Talk:Lion Capital of Ashoka/Archive 2

The general purpose OR
user:Pat, You cannot keep adding general purpose OR based on third-rate sources. Oertel is one of the linchpins of the reconstructed Golden Age of India view of Indian history, pre-dating the Muslims that is. He was a known figure. He had done surveys of Buddhist and Hindu sites in Central India and Burma in the 1880s and 90s. He was hired by John Marshall. Given the importance of the Lion Capital in the post-colonial history of India, there are quite a few books about his excavations in Sarnath. I don't remember them all off the top of my head, but none as as dismissive as you've managed to cast him based on some popular source. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to user:Pat's (user:पाटलिपुत्र) motivations, but had I made the edits they have, I would have called my motivations, "Dishonest, shameful, unethical, and corrupt." user:Pat has not only turned this page into a little secret garden of original research (with not a hint of Hodgson Burnett's original), but their original research has reached a high water mark. They have taken the image in the infobox, added a wheel of 32 spokes above it by a digital smoke and mirrors trick and made that image the showpiece of a Description section below. But will admins and others who in the past have evinced an interest in this topic or such behavior, watch this horror in silence? Pinging  I have a long-awaited doctor's appointment later this morning, but I will quickly make a few edits (add some scholarly sources and real pictures) with the "in use" firmly in place.  I expect user:Pat to respect that. I also expect them not to ping you all facetiously in response.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Flat out of time for now. Will add more in the evening.  I expect user:Pat to respect my edits.  They are cited to impeccable sources, not youtube and children's history books.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Reconstitution of the Sarnath capital of Ashoka
... Here are the graphical sources for this reconstitution :
 * . (The notice also appears in this Youtube video )
 * The remains of the actual wheel are visible in the Sarnath Museum too:
 * , where the wheel is also reconstituted with 32 spokes
 * also.
 * Also, for a complete view of the reconstituted pillar:
 * Also, for a complete view of the reconstituted pillar:
 * Also, for a complete view of the reconstituted pillar:

Again, on the 32 spokes for the top wheel, there are plenty of reliable sources available (your claim that there were only 24 spokes seems to be based on defective assumptions: your so-called "copy of the Lion Capital in Chiang Mai (13th century) with 24 spokes" in the Edit Summary of your revert actually seems to be a much more recent cement-and-concrete work ). For proper sources regarding the 32 spokes of the topmost wheel, please see:
 * by Asha Vishnu
 * Mookerji "four lions set back to back as in Sarnath Pillar and the big wheel of Dharma, with 32 spokes, placed on their shoulders." in
 * or the Archaeological Survey of India, by F. O. Oertel himself: "It apparently had 32 spokes, while the four smaller wheels below the lions have only 24 spokes" in
 * etc...
 * etc...
 * etc...

