Talk:Ai-Khanoum

message: This article has had its dating nomenclature changed on  09:57, 3 February 2007.  The original article system employed is BC/AD and it is Wikipedia policy that this not be changed.  The change from  09:57, 3 February 2007 is then in violation.  Changing it back is the only fair way to apply policy on an issue that divides so many.  Unfortunately we have some people who refuse to comply with this policy and will support changes in the dating nomenclature based on personal preference. Avraham is such an editor, though this person has been shown the facts that this article had the BC/AD system employed he still supports the change made on  09:57, 3 February 2007.  This is in violation of Wikipedia policy and is also rather disrespectful to those who do not agree with him but abide by policy.  Avraham also refers to WP:MOSDATE (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:MOSDATE&redirect=no) which completely supports my statement when you look at the full edit history of this article.   Please review the edit history to reveal the truth, you will find that the first application of any dating was the BC/AD on 13:06, 23 July 2004 by PHG.  Lets be honest and not biased.
Thank you… Monsieur Voltaire (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Wikipedia policy that one not engage in any kind of warring (era or otherwise). See also Disruption of Wikipedia to demonstrate a point, and Gaming the system. Take your custom interpretation of WP:MOSDATE/WP:ERA to WP:AN/I if you think you have a case. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: , I am trying to improve and expand this article. While it may be long-standing, the image overkill, lack of citations, and general focus on superficial detail are not aspects which lend themselves to good articles. I intend to get this article up to GA and perhaps even FA; if you wish, I will do my edits in a sandbox, and then copy them here. Best wishes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. A lot of the material, especially visual material, in the long-standing article is quite important. Probably better to work on it in your Sandbox indeed. Will be looking forward to the result! Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  the result is now completed, and added to the article. There is one paragraph still to go, but I will wait until the GOCE copyeditor is done before adding it. Probably was a good idea to expand in a sandbox first—thanks for the advice.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good work! but a lot of the photographic and thematic material seems to have been lost. Good articles/ FAs can also be visually rich (see Tang dynasty, Song dynasty, Roman Empire...): in a multi-media age, most people do not read extensive text but instead mainly rely on photographs, captions and reading a few short paragraphs here and there. I'll see if we can find a nice editorial comprise. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

text: If it's only one paragraph, you might as well add it now. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will try to incorporate more pictures as you say.  I will do so later today: it is a small paragaraph in the Other Structures section, so you can copyedit everything up to there, and the scholarship section too, if you want. Thanks to you both. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

text: , I think I can find a Fair Use photograph of Ai-Khanoum which was taken by the archaeologists; I think that would be preferable to the reconstruction, which I could move somewhere else in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, because the site does not exist anymore (destructions), Fair Use of an excavation photograph is probably defensible (there is an amazing photograph of a row a Corinthian pillars in the excavation report, but can't readily find it at this point). Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

text: , exactly my thoughts. I will shortly upload my image.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Hey, you're not alone editing here. I have been very open to your mass changes so far, so please reciprocate a bit. This is long-standing content, so if you want to remove it and it's challenged, then you have to create consensus on the Talk Page first per WP:BRD. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , as explained already, it being long-standing does not affect whether it should be in the article. Please provide evidence per WP:RS. And, not incidentally, the bit about the disk is already in the article, and with rather more detail (I believe "mother of pearl" is more detailed than "various colorful materials"). Do you not agree?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at Boardman page 15 (second column), what he is discussing is the role Ai-Khanoum might have had in transmitting Hellenitic styles to India. As for the Shakuntala plate, I am not shocked by mentioning it twice, but it is probably better located in the paragraph about India. Maybe your content can be displaced there... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

text: And re the material of the Shakuntala plate... it's probably not just mother-of-pearl. Do you have a source? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That is WP:OR. He simply states that the ruins of Ai-Khanoum show similar styles to what was later used in India. He does not state that Ashoka was influenced by a building program which only started after his death! look Mum I can use underline too! Whether the Ashokan pillars used Hellenistic inspiration or not is a scholarly question, but the suggestion that that inspiration came from Ai-Khanoum is laughable. As for the paragraph about India, I am not really sure that it should exist in the first place. As the Boardman synthesis is deprecated, and the Shakuntula plate description is duplicated, all one has is a paragraph about coins. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Hummm, according to Rapin the background plate is an assembly of shellfish plates, but the decoration consists in colored glass paste with gold separations p.186. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, it is not just mother-of-pearl, it is predominantly mother-of-pearl with polychrome glass and gold thread, as mentioned in the source provided. If this satisfies you, I will add it to the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I would prefer "shellfish plaques" per source, as "mother-of-pearl" is different and shiny and used for decoration, whereas what we have here is just a rigid supporting plaque of white color... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Thanks! I re-read Boardman, but he clearly says of Ai-Khanoum that "All this was being undertaken at least as early as the erection of any Ashokan column", so no, no chronology problem here... He clearly presents Ai-Khanoum as a candidate for transmission of Hellenistic styles to India. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please can you provide your source for "shellfish plaques"? Your Rapin source explicitly mentions nacre, as does one of mine (the other, also by Rapin says 'encrusted disk of shell'). I do not know what "Afghanistan, tresors retrouves" is supposed to refer to—could you please provide a proper source? Also, do you have a source for the statue  File:AyKhanoumWoman.png being from the sanctuary?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Rapin: "un assemblage de plaquettes taillées dans du coquillage (...) creusées d'alvéoles remplies de minuscules incrustations en pâte de verre colorées et cerclées de lamelles d'or" p.186, that's really "shellfish plaques" if I'm not mistaken. Do you have a source with "nacre?" I am afraid it isn't "nacre" really, just by looking at the photograph... Sorry, I have to go for now. Cheers पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Can you provide links and exact sources/quotes for "nacre"? I'm interested... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

text: "Ai Khanoum sanctuary, mould of female head" p.116 Fig.8 in  पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Nacre links: p.3 " Le disque indien en nacre incrustée (légende indienne de Sakuntala)"; p.54 "un objet discoïdal de 20 cm de diamètre, couvercle ou revers de miroir, formé d’un assemblage de plaquettes de nacre". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirshipJungleman29 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: OK for "mother-of-pearl" then.. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits