Talk:Ajanta Caves

message: The paintings in the Ajanta caves are often mistakenly referred to as frescoes. A fresco refers to the application of colours to moist lime plaster. At Ajanta, the paintings were done on dry wall.
http://www.tourismofindia.com/hiwhh/ajantacaves.htm
- Not according to the article at present, which says they are not frescoes & then describes exactly a fresco technique.  Johnbod 14:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frescoes 

message: Why is Ajanta "more properly" Ajujnthi? Is this a more Sanskritic form? In the modern vernaculars, at least, it is अजंता or ajantā. QuartierLatin 1968 19:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be Ajantha actually as in Marathi it is not त but ठ --Kaveri 19:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More properly?

message: The page points here: 20°32′01″N, 75°44′59″E
The caves are actually here: 20°31'54"N   75°44'21"E
The difference is small, but if you don't know what you are looking for you would never get to the caves from the village indicated.
I am sorry but I disagree with whom ever wrote the comment above. If you use Google map to look for the caves you will see that they are located on a curved mountain  ridge about two miles  north-west of those coordinate. --Mirrordor 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Coordinates

message: The entire Period of the Caves section of this article was lifted directly from Exotic India Art. Because this represents a copyright violation, I have removed the offending text. Kindest regards, AlphaEta T / C 15:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: The coordinates need the following fixes: remove minus before longitude - location is in Cuba, not india!
* [TYPE HERE]
--67.164.156.103 (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: — The coords of the village have been corrected and the coords for the caves themselves have been improved to point at the caves, not at the village. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ajanta (63).jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: By , do you mean that the stuff removed (most of the article) is a WP:COPYVIO?  It is not clear that it is WP:OR, indeed this doesn't look likely.  If so, can you add a note at the talk, saying which work etc. Thanks.  Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi John. The removed material related to a series of edits in December 2005 which were made by User:Rksingh1970. He is by his own admission an art historian actively documenting the caves. His analysis (while something of worth) was technical, rarely contextualised, and (most importantly) not reflected in any other literature (besides one sentence discussing the opinion of his fellow historian Walter Spink).
As brutal as it maybe doing this kind of "article surgery", I think it was a necessary decision to start building a more generalised article that is better for readers and complies with Wikipedia's policy and style. That said, if you have a reasonable counter-argument, then feel free to revert me! SFB 14:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for the explanation. I have reverted - I'll copy this to the talk and explain why. 
Copied from User talk:Sillyfolkboy & my talk  Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

