180:. 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.
749:"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."
100:(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.
31:
581:
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.
669:, 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.
878:
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
608:
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,
172:
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
580:
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
233:
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
148:
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
507:
Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize, and often quote, primary and secondary sources. Knowledge is considered to be a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple
124:
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
240:
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)
835:
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.
173:
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.)
916:
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
984:
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?
759:, London , 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 , pp. 85тАУ101
424:
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.
789:
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
352:
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.
936:
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
Knowledge editing, this should facilitate our collaboration. Best.
468:
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.
721:'A┼Ыokan' 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:
739:
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
308:
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
514:: 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.
1070:
1029:
950:
849:
705:
682:
594:
552:
458:
414:
326:
220:
162:
113:
965:...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.
313:). 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.
930:", 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
609:
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?
1080:
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.
1064:
1059:
1023:
1018:
944:
939:
875:
843:
838:
809:
699:
694:
676:
671:
588:
583:
546:
541:
452:
447:
408:
403:
320:
315:
214:
209:
156:
151:
107:
102:
1041:
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.
793:
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.
733:"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."
531:
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
149:
believe). "Collaborative editing" is in our agreement and what we both signed for, so we have to edit collaboratively per normal Knowledge procedure....
765:
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
96:
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
401:? 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...
441:
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
234:
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.)
69:
64:
59:
237:
b) Once that is established a source that is summarized in a) can be fleshed out with an illustrative example directly from the source.
203:
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
562:
They are in controversial pages. Balancing in Knowledge is not that achieved by editors; it is that achieved by sources.
47:
17:
1086:
1047:
991:
885:
865:
818:
799:
775:
615:
568:
520:
475:
431:
359:
342:
291:
247:
186:
131:
38:
98:"Wheeler did suggest that free-standing pillars had not appeared in Europe before the advent of the Roman empire"
535:"work for balance". We do not necessarily need a source that does the balancing for us. Sure, tertiary sources
230:
There is no bargain if it involves contradicting the basic principles of narrative high level prose which is:
274:
1081:
1042:
1007:
986:
924:
911:
880:
860:
859:
Let us not edit this page for the next several days, a week perhaps, until these issues are worked out
813:
794:
770:
610:
563:
515:
470:
426:
354:
337:
303:
286:
242:
198:
181:
143:
126:
91:
625:
I think it is quite obvious from the combined policy statements above that policy never makes it an
504:
282:
1091:
1075:
1052:
1034:
996:
974:
955:
890:
870:
854:
823:
804:
780:
710:
687:
620:
599:
573:
557:
525:
480:
463:
436:
419:
364:
347:
331:
296:
252:
225:
191:
167:
136:
118:
970:
927:
786:
658:
646:
630:
442:
398:
278:
177:
638:
539:, per policy, but they are not a prerequisite to presenting various notable sources.
310:
258:
204:
1057:
Well, we do have quite a few fragments to make a proper reconstruction though...┬а:)
1003:
981:
966:
336:
Well, then please tell me where is Arora's claim contradicting Wheeler summarized?
270:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
266:
692:
I suggest we stop here, and we resume our normal editorial activities. Best
661:). So clearly, when notable sources have diverging opinions, we should
722:
176:
If you don't observe that principle, the narrative soon descends into
727:
Irwin begins his summary of the history of the topic on page 706 with
743:
Below on the same page after he has discussed John Marshall, he has,
262:
25:
445:. Can you give me your arguments based on Knowledge policy?
1016:
forever be with us! Thank you Johnbod for the message!
879:
we have a half-way decent page in place. What say you?
829:
651:describe both points of view and work for balance
629:to have secondary/tertiairy sources in order to
85:"The small details and the high-level narrative"
633:sources: of course Secondary/Tertiary sources
261:All the big articles I have written, the FAs
8:
755:Footnote 30 says: 30 SIR MORTIMER WHEELER:
718:For Wheeler we have a clear source. It is:
748:
732:
641:) in assigning due weight, and we can
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
655:describing the opposing views clearly
7:
920:"Of course we can, and even should."
762:So this establishes step (a) above
723:https://www.jstor.org/stable/877526
285:, ... all follow the same pattern.
207:)тАж Do I have to call off the deal?