The diameter of the top wheel is given as 1.07 m by

I trust this is a useful and high-quality depiction of what this capital of Ashoka actually looked like, faithfully reflecting referenced reconstitutions: this is in effect an exact duplication of the process followed by the Sarnath Museum in making their own photographic reconstitution ( photograph of the base + digital simulation of the wheel), only Wikifying by using our own freely available but equivalent media. The caption properly explains "Reconstitution with Wheel of the Moral Law ("Dharmachakra")" with references. Comments are welcome. Best पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I am back. I will be adding the inuse template again and I request that you not interrupt.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have made the preliminary edits. I will come back and add more. I have removed all the edits you had made involving the serial abuse of fringe sources.  Let me be perfectly clear: none of the sources above are modern scholarly sources. Colleen Taylor Sen is someone I used (and sparingly) in the cuisine section of India. If you put the garbage back in, I am warning you I will take you to AN as ask for a topic ban for you from Indian history broadly construed.  It is that kind of damage you have already done to so many India-related pages.  You have wasted an enormous amount of my time besides.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "None of the sources above are modern scholarly sources": just untrue, please read again. Also, at the very least, there are serious doubts about the historicity of your so-called "13th century copy of the Ashoka pillar at Chiang Mai" (I don't think Colleen Taylor Sen invented the story of its recent creation in cement and concrete out of thin air, and Asher only writes "the pillar is said to date to the 13th century" , so he does not himself vouch for its antiquity. Even Wat Umong temple itself doesn't try to claim such antiquity , and already has numerous modern copies of ancient Indian Buddhist artefacts ), so you would need proper archaeological/historical sources to back up your 13th century  claim.  Stop the bullying and the abusive language Fowler&fowler ("horror", "garbage", "serial abuse of fringe sources" not to mention "Dishonest, shameful, unethical, and corrupt", just on this page): you are not alone here, and any contributor with proper sources has the right to contribute. And please stop brandishing AN anytime you want to force your way into an article: I believe AN is already pretty wise to your toxic editorial behaviour.  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read about due weight. Constant abuse of its counter point, undue weight, is a Wikipedia offense.  Editors of India-related topics have been topic banned for it. The obsession with 32 spokes is undue.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake. In order to accommodate your obsession and had made a passing mention of 32. I have now removed it.  Most modern sources do not mention it.  Indeed they barely mention the larger wheel.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am now going away for the rest of the day. I recommend with seriousness that you not dicker about details of undue weight.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * First, you were wrong about the 24 spokes for the topmost wheel (references above), but now, rather than facing the facts, you are simply trying to hide them away, claiming that information about the topmost wheel is irrelevant anyway… What is your proof for the above assertions?
 * 1) the topmost wheel is "barely mentioned": this assertion is quite false. Most of the sources that do go into some detail (like describing the content of the abacus), also do describe the existence and the supposed nature of the top wheel (I would say about 80% based on my experience and a perusal of online books). Some of the main ones (in addition to the above sources):
 * "the sarnath capital was surmounted by a spoked wheel" in
 * "carried on their backs, to crown all, a stone wheel 2.9 inches in diameter"
 * "A large dharmachakra surmounting them" in
 * "four adorsed lions surmounted by a chakra wheel (originally symbolizing the solar wheel)" "The summit wheel (surviving only in fragments and reconstructed in Fig 4.a) is not just the Wheel of the Law of doctrinaire Buddhism, but also a symbol of the sun", with reconstitution on the following page in
 * "They carry on their heads a Dharmachakra caved twice as big as the smaller dharmachakra on the abacus".
 * 2) "The obsession with 32 spokes is undue": this too is false, for a detailed article about the Lion Capital of Ashoka. The current "Description" paragraph goes into the highest level of detail for the lower and middle portions of the capital (compositional details, level of damage, dimensions...), so the least would be to give a decent account of what the topmost wheel is about, rather than delete content . All the more so since the topmost wheel probably had a huge symbolic significance, probably the highest symbolic significance of the whole monument, given its huge size and crowning position. You make it sound like it is an almost insignificant adjunction, unworthy of facts, comments or interpretations, and focusing instead on the size and characteristics of the supporting shaft, which on the contrary is of very marginal interest. It is obviously basic and relevant encyclopedic information to explain what fragments of the topmost wheel remain, what the reconstition of the wheel is and where it is visible today, what its symbolism is thought to be. Of course these important details are available in Oertel, Sanhi , and in many of the sources given above. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As I have said, "You are a blatant serial abuser of fringe sources and of WP:UNDUE on Wikipedia. Have you written anything broad scale on WP? You have not. You are unable to write, to comprehend, and to paraphrase judiciously. It is not my job to fix broad scale articles in which you have attempted to work your wonders (and the list is long: the leads of Brahmi script, Mauryan empire, Chandragupta Maurya; a section of Indus Valley Civilization; your ill-fated excursion into the India page)  If you want to create little alcoves of fringe worship in central Asian topics, or whatever it is you mostly do, be my guest. But if you wander into vital Indian-history related topics, I will be there to stop you. You seriously think making a list of more fringe sources or footnotes in 100-year old sources, will make your garbage more acceptable?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Compare the list above with the works that actually are being cited in the article as I write. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Fowler&fowler: As always, you resort to personal attacks and verbal abuse when you are losing an argument... The bottom line is that in this single article you have been pushing untruths (such as the 24 spokes for the topmost wheel ), have promoted historical fakes (like the claim that the Wat Umong pillar of Ashoka dates back to the 13th century, when it has been debunked by historians such as Nayanjot Lahiri ), made blatant copyright infringements (drawing below), and that you sacrifice an encyclopedic, detailed, interesting and referenced description of the topmost wheel of this pillar just in order to make a point (and to avoid being confronted to your own mistakes )... A bit of introspection and respect for the work of other contributors is long due (your systematic reverts do not honour you), not the mention some regard for the most basic rules of civility in your interactions with other Wikipedians (and I know that many others share my opinion on this)... पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Displaying rigorously cold civility you bait me endlessly with fringe content in broad scale Indian-history related articles. I have been editing major Indian-history related articles for years. I know what is due weight.  WP cares about due weight. Like I said before, if you persist I will request a topic ban for you from broad scale modern Indian history related articles.  You have done immeasurable harm.  As Johnbod said, it takes much longer to go through your edits and fix them that it did to add them.  Untold harm. Not to mention the bizarre images you have been spamming across Wikipedia.
 * Exploiting to the full the idea that WP's content can be manipulated, you have engaged in bizarre speculation, which you call historical reconstitution!. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have go work on on Darjeeling now, but please no more WP:UNDUE whether in text or in pictures. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are calling "Undue" material which is properly referenced, mainstream and from major sources. As your last Edit Summary clearly reveals, you seem to have no rest until all text and all sources are yours only: "the text, and the sources are all mine and all scholarly" . That's the core of the problem: you cannot edit in a collaborative manner, and all content which is not yours is either "Undue", "fringe" etc... User:Johnbod, whom you like to mention without linking (no ping, no risk...) encountered exactly the same issues with you. Please stop this blatant WP:OWN behaviour, and respect the contributions of others. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was away when this all kicked off, & now I'm back it seems very difficult to work out what the fuss was really about, not for the first time. When this has died down, & F&F's high horse has had a good gallop & returned to the stable for a rub down, we can perhaps pick through the fragments to see what is missing. In response to F&F's first recent edit, I moved the Jain idea out of the lead, & added something unreferenced about the four lions roaring out Buddha's message to the four corners of the world - a pretty standard view which now seems to have been swept away in the whirlwind. We should have something like that. As for the Jains, it's pretty easy to find Jain sites like this that claim Jain influence, but they tend to do that (compare Akbar). If, as is possible, there are related claims with sources over, say, 1,000 years old, it might be worth a distanced mention, which is what I tried to do.  There might now be too much on the National Emblem, which has its own article, & rather too little on the actual object. Or maybe not. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, Please don't let your imagination run. The tirthankara nonsense was already in the article before I made my first edit, in the lead no less.  I just moved it down to lessen the embarrassment, and eventually got rid of it.  Please compare what there was, apparently watched lazily by you, and what there is now  It is pretty shameful if you honestly think there is a comparison.
 * Intellectually they are not in the same gene pool of references. Mine are modern. Rick Asher from two years ago. Yours or whosoever's from 30 years ago, and they were old then.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you left it in the lead, and I moved it down to a new section. Here's the same diff again. I haven't added any sources (yet). Happy galloping! Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Johnbod. Again, please don't be silly.  I did not add to the Jain nonsense. I was editing with your disciple breathing down my neck, changing things at will without logic. Look at the incoherent lead, which I just fixed. Anyway, do what you must but the time for adding the easy generalizations of 30-year old art history books which were 30 years old then has long gone.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In my world saying "don't be silly" to someone is already quite outrageous. I am missing something, or do we again have to remind Fowler&fowler about civility? Also, Fowler&fowler, you seem to attribute everything in this article to me: that's false and absurd. In case you did not notice, I do support collaborative editing, and there are many parts in this article (probably most) with which I have nothing to do. I, for one, do not "own" Lion Capital of Ashoka. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal
A proposal, or idea to help move forward... there are several reconstitutions of the Sarnath capital available, of which I have been trying to provide a free (Creative Commons, with no copyright infringement...) rendering, so that they can be used on Wikipedia as well. Maybe one way to better convey this character of "reconstitution" would be to voluntarily only use black-and-white and some pencil rendering (roughly, to make it look as if it is just a drawing, rather than more high-tech stuff). I am attaching an example. As always, the sources are hereunder (mainly Agrawala, and also the Sarnath Museum for the reconstitution):