text: So, the stuff seems fairly basic information, which does in fact refer to other sources (eg Dieter Schlingloff, now removed). It's just a pity he didn't reference it with inline cites, but from what I see there is no reason to call it OR.  I have reverted to the previous edit, by which time much of his stuff had already been removed - probably too much. I'll look at that some time if I can.  Given the truly appalling state of almost all articles on Indian art, it seems a great shame that when we actually have one that had competently-written expert material, that gets removed. If you want to build a "more generalised article that is better for readers and complies with Wikipedia's policy and style" I suggest you should do that by expanding the lead & adding introductory sections first. I don't agree with your characterization of his additions (or rather what was left by the time you removed them), though there is room in the article for material in simpler terms. If it is a copyvio, that of course is different, but in the absence of evidence we should assume good faith. His various articles etc have the most respectable publishers, & prima facie he is certainly a WP:RS. The whole point of WP:OR is that it does not have an RS.  I might add that another reason not to strip the article down to a very short one is that before long people fill it up again with copyvios.  Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Welcome back! But your memory is at fault here! The page is now almost 4 times longer than when you last edited it in 2005 , and pretty much entirely Spink-compatible, relying heavily on his works, which are fortunately available online in very large part. Talk of earlier scholars is pretty much a strawman; where their views are given they are described as outdated, though it is noted for example that the ASI website for example still uses a much later terminal date than Spink, which we should report.  Your first edits are frankly puzzling - you have removed a fair amount of Spink material for no very obvious reason, & it is not clear to me that they are an improvement (ignoring your grammatical errors). I'm pretty sure Spink is not averse to describing the earlier period as Hinayana; if you feel there is a problem with this more explanation is probably needed. It is quite possible that I and others will indeed "mind if I shall be deleting a lot of that stuff placed by some wikipedia users" so I would go carefully, and perhaps concentrate on adding material on the caves that are not yet covered individually. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've absolutely no wish to keep you from contributing here (or of course in other articles on sites from the period, which are mostly in much more basic condition than this). You will see above and from the edit history that I restored most of your original stuff, which someone had removed, when I began to work on the article a few months ago. I have looked through your new book which is certainly a WP:RS as far as I am concerned, and a very useful addition to the literature. Under Wikipedia's policies, while the "official" dating remains conservative, we have to mention that position in the article, even if the predominant view given is the "new" one - now not so new, as I found it reflected in tertiary general works like Michell (1989) and Harle (1994).  We do not have quite the same freedom here as you do in writing your own book.  The objection to the terms Hinayana and Mahayana is a general issue for Indian Buddhism, which actually has little real impact in discussing Ajanta because construction did not take place in over long period when Buddhism was in transition - whatever one wants to call the earlier and later forms. The terms still have wide currency and are well understood by a general readership - which is not the case with the dynasties involved. Until your changes "Mahāyāna" was only used 3 times in the article, 2 of those in consecutive sentences, and Hinayana just once. Mostly the neutral terms "early" and "late/later" were used to distinguish the phases.  I have no problem with qualifying the terms to reflect fashions in scholarly usage, but as they remain in wide use as a convenient way of distinguishing periods in Indian Buddhism, and should be mentioned, with qualification, for those who are used to them. The more detailed material you have now added is perhaps too much to come this early in the article, and might be better in its own section lower down. but let's leave it for now. It would be useful to have some references to modern scholars who take issue with Spink, so long as the points are not too detailed. And many of the significant caves still have no description at all. The article also has general sections on the architecture and the painting, but not yet on the sculpture, which would be very useful, and perhaps a better place to make some of your points re the content of the images in the later period. In general other articles on early Indian art (eg Sculpture in the Indian subcontinent, Indian rock-cut architecture and others are very short and basic, and would greatly benefit from an expert eye. Many of the pictures in the categories on Commons are not assigned to a cave, and adding this information would be very helpful also. Please consider this a general invitation to keep contributing here, which I hope you will do, and I will leave you to get on with doing so, unless asked to comment, until you are finished - apart from some tidying and English points maybe. You removed the paragraph beginning "Like other ancient Buddhist monasteries..." summarizing the use of the site, without adding anything equivalent. Somewhere the way the site was used needs to be covered, with a brief summary early in the article. This also could expanded in a new section.  Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Well, there is some evidence from literary sources, some of which your edit removed! We need to say something about how the site was used. There were clearly several caves able to function for both worship and/or living throughout the 2nd period, and ongoing building work is typically a sign of activity rather than inactivity in a location. Cologne Cathedral was unfinished for many centuries while it continued to function perfectly well, likewise Christ Church, Oxford, whose first buildings remain unfinished to this day after being left in the 1520s. Not sure who is speculating wildly here.  Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

text: It was indeed Xuanzang you removed (not added by me) here. It is fairly easy to use the page history - see the tab at top and Help:Page history. My point was that you have removed all reference in the early part of the article to the function of the site, and in defence put up a load of fanciful speculation about "worship activities were marred by ongoing work on pillars, paintings, sculptures, etc... And, if this chaotic scene inside the caves (the sounds of hammers and chisels) were not enough,", for which there is, as you well know, only very indirect inferencial evidence.  College is a broad term, and maybe not the best, but there was certainly some sort of activity, other than construction, going on, and the reader needs some sort of account of what it might have been.  Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am merely asking for a short statement of some kind as to the function of the site - ie what is the CORRECT information then? You have removed such a statement, and so far replaced it with complicated material on the development of Buddhist iconography (at the start of the history section).  I leave it for others to judge who is giving "detail that should not go here in a article of this kind meant for general audience". But do carry on, & we can look at it all afterwards. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: Quote: The caves include paintings and sculptures described by the government Archaeological Survey of India as "the finest surviving examples of Indian art, particularly painting'
How can it be 'Indian' art? India is a nation that commenced in 1947. To use an allegory, if the site had been situated in current day Pakistan, would it be mentioned as finest example of Pakistani art?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.18.22 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't. "India" predates the present state by acouple of thousand years, and all sources use the term - look at the references. Yes, Indian art also includes stuff from the territory of modern Pakistan. How else would you describe it? Johnbod (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can it be 'Indian' art? 

