Talk:Ai-Khanoum

Untitled
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)


 * 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)

Lotus designs predate alexander
Lotus designs predate alexander so it has nothing to do with greek influence as exhibited on indian punch marked coins which predate alexander's invasion.

Link: https://classicalnumismaticgallery.com/searchauctionitem.aspx?auctioncode=11&pricerange=&keyword=&category=1&material=0&lotno= Link: http://www.rajgors.com/auctioncataloguesold.aspx?auid=53

im sure similar is the case with palmette

both lotus and palmette designs were copied from ancient egypt, since there are no lotuses, palm trees in greece, lotus, palms are both native to north india.

Edits
, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * If it's only one paragraph, you might as well add it now. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

I have added a Fair Use image of a 3-D reconstruction of Ai-Khanoum for the infobox. It can be used somewhere else in the article if necessary, but will ultimately be deleted if not used. पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * , exactly my thoughts. I will shortly upload my image. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

, please stop justifying the inclusion of content violating Wikipedia's policies by stating it is 'long-standing'. Not only is this justification completely irrelevant to whether the content should remain on Wikipedia, it also reflects poorly on yourself for trying to keep it on the article. A simple quick skim of the Boardman article would tell you that Ai-Khaoum was only mentioned as an example of Persian architecture in Hellenistic construction programs. I will remove the paragraph, and I expect any reversion of that change to be preceded by an evidence-based argument on this talk page. Thank you. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

I have provided two sources with 'nacre' above, and I find myself reluctant to overturn them based on 'just looking at the photograph'. Best wishes. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you provide links and exact sources/quotes for "nacre"? I'm interested... पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * AyKhanoumWoman.png "Ai Khanoum sanctuary, mould of female head" p.116 Fig.8 in  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * OK for "mother-of-pearl" then.. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Changes to article
, thank you for your changes to the article. You picked up on several typos that I missed when hastily reverting your initial revision. Nevertheless, I wish to point out a few things. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is written in British English. Per MOS:ENGVAR, specifically MOS:RETAIN, it is not helpful to change the variety of English. Among other changes of yours which I have reverted: "toward" (AmE) vs "towards" (BrE), "artifacts" vs "artefacts", "disk" vs "disc", and a much more prescriptive outlook towards "that" and "which", which is less important in BrE.
 * In addition you seem to prefer that additional words not come in the middle of verb structures: "Burials were generally not" --> "Burials generally were not", "which were probably used" --> "which probably were used". I do not feel comfortable using these constructions in BrE-please raise them at the FAC nomination if you feel like they must be changed.
 * Finally, you have introduced an excessive amount of intricate detail concerning the Cybele medallion. While I appreciate your work, please note the following points.
 * Also mentioned at WP:ERRORS when the article was nominated at DYK: the Nike in the Met Museum source is a mistranslation. The excavation notes and all subsequent French studies very clearly refer to a Nike, as in a general spirit of victory, not the mythological goddess. At present, the closest a Wikipedia article comes to that is the winged victory section of Victoria (mythology). If you feel that removing the link entirely would be beneficial, I will do so.
 * In addition, the level of detail you have provided is not needed. The excavation notes are provided as a source, and readers are more than welcome to use them. If I were to produce a similar level of detail on every artefact and structure mentioned in the article, we would have a 25,000 word article that failed nearly every guideline. Perhaps I will create a Ai-Khanoum Cybele plaque article in the future, per WP:SS. Who knows?


