Talk:Chaitya

message: Is a chaitya the same thing as a stupa (which is is what the stupa article says) or not? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I tried to illustrate some time ago the evolution of the Chaitya caves in western India according to Huu Phuoc Le (2010) (the reference is accessible for reading). It readily appears that Ajanta Cave 10 was quite early in the process and rather basic in design compared to later models. This would suggest a rather pioneer role for Ajanta 10, and be coherent with the notion of a progressive embellishment of Buddhist retreats (viharas and chaityas) after that, down to the artistic explosion of Ajanta in the 5th century, although Huu Phuoc Le considers "artistic perfection" was reached at Karla Cave 8 in 120 CE. I don't know if it fits in the article, anybody feel free to use or not, or modify. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution of the Chaitya cave 

message: Johnbod: Could you please explain, in light of our NPOV guidelines, why you are deleting Davidson's criticism of Zimmer's theory? If you wish to explain Davidson's argument in different words, please do. But I am puzzled by your complete deletion of what Davidson is stating. FWIW, you brought the Davidson source, so we both agree that it is RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We have only Davidson's rather bitchy review point here. I rather doubt that Zimmer proposed any such "theory", but instead just made a rather loosely phrased remark, which Davidson has pounced on. Any talk of a "theory" should be based on Zimmer directly; I suspect it is a mirage. Just about everybody for the last 130 years has agreed that the Toda huts represent a living survival of the same sort of building as those the earliest rock-cut chaityas imitated, without saying that the Todas, should they have been around 2,000+ years ago, initiated the style.  There are in fact RS refs, which I'm personally very dubious about, associating the style with "milk-huts", which is what the Todas use them for.  But these are more from anthropological sources, picked up by popular Indian works, and I think should be ignored unless better refs are found.  Davidson gets a bit carried away - the Pantheon has an entirely conventional Roman temple portico, and no art-historical account of this form will neglect to mention its origins in wood architecture. But essentially this is a non-argument which it is wildly WP:UNDUE to cover with such solemnity. But an image of the Toda hut very nicely represents an authentic contemporary survival of the same broad form as the chaitya imitates; sadly one can't really do that for the Greek or Roman temple.  There is no need to elaborate an imaginary controversy. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnbod: I have no interest in a forum-y discussion, per TPNO. Instead of sharing your POVs and "suspicions" about "mirages", flawed or wise they might be, I suggest we focus on the content guidelines. This means, instead of forum-y lectures, please find the RS and summarize them. Further, please welcome others to contribute and collaborate. So, once again, if you wish to explain Davidson's argument in different words or add additional mainstream reliable sources, please do. Or let others do so. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you certainly don't have any interest in discussions. I am saying you have blown up two passing comments into a "theory" and "refutation" which are not evidenced in the single source that I introduced, and which it would be wildly WP:UNDUE to cover purely on the basis of that. I'm predicting you won't be able to find any other references to this supposed theory, which would certainly be necessary before we mention it in a short article. Generally it is not worth mentioning in short articles the many suggestions scholars make all the time, and them being dismissed, or not widely adopted.  Unless you can produce other references about the supposed "theory" and controversy over it, it stays out. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnbod: Allow me to keep ignoring your personal opinions/ confusions/ prejudices/ wisdoms. We are here to collaboratively summarize reliable sources, to the best of our cooperative abilities, while respecting community agreed content guidelines. What you keep writing comes across, inadvertently perhaps, as pretensive strawman arguments about "suspicions", "scholars" etc. What you need to do instead is to identify scholars and their publication(s) with page numbers. If I must repeat, "if you wish to explain Davidson's argument in different words or add additional mainstream reliable sources, please do." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

text: I reworded that para in this article, removed the word "theory" etc to address your concern. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't have time for this until January, but the current presentation is massively WP:UNDUE, and in fact WP:SYN on your part. In the picture caption you omit the mainstream view, for which plenty of references have been shown you, to whip up this deeply obscure point. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You have provided one source that you now criticize! Take your time in finding additional reliable sources, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toda Hut 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Chaitya's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "singh":
From Jainism: 
From Banawali: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Chaitya]] 

message: summary 2405:204:A116:DC73:CE56:6CA:DBC2:E18A (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: Svhdbgsjs
Dbbddhdh 60.243.168.180 (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social