of foreign sculptors 'trained in the Perso-Hellenistic tradition.'30 On this basis, he conjectured that two or three generations after the collapse of the Achaemenid empire, descendants of the Hellenistic craftsmen employed at Persepolis had been engaged by Asoka in India. However, in his last discussion of the subject, Wheeler pointed out (surprisingly) that free-standing pillar-architecture was unknown in the West before the Romans. He was therefore careful to leave the door slightly ajar, warning us that perhaps after all, the last word on Asokan pillars had not yet been said."

Footnote 30 says: 30 SIR MORTIMER WHEELER: Flames over Persepolis, London [1968], pp.127-45. His earlier views, which are substantially in accordance with his final ones, were published in a lecture entitled 'Iran and India in Pre-Islamic Times' Ancient India, Bulletin of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 4 [1947-48], pp. 85–101

So this establishes step (a) above

• Step (b) At this stage if we have to illustrate Wheeler some more, we can summarize an example from him from either source in footnote 30, but briefly

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BALANCE This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." So, I'm asking which secondary or tertiary source summarizes Arora's disagreement with Wheeler?

If you are unable to find such a source and cite directly to Arora, I will be forced to comment out your edit, as you will be deliberately violating WP policy and adding edits of undue weight. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

user:पाटलिपुत्र noted above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Per my above statement [1], I do not think policy makes it imperative to have balancing secondary or tertiary sources in order to present various viewpoints of notable sources. It is not written this way, and it would be absurd if it were so. If you want to claim any imperative character, please go to the relevant Policy Helpdesk to obtain clarification. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Let us not edit this page for the next several days, a week perhaps, until these issues are worked out Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

user:पाटलिपुत्र Let's make it a full week. We can present our ideas on the talk page, even summaries, proposed edits and so forth. Or we can ask some admins to lock the page for a week or two as was done in the Buddhism article and you and I and others can resolve the differences gradually on the talk page. Luckily we have a half-way decent page in place. What say you? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Fowler&fowler: Following our discussion, I posted on Neutral point of View Notice Board, to ask if it was OK to present competing/contradictory views by reliable sources, even in the absence of a Tertiary source mentioning this contradiction between these sources. Clearly the answer is "Of course we can, and even should." etc... [2] So it is indeed our job to "WP:BALANCE", by presenting various views from reliable sources, without the prerequisite of a Tertiary source, as long as it is done in a neutral fashion without drawing conclusions on our own. Tertiary sources can be invoked when drawing a conclusion, or when attempting to establish the relative weight of various opinions. I am glad we were able to clarify this basic principle of Wikipedia editing, this should facilitate our collaboration. Best. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

520,000 bytes!

...on this page now. Congratulations guys! It seems (not that I'm actually reading it) that this intense concentration on the dharmachakra has induced feelings of harmony and tranquility , which is great. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Haha. Johnbod That is because this is a geometric (i.e. mathematical) problem. It reminds me of what a student once observed, or rather asked, during my graduate student days: why is it that all the literary criticism professors are divorced but none of the mathematicians are? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod and Fowler&fowler: May the power of the Maha Dharmachakra forever be with us! Thank you Johnbod for the message! पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Like the Sarnath Dharmachakra, this one too proved to be fragile. It fell, without any Muslims in sight, and is in pieces, some of which have disappeared in layer upon layer of changing edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, we do have quite a few fragments to make a proper reconstruction though... :) पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Deceitfulness is not a laughing matter. Now that I have some preliminary information, not all of which I have shared with you, I will actually have someone go to Sarnath to take the measurements. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)