 * User:AirshipJungleman29, Thank you for replying. Nike is a Greek deity featured in the object and the article goes into great detail about the "remarkable" cultural hybrid of "Greek and Oriental imagery". There is no hybridization with Roman culture that arose a couple of centuries after the object was fashioned, so I fail to understand why one would choose to reinsert information that is inaccurate into an article after it had been corrected. Just failing to note one of the two central figures in the image distorts its meaning and prevents conveying accurate information to our readers. Providing a link to a deity from another culture that arose centuries later rather than the one who ought to be identified, seems inexcusable to me. Deleting a reference link rather than correction of the error, certainly does not appeal to me. The additional details I provided clarify the Oriental features, the other element of the hybrid. We certainly should provide known and accurate information regarding the significance of the subject material of the object. It is featured in the article for that reason. I disagree with your view that our readers should be left to search for such information if they even can figure out what it might be. Identifying the elements that are the foundation of why the object is "remarkable" ought to be important — especially — if this article becomes one featured as among our supposedly best efforts. The other edits you choose to reverse are editorial preferences for clear communication with the richness of the language to readers of all levels while not sacrificing accuracy with the lowest common denominator, not worth the time to discuss each at the moment, but I object to your reversals of the edits about this significant object and believe that "ownership" issues are related to your justification. Reconsideration seems in order, I think you might concur upon that. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * , you appear to have not read my comments. The object does not feature the Greek goddess Nike, it features a Nike, the general spirit of victory. Quote from the original excavation report: Le décor du médaillon représente la déesse Cybèle traversant un pays montagneux dans son attelage de lions conduit par une Niké. lit. "The medallion's decoration represents the goddess Cybele crossing a mountainous country in her team of lions led by a Niké." You may wish to contrast the difference between 'the goddess Cybele' and 'a Niké'. I have deleted the link to the Roman goddess, but I will continue to revert the addition of a link to the Greek goddess.
 * For clarification, this was your addition to the medallion section: This disk depicts two Greek goddesses, Cybele and Nike, in a chariot drawn by lions. They are attended to by a religious official holding a parasol over them as they approach an alter elevated by three steps with another religious official on its top level. Multiple astronomical symbols of religious importance are featured in the sky as well. These natural astronomical features held differing importance to the two cultures, but would have resonated nonetheless, as significant to both. I do not see how this clarifies "the Oriental features" of the medallion, especially the last two sentences, which are mostly just waffle, and would never pass at FAC.
 * I have no clue what "editorial preferences for clear communication with the richness of the language to readers of all levels while not sacrificing accuracy with the lowest common denominator" is supposed to mean, but I am glad that it is not worth discussion. Regarding your repeated charges of "ownership", you may wish to see WP:FAOWN, which this will hopefully soon satisfy. As this article is currently undergoing a Featured Article nomination, you are more than welcome to write your comments there. Thank you for your time. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The French report does present Nike here as a goddess, not just a "general spirit of victory": Le contexte grec de la scène est accentué par la présence d'une Niké-aurige au côté de Cybèle. Rien de plus grec également que le vêtement des deux déesses et leur chevelure coiffée en rouleau autour de la tête. p.343 lit. "The Greek context of the scene is accentuated by the presence of a Nike-charioteer alongside Cybele. There is also nothing more Greek than the clothing of the two goddesses and their hair rolled up around the head." This confirms that here "Une Niké" is not meant to describe a "general spirit of victory" (which I am not even sure is a valid categorization), but one of the forms of the goddess Nike, here the "charriot-driving Niké", otherwise well known. It seems to me that the proposed description of two goddesses on the chariot, and the link to Nike (mythology), are thus probably correct.  पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that is an excellent point, . How does one explain the 'une Nike' then? As the same phrasing is used in the 2014 summary of the excavation, it seems unlikely to be a mistake. Am I just mistranslating the French language—it's very possible—I noted in the FA that I had mistranslated chausse-trappe as trapdoor, when it actually means caltrop (!)—but I am fairly certain that the 'une' renders a new meaning to the word. Otherwise, wouldn't the terminology just be "Nike"? You don't happen to know of any French speakers on Wikipedia? We could ask a WikiProject, if need be. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I may have just found something. Same article, page 341. "Le personnage féminin, un peu plus petit que Cybèle, vêtu d'une robe liée sous les seins, qui de l'avant du char dirige l'attelage à l'aide des rênes et d'un aiguillon, est une Victoire, reconnaissable à l'aile qui se profile derrière son épaule gauche." Translation: "The female character, a little smaller than Cybele, wearing a dress tied under the breasts, who from the front of the chariot directs the team using the reins and a goad, is a Victory, recognizable by the wing looming behind her left shoulder." Thoughts? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems fairly standard in literary French to use "a" when referring to a statuette, or more generally an artistic representation, of a deity. If you look for "une Vénus" in Google Books, you will find many examples. But I think it is also a rather common usage in English: "He finds the fragments of a Venus: torso, arms , hands with slender fingers, and, finally, head." . पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , yes, it does appear that it is a common usage in artwork. I am slowly coming around to your point of view. But why are the other figures not referred to as 'une Cybèle' or 'un Helios'? As far as I can see, in all French publications that discuss the medallion, the only article used with Niké is 'une'. Just coincidence then? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The first figure in the medallion is referred to as "une Cybèle" here for example. There are many other examples, including for Helios . Otherwise, you have "Nike, the goddess of victory, can be seen driving the chariot of Cybele.", also in reference to this very medallion . Or "A disc from Ai-Khanoum, dating to the 3rd century BCE, shows the Greek deities Nike and Cybele."  etc... I suspect usage is rather fluid...  पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am fully converted. I will add the link shortly. My thanks for a constructive discussion. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User:AirshipJungleman29 - not to belabor the discussion, but overlooking of unsupportive details such as "at the moment" or "remarkable" does tend to provide different interpretations that may be used for justification. We seem to differ regarding this factor, in that I would prefer an informative discussion for our readers that is derived from collaborative editing. You express being fully prepared to war over something that certainly provides exploration beyond the superficial, with a quite personal objective and an unfortunate sense of ultimate authority over an article.
 * The inclusion of details in an image considered remarkable in such an archaeological find are fundamental to interpretation. AiKhanoumPlateSharp.jpg The intended significance may be communicated subtly by things such as displaying three steps to elevate a component, inclusion of two extremely symbolic deities as companions in a chariot, displaying in an offset row a specific deity as the sun along with a crescent moon and a "star" (now known to be a planet) in the sky at the same time, a sacred parasol able to be held by a static standing figure (bending awkwardly backward) over those in a moving chariot, what the species drawing the chariot signifies, why the gender of the species is reinforced with a feature not found naturally in this well-known species, etc. Symbols provide extensive cultural information in shorthand to inform members that must be interpreted for understanding by those living a thousand years later in cultures for whom these messages fail to be effective communication.
 * There is plenty of space available in this article for additional detail that would enrich the information provided in an already good article to make it an excellent article. Our proper motivation ought to be that it is better to enhance the education of our readers than to have a "FA" one editor may cherish as a shiny ornament in a merely personal scrapbook. Discussion of this difference may prompt other editors to contemplate its value and, contrary to deleted details, will endure so long as the article exists. That is worth the time entailed. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that I'm extremely confused by quite a few of your sentences, . I cannot make heads or tails of overlooking of unsupportive details such as "at the moment" or "remarkable" does tend to provide different interpretations that may be used for justification, and how this relates to collaborative editing, which I am always in favour of, or "exploration beyond the superficial, with a quite personal objective". I believe you mean that my removal some words means I want to edit war because I feel I own the article, but I have not removed either "at the moment" or "remarkable" from the article. Could you please explain?
 * I also don't quite know what to make of your second paragraph. You seem to be suggesting that I am intentionally omitting relevant explanations for many things. In actual fact, I do not know the answers to much of what you speak. I have no clue, for example, what you mean by "the intended significance [of] displaying three steps to elevate a component" or what the star (now known to be a planet) refers to; I do not understand what you mean by "why the gender of the species is reinforced with a feature not found naturally in this well-known species" (incidentally, you can just say lion); and lastly, but by no means least, I do not know why you think the article requires an extensive discussion of possible interpretations, which you quite rightly point out are made two millennia later by those who don't fully understand what's being displayed. Just to be clear, the identification of Cybele is scholarly consensus, but that too has been disputed. If you have the answers to all these questions, and reliable sources to back this up, it looks like that Ai-Khanoum Cybele plaque article will be created rather sooner than previously thought!
 * I was also under the impression that the FA process is designed to enhance the education of Wikipedia's readers, alongside being worthwhile goals editors can work towards. Do you disagree? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not into protracted talk page drama in the shallows, just the accuracy of pesky details and educational objectives of the deeper waters. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have opinions on all of the issues discussed here, but agree that there should be a wikipedia article on the plaque, probably at Plaque of Cybele (without qualification as primary topic) or Plaque of Cybele (Ai-Khanoum). Furius (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Will do that soon. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Splendid! I look forward to that. Furius (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think it would be better suited in a wider article such as Religion in the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)