Talk:Art of Mathura

Major revisions
Some of these massive changes have entirely reversed long-standing statements from what, at the surface at least, appear to be nationalistic sources. These edits need to be discussed methodically before inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi I happen to be the one who already had created most of the "long-standing content".... Today I updated and improved the initial content with an excellent source: Sonya Rhie Quintanilla "History of Early Stone Sculpture at Mathura: Ca. 150 BCE - 100 CE", which I had also used before by the way. I'm fairly confident with the content, I trust my work today is a clear improvement to the article, but we can of course discuss. Can you describe what specific issues you have? Best पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Any specific issues? पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Revising an entire article based on a sole-source is not best practice. We report academic disagreements, we don't take sides. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been using several other sources in this article as well. I am just adding content based on one of the leading authorites on the subject, Sonya Rhie Quintanilla, who is not especially known for being "nationalistic" I think (quite the contrary). She's just one of the very few reputable sources on this subject. I've been reading her work, that's why I'm adding content based on her right now. Next time it will be another author. I am not trying to "take sides" as well, just trying to report accurately what is known on this subject and build a coherent picture. As far as I know, there's nothing very contentious as well... it's pretty boring stuff. Are you seeing anything particularly contentious? पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

problems in BS SUBRAMANIAN statement
पाटलिपुत्र ( talk)there are many problems with his statements 1. He says 'we have strong archealogical evidence of it being a buddhist center because of beautiful buddhist sculptures found during this era' but we also have a lot of hindu sculptures found. Infact we have relatively more hindu sculptures than buddhist in this era. There was a great expansion of Brahmanical deities in this period and it had already became great site of vaishnav art https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.42876 pg-12
 * First of all there is not much information given on that page like there is just a single paragraph with no further evidence.

2. He says ' it was not a vaishnvite center during the chandragupta 2 period' again doesn't provide any evidence for this statement. We have evidence of Chandragupta 2 making a magnificent temple at mathura somehow around 400AD. This temple is also described by kalidasa and Al utbi both describing it as absolute wonder. It makes no sense to build such a temple it was already not a centre of that God. https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.42876 pg 2

and at last the author in the book is more of a expertise on iron pillar. Does it really makes sense to take his statement on mathura sculpture as a stamp. And also most of the statement has no evidence with them Qaayush529 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * My only issue is that you've claimed that "we have plenty of evidence for Vaishnavism being the major religion in the Mathura in 4th century" (edit summary ), which is quite disputable and unsourced, while deleting referenced content about the major role of Buddhism at Mathura by the same occasion . This is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Balasubramaniam's point that Buddhism was still the main religion at Mathura under the Guptas is probably correct, while he acknowledges the development of Hindu art and worship to a certain extent. This is not contradictory with the sources that you are providing above, so the best way is to acknowledge Balasubramaniam's perspective, while mentionning actual Vaishnavite contributions at Mathura during this time period per Agrawala. We do not destroy the sources we don't like, we balance them with more sources. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong, we just present sources. पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)