24:
831:, I do not think policy makes it
29:
1:
1092:15:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
1076:14:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
1053:13:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
1035:11:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
997:06:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
975:00:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
926:So it is indeed our job to "
956:10:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
891:18:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
871:18:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
855:18:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
824:18:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
805:18:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
781:18:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
711:17:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
688:17:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
621:17:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
600:17:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
574:16:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
558:16:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
526:16:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
481:16:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
464:16:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
437:16:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
420:16:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
365:16:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
348:16:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
332:16:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
297:16:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
253:15:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
226:15:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
192:15:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
168:15:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
137:15:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
119:15:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
18:Talk:Lion Capital of Ashoka
1116:
257:It has nothing to do with
828:Per my above statement
757:Flames over Persepolis
752:
736:
665:to present them, in a
397:But isn't this called
1012:May the power of the
746:
730:
275:Company rule in India
42:of past discussions.
508:secondary sources.
283:Partition of India
1083:Fowler&fowler
1044:Fowler&fowler
1014:Maha Dharmachakra
1008:Fowler&fowler
988:Fowler&fowler
912:Fowler&fowler
882:Fowler&fowler
862:Fowler&fowler
815:Fowler&fowler
796:Fowler&fowler
772:Fowler&fowler
649:), but we should
612:Fowler&fowler
565:Fowler&fowler
517:Fowler&fowler
472:Fowler&fowler
428:Fowler&fowler
356:Fowler&fowler
339:Fowler&fowler
304:Fowler&fowler
288:Fowler&fowler
279:Dominion of India
244:Fowler&fowler
199:Fowler&fowler
183:Fowler&fowler
144:Fowler&fowler
128:Fowler&fowler
92:Fowler&fowler
82:
81:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1107:
1089:
1084:
1069:
1067:
1062:
1050:
1045:
1028:
1026:
1021:
1011:
994:
989:
949:
947:
942:
915:
888:
883:
868:
863:
848:
846:
841:
821:
816:
802:
797:
778:
773:
704:
702:
697:
681:
679:
674:
618:
613:
593:
591:
586:
571:
566:
551:
549:
544:
523:
518:
478:
473:
457:
455:
450:
434:
429:
413:
411:
406:
362:
357:
345:
340:
325:
323:
318:
307:
294:
289:
250:
245:
219:
217:
212:
202:
189:
184:
161:
159:
154:
147:
134:
129:
112:
110:
105:
95:
78:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1087:
1082:
1065:
1060:
1058:
1048:
1043:
1024:
1019:
1017:
1001:
992:
987:
963:
945:
940:
938:
909:
886:
881:
876:user:рдкрд╛рдЯрд▓рд┐рдкреБрддреНрд░
866:
861:
844:
839:
837:
819:
814:
810:user:рдкрд╛рдЯрд▓рд┐рдкреБрддреНрд░
800:
795:
776:
771:
700:
695:
693:
677:
672:
670:
667:balanced manner
616:
611:
589:
584:
582:
569:
564:
547:
542:
540:
521:
516:
476:
471:
453:
448:
446:
432:
427:
409:
404:
402:
360:
355:
343:
338:
321:
316:
314:
301:
292:
287:
269:. The articles
248:
243:
215:
210:
208:
196:
187:
182:
157:
152:
150:
141:
132:
127:
108:
103:
101:
89:
87:
74:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1113:
1111:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
999:
962:
961:520,000 bytes!
959:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
791:
783:
768:
767:
766:
760:
753:
744:
741:
737:
728:
725:
719:
716:
690:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
560:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
466:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
350:
255:
238:
235:
231:
174:
86:
83:
80:
79:
72:
67:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1112:
1093:
1090:
1085:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1074:
1073:
1068:
1063:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1051:
1046:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1033:
1032:
1027:
1022:
1015:
1009:
1005:
1000:
998:
995:
990:
983:
979:
978:
977:
976:
972:
968:
960:
958:
957:
954:
953:
948:
943:
935:
934:
929:
925:
922:
921:
913:
892:
889:
884:
877:
874:
873:
872:
869:
864:
858:
857:
856:
853:
852:
847:
842:
834:
830:
827:
826:
825:
822:
817:
812:noted above.