message: Many of the citations are to "Spink (2006)". Spink has quite a few publications on Ajanta (see http://www.walterspink.com/history). Which one is it? Malaiya (talk)
::Er, the one listed at "References", as is normal. I misunderstood your edit before; if you want to expand the title there, once, please do so, but the short form is all that's needed in the many citations of the work. Johnbod (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Spink (2006)?

message: It is rather extensive:
http://www.ijcs.uaic.ro/public/IJCS-13-17-Singh.pdf
©Geni (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Paper on the various conservation methods used on the paintings

message: Some suggestions, largely guided by comments of RexxS above:
;A gallery for the subsection titled Monasteries
File:GrundrissAjantaHoehle1.jpg|Cave 1 layout
File:Ajanta Cave 4 plan.jpg|Cave 4 layout (largest)
File:Ajanta Cave 6 plan.jpg|Cave 6 layout (two storeys)
File:Ajanta Cave 16 plan.jpg|Cave 16 layout
;A gallery for the subsection titled Worship halls
File:Ajanta Chaitya 9 plan.jpg|Cave 9 layout
File:Ajanta Chaitya 10 plan.jpg|Cave 10 layout
File:Ajanta cave 19 plan.jpg|Cave 19 layout
File:Ajanta Cave 19 longitudinal section.jpg|Cave 19 section
Comments welcome, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fairly good to me. The captions should be expanded. The correct term is "plan" rather than "layout". Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Put the book in "references" and just have a short title and the page number in the individual cite. 02:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See also :Template:Sfn. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at it if you like, but please don't use it here (or anywhere else it isn't already the established style). See WP:CITEVAR. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnbod: right now, we have a mix of styles in this article. JJ's suggestion of "sfn" is used in about a 100 cases already. One consistent style would be best indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And who introduced that, Ms Sarah Welch?  About 2015 we had a largely consistent style, given the number of drive-by editors this article attracts. we should stick to that, since there has been no discussion to change it. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please use the established citation style for this article 

message: :पाटलिपुत्र: The Pia Brancaccio source is saying something different (which I have corrected to, but strangely you reverted me). Here is what Brancaccio writes:
::(...) the depiction of so-called 'Persian embassy' on the cave 1 ceiling (fig 112). Amidst ganas, fantastic animals and flowers is a scene where a man, seemingly dressed in Sasanian garb, drinks wine served by two attendants. Rather than representing the representing the Sasanian embassy received by the Chalukyan king Pulakesin II at the beginning of the seventh century (Spink 2005, Schlinghoff 1987), this painting seems to depict a genre scene lifted perhaps from an imported luxury object, a plate or a textile. (...) two foreigners, possibly from Central Asia. (p. 82)
:Could you please quote what is it in that source that supports what you summarized here and revised here? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: (ps) This 'foreigners' thing is getting overemphasized in this article. We do need to state it, but don't need to repeat it. There are a zillion paintings/sculptures/artwork in Ajanta Caves, all with meaning, significance and cultural value. Cherrypicking one or two fringe ones and repeating it with pictures and texts is inappropriate because it creates balance/POV issues. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As Brancaccio himself herself acknowledges, there are two modern interpretations regarding the content of this painting: the first one (Spink 2005, Schlinghoff 1987) says that the painting represents the Sasanian embassy received by the Chalukyan king Pulakesin II at the beginning of the seventh century, the second one (Brancaccio's opinion) says that this painting seems to depict a genre scene lifted perhaps from an imported luxury object, a plate or a textile. I believe it is important and interesting to present these two modern scholarly views, just as Brancaccio himself herself does, rather than only select  Brancaccio's own personal preference for the second interpretation. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Pia Brancaccio is a she. That is not merely Brancaccio view, please see her cites. Or read Spink etc. We can't resuscitate old discredited theories, make them as significant as the mainstream scholarship per POV guidelines. There is a similar problem in using 125+ year old sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Another source issue