Of course, I do not expect much more than scorn from User:Fowler&fowler as usual, but, who knows, maybe we can have a breakthrough for once? User:Johnbod is also very welcome to join the discussion of course. पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The serial abuse of fringe sources is an addiction. The only way to end it is to go cold turkey. I refuse to be an enabler.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Always the same old self, no surprise here... Can you explain to me in what sense Agrawala and the Sarnath Museum, whose own graphical reconstitutions are otherwise backed-up by a myriad of other reliable sources (see above for number of spokes, size of the topmost wheel, actual wheel fragments etc...), are fringe sources and cannot be used? And by this, I do not mean your own personal opinion, which we well know, but objective reasons rooted in Wikipedia rules and principles? पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of constantly pinging me and wasting my time, why don't you post at RS/N and let the community weigh in? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Because we are supposed to discuss first, and I am assuming good faith. The least you can do is to articulate your reasons (rather than throw verbal abuse at me), especially since you are the one who challenged my content. Here are the following sources which also offer a graphical reconstitution of the pillar and its capital:
 * Are John Irwin and Karel Werner fringe as well? In my view, that's a significant number of reliable and fairly recent sources to back up a reconstitution, don't you think?... पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Take it to RS/N This is not the first time I have opposed your abuse to promote WP:UNDUE views of ethnic or historical subnationalisms on WP, which in the India page have veered to xenophobia.  No interest at all.  You have no idea at all how much I despise your POV. So go to RS/N and tell them I've given you permission to present your case.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I do not promote "ethnic or historical subnationalisms on WP, which in the India page have veered to xenophobia", you are being ridiculous. I am only asking you to explain why such sources are fringe as you claim. If you cannot or do not wish to articulate the reasons for your actions, do not expect anyone to abide by your pronouncements. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edits on the India page constituted a blatant example of "xenophobia" as was noted by some administrators at the time. You are lucky I did not press for a block or ban for you then. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not "xenophobia", and you know it: it what only about removing a very poor quality picture of what you self-described as your own child son in kurta on the India page (which had never been approved in any discussion despite your repeated claims to consensus... and raises many concerns about the image rights of children etc... talk about WP:UNDUE, not to mention editorial ethics again...), to replace it with a good-quality picture of a local, about 2 years ago . You have since cropped the face on one of such images "to make appropriate for WP page", so you actually acknowledged the problem in the end (partly). I only took the obvious and proper editorial stance, and it was approved by admins who, as a result, forcibly removed your problematic picture. So this really does not give you the right to profer any of the above accusations, nor to behave in an abusive manner on this page. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You were xenophobic and you