811:
808:
807:
806:
803:
798:
792:
788:
784:
782:
779:
774:
769:
764:
763:
761:
758:
754:
751:
750:
745:
742:
738:
735:
734:
729:
726:
724:
720:
717:
714:
713:
712:
709:
708:
703:
698:
691:
689:
686:
685:
680:
675:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
623:
622:
619:
614:
607:
601:
598:
597:
592:
587:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
572:
567:
561:
559:
556:
555:
550:
545:
538:
534:
530:
529:
528:
527:
524:
519:
513:
509:
506:
482:
479:
474:
467:
465:
462:
461:
456:
451:
444:
440:
439:
438:
435:
430:
423:
422:
421:
418:
417:
412:
407:
400:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
366:
363:
358:
351:
349:
346:
341:
335:
334:
333:
330:
329:
324:
319:
312:
305:
300:
299:
298:
295:
290:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
254:
251:
246:
239:
236:
232:
229:
228:
227:
224:
223:
218:
213:
206:
200:
195:
194:
193:
190:
185:
179:
175:
171:
170:
169:
166:
165:
160:
155:
145:
140:
139:
138:
135:
130:
123:
122:
121:
120:
117:
116:
111:
106:
99:
93:
84:
77:
73:
71:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1071:
1030:
1013:
964:
951:
932:
931:
919:
918:
907:
850:
832:
756:
747:
731:
706:
683:
666:
662:
654:
650:
643:draw on them
642:
634:
626:
595:
553:
536:
532:
511:
510:
503:
459:
415:
327:
221:
163:
114:
97:
88:
75:
43:
37:
1066:Pataliputra
1025:Pataliputra
715:WP:BALANCE:
505:WP:TERTIARY
271:British Raj
36:This is an
1061:рдкрд╛рдЯрд▓рд┐рдкреБрддреНрд░
1020:рдкрд╛рдЯрд▓рд┐рдкреБрддреНрд░
941:рдкрд╛рдЯрд▓рд┐рдкреБрддреНрд░
928:WP:BALANCE
840:рдкрд╛рдЯрд▓рд┐рдкреБрддреНрд░
833:imperative
787:WP:BALANCE
696:рдкрд╛рдЯрд▓рд┐рдкреБрддреНрд░
673:рдкрд╛рдЯрд▓рд┐рдкреБрддреНрд░
659:WP:BALANCE
647:WP:BALANCE
631:WP:BALANCE
627:imperative
585:рдкрд╛рдЯрд▓рд┐рдкреБрддреНрд░
543:рдкрд╛рдЯрд▓рд┐рдкреБрддреНрд░
449:рдкрд╛рдЯрд▓рд┐рдкреБрддреНрд░
443:WP:BALANCE
405:рдкрд╛рдЯрд▓рд┐рдкреБрддреНрд░
399:WP:BALANCE
317:рдкрд╛рдЯрд▓рд┐рдкреБрддреНрд░
267:Darjeeling
211:рдкрд╛рдЯрд▓рд┐рдкреБрддреНрд░
153:рдкрд╛рдЯрд▓рд┐рдкреБрддреНрд░
104:рдкрд╛рдЯрд▓рд┐рдкреБрддреНрд░
740:notable).
653:, and be
125:forward.
76:Archive┬а4
70:Archive┬а3
65:Archive┬а2
60:Archive┬а1
790:Wheeler?
635:can help
537:can help
1004:Johnbod
982:Johnbod
980:Haha.
967:Johnbod
923:etc...
39:archive
1088:┬лTalk┬╗
1072:(talk)
1049:┬лTalk┬╗
1031:(talk)
993:┬лTalk┬╗
952:(talk)
887:┬лTalk┬╗
867:┬лTalk┬╗
851:(talk)
820:┬лTalk┬╗
801:┬лTalk┬╗
777:┬лTalk┬╗
707:(talk)
684:(talk)
663:strive
639:WP:NOR
617:┬лTalk┬╗
596:(talk)
570:┬лTalk┬╗
554:(talk)
522:┬лTalk┬╗
512:Policy
477:┬лTalk┬╗
460:(talk)
433:┬лTalk┬╗
416:(talk)
361:┬лTalk┬╗
344:┬лTalk┬╗
328:(talk)
311:WP:OWN
293:┬лTalk┬╗
259:WP:OWN
249:┬лTalk┬╗
222:(talk)
205:WP:OWN
188:┬лTalk┬╗
164:(talk)
133:┬лTalk┬╗
115:(talk)
263:India
178:undue
16:<
1006:and
971:talk
785:Per
265:and
946:Pat
933:can
908:Hi
845:Pat
701:Pat
678:Pat
590:Pat
548:Pat
454:Pat
410:Pat
322:Pat
216:Pat
158:Pat
109:Pat
973:)
533:we
281:,
277:,
273:,
1010::
1002:@
969:(
914::
910:@
657:(
645:(
637:(
306::
302:@
201::
197:@
146::
142:@
94::
90:@
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.