message: would you study the two images from Albert Hall Museum we have on commons, 1 and 2, please. They are neither originals nor enhanced photos, from what I remember from my visits to Ajanta and the photos I have in my own archive library. Since you too have been there, do these photos look like faithful copy of what you saw? To me, they look like some recent artist's paintings inspired by two paintings in Ajanta. One of them has been added to this article AGF. It would be nice if they indeed clear PD-Art and we could use them, but can we? are we okay on copyright? पाटलिपुत्र: your thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The just-legible label at the bottom (better on #2, or in the Hindi) says they were done in Jaipur in 1938, not from the original image, I would guess; probably from photos. There are better images to use for copies: [File:2006AY0603 jpg lajanta Gill.jpg This by Robert Gill] for one. I don't know what these are] - copies I think. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another similar work from the Albert Hall Museum by the same uploader. It is actually a reproduction of a well-known Ajanta scene (Foreigners among the devotees adoring the Buddha  in Cave 17), but the style is a bit pictorial and naive rather than purely reproductive, and the border is an invention based on several Ajanta designs. As User:Johnbod said this is probably late-19th, early 20th work, and the photograph was taken by the uploader in Albert Hall Museum. Copyright seems OK to me. I don't think we should use these paintings for documentary purposes as they are not very faithful to the original style of Ajanta, but possibly only for explanatory purposes (these painting have the benefit of being very clear), or, possibly for a "modern influences" segment if the story behind these paintings was known... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnbod: I read 1938, indeed! That is past the 1923 cut off and we should presume the author lived a long life after 1938. Would not clear PD-Art. Fair use wouldn't apply, not in this article. Let us keep it out. The Robert Gill Ajanta collection is a good idea. I will see what V&A has these days, as they used to keep the Robert Gill collection. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The paintings with their museum notice are visible on site here and here पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

text: The painting of the Adoration of the Buddha above was commissioned by Thomas Holbein Hendley (1847-1917) for the decoration of the walls of the hall of the Albert Hall Museum, probably circa 1887, and he had the work painted by a local artist variously named Murli or Murali (in Jaipur Nama: Tales from the Pink City by Giles Henry Rupert Tillotson p.156), so the work is pre-1923. This work is otherwise presented as characteristic of the end of the 19th century ("artist Murali and Kishan are good examples of 19th C. painting" in Wall Paintings of Rajasthan  p.23). The two Buddha paintings highlighted by Ms Sarah Welch indeed seem to be posterior (1938), and by a different author, although his name is a bit hard to read with certainty. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright? 

message: पाटलिपुत्र: we have too many images and splitting sections is not improving the article! As Johnbod and others noted, we need to keep article size and the reader in mind. We don't need separate section for every cave, nor for 6U, 6L, 9A, 9B etc etc such as one with this edit. The structure and images we choose is not for illustration nor to show off (not that this is your intent, but it is the result). Our choices should be based on what helps understand the subject (see RexxS suggestions). There is little point in another standing or sitting Buddha in every section, nor another image of another cave interior. We should discuss, invite comments and reach a consensus. I suggest we revisit the ideas of other editors, see above, about possibly splitting the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, the article has become pretty great and informative, and reaches the objective of quite precisely describing what Ajanta is about. It has truly become encyclopedic. I am not trying to over-split things, but I thought the upper and lower levels of cave 6 are so rich and different that they somehow need to be highlighted, the upper level in particular is quite amazing and original. Thanks for all the work with Spink and others! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images and sections, too many!! 

message: पाटलिपुत्र: On which page does Brancaccio highlight / box those faces? I have the hardcopy of her book on my desk and I see Figures 110-113 etc, but I don't see her boxing a few faces out of many, like the way you are doing. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, if you don't like the explanatory boxes, I can remove them, I'll be glad to do it. Cheers पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do remove those boxes. It comes across inadvertently as distracting/overemphasizing. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go (two images). पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Highlighting?

message: I am really reluctant to start a new argument.... but your blanket removal of high quality referenced material  by justifying that "this is controversial" doesn't seem to be the way things are normally done on Wikipedia. The short paragraph was about the origins of the vihara-with-shrine design which was adopted in Ajanta from around 470 CE, from renowned scholar Kurt Behrendt , Associate Curator of South Asian Art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in Handbook of Oriental Studies, BRILL, 2004, p.170 p.171. If you think it is controversial, the responsibility in on you to bring alternative claims from reputable sources. You cannot just delete reputable sources because you do not like what they are saying. In terms of relevance of the information, I believe it is highly relevant (as it is on many article on Wikipedia) to have information about origins and influences. Ajanta was not created in a bubble, it was influenced by centuries of history, and pre-existing architecture and art, so it is totally legitimate and important to provide information about it. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it has now been added to vihara, which is certainly the first place it is needed. I tend to agree with MSM it is not so necessary here, given the length of the article already. MSM, if it is controversial, it would be useful to have some note of that at vihara. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, Johnbod! The Vihara article is where that Behrendt and rest of NPOV summary belongs. It is in poor shape. I started a bit of cleanup of that article yesterday and will try to help in coming days or weeks. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful, but it's still no reason to delete properly referenced content outright from an article. And I am looking forward to the substantiation of your claim  that "this is controversial". पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanket removal of referenced material 

message: This sentence in the introduction seems very misleading and gives a strange account of Buddhist art, although multiple references have been attached to it:
1) The earliest caves (30/12) indeed date from the 2nd century-1st century BCE, but they are Hinayana and don't have pictorial illustrations or "sculptures of Buddhist deities", only some architectural designs (chaitya-type doors, geometric decorative bands). 
2) The earliest paintings, those remaining in Cave 10 are possibly from the 1st century BCE and are few and probably Jataka-related.
3) As far as I know, the vast majority of paintings (99%?) and all the "sculptures of Buddhist deities" date to the end of the 5th century CE.
Therefore the above sentence is stretching the facts tremendously.... A more exact phrasing could be:
Any comments? पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems essentially right, though as regards paintings, that the earlier fragments in 10 and 11 are "few" is probably just a matter of survival.  Later on, Harle is quoted saying they "show that by Sātavāhana times, if not earlier, the Indian painter had mastered an easy and fluent naturalistic style, dealing with large groups of people in a manner comparable to the reliefs of the Sāñcī toraņa crossbars".  One of the unfortunate changes since eg this version in 2015 is the cutting in the summary section "Caves of the first (Satavahana) period" of "The first Satavahana period caves lacked figurative sculpture, emphasizing the stupa instead, and in the caves of the second period the overwhelming majority of images represent the Buddha alone, or narrative scenes of his lives."  Now that section just deals with dating, not style or contents. For now, and for the lead, I'd just cut the date bit from "in vogue" (not a good phrase anyway). I'll do that, and restore the first part of the old bit I just quoted. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! That makes much more sense. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, btw, that some other caves of equivalent early date do have sculpture, not replacing the stupa, but the Pitalkhora Caves have guardian figures around a doorway and large elephants (photo), and Bhaja Caves a relief of deities, all dated late 2nd/early 1st C BCE by Harle (pp. 48-52). Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhist sculptures and paintings in vogue in the 2nd century BCE??? 

message: Minor spats apart, I'd just like to say how great it is to see the large amount of improvemments being done to a whole range of articles on ancient Indian monuments over recent months! These have been much too weak for years and years, and get good views. Well done everybody, which essentially means "both"! Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am, too, so glad that the content has improved so much in many of these articles. This is such a beautiful and fascinating period of Indian art and history! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  May be worth requesting our GOCE team to copyedit this article. Then a GA nom to help polish it further through the review process. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a great fan of either process myself, because the standards seem so variable. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent work being done on Early Indian monuments 

message: User:Ms Sarah Welch is removing the attached photograph (1.) of an original frescoe depicting foreigners in Ajanta Cave 17 on the ground that "we need to stick to what sources state and present, the source is showing the previous image, no OR please" . This is completely untrue and very misinformed, as the source in question (Pia Brancaccio) is showing the exact same foreigners (and a few more) in a photographic reproduction of the same portion of the frescoe (Direct link to the image in "The Buddhist Caves",Pia Brancaccio, p.305), and the frescoe itself is described in the body of her book (p.81).
"The previous image" User:Ms Sarah Welch reverted to (2.), is not at all the photograph showed by the source: it is a rather poor and unfaithful 19th century painting, which is quite removed from the original frescoe (and honestly rather bad taste, here attached). There is really no reason to stick to that painting, now that we have an exact, sourced, photograph of the original (above 1.). पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the left one (three set) in Pia Brancaccio. Which page is it? The right one in the three set is same as the clearer older one. As RexxS well explained above, images should be selected and added to assist "understanding", not illustration. The clearer older image is therefore better (and NPOV too as it shows many other faces). Yes, the middle image is supported by Brancaccio's Figure 110. But, how many images do we need? As we discussed before, there are zillion faces depicted in Ajanta paintings, some of which are foreign, most are not. We have an images overload as it is, adding more is inappropriate and unnecessary. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You will find the foreigners of the left image in the top left corner of Fig.100 110 in Pia Brancaccio (they only lack a part of their hat in Brancaccio's photograph). On the left you see Persian-looking foreigners, in the middle foreigners of seemingly East-African type, and on the right you have the full frescoe. These are complementary. Brancaccio shows even more types of foreigners in her photograph. Of course these images assist the understanding of the article, they are even essential to it. Please stop unilaterally deleting the content of other users of good standing: this is very rude, and you do not own this article. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Figure 100 is about Aurangabad Cave 9. This is Ajanta Cave article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

text: (ps) Neither you or I own the article. Please AGF, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I meant Fig.110. Please check. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Brancaccio doesn't isolate it. The clearer older image is better. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You prefer a fantasist 19th century reproduction rather than the 5th century original painting? That absolutely does not make sense. Other contributors are welcome to give their opinion. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement of original by 19th century copy??? 

message: The term "Hinayana" (i.e. Theravada) is inappropriate. 
* In the context of Ajanta it is used for the caves that do not show Buddha as a person. However Theravada never had any objections to Buddha's image. Theravada Buddhism uses the worship of Buddha as much as Mahayanists.
* Hinayana is a negative term used by followers of Mahayana.
I know it has been widely used by many authors specially for some of Ajanta caves. Still. an inappropriate term. The concept of aniconism as a defining attribute of a faith tradition seems to be a western import. 
Malaiya (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we should not use it, other than an explanation of why others do. I don't think I agree with your other remarks.  There is some history here - see in particular Talk:Ajanta_Caves#Recent_edits above. Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I rewrote the offending passage- it wasn't matching very thoroughly what the source was saying. The source incorrectly uses Theravada as a synonym for all of Hinayana, so I've dropped that particular identification, which was about changes in Buddhism in the Gupta era rather than the specific content of the caves. --Spasemunki (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hinayana]]?

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for
—49.14.168.100 (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't given an explanation of what you think is erroneous. I've tweaked the coordinates to indicate a more central point in the group of caves, but if you still think that there is an error, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of the problem. Deor (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 

message: That sentence have an error. There was no corn in India before the discovery of America. אביהו (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the sentence "Cave 15 door frame has carvings of pigeons eating corn" 

message: No connection between the title of the section and it's content. Content should be moved to Paintings section. אביהו (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the first sentence was on topic. But the whole section was referenced only to a WP mirror-site, so I've removed it. If true, some of the stuff on the paintings could be re-added higher up, with a decent reference. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preservation section 

message: I added... The number of 30 caves may have been a symbolic reference to the lunar cycle of 29.53 days. 2603:3020:1A16:3E00:5BF:478D:A58E:C4BC (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: & I reverted - no source said this, and the last, unfinished caves are over 600 years later than the earliest ones. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  the IP is Brad Watson Miami evading their block. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  30 Ajanta Caves may have been a symbolic reference to the Lunar Cycle of 29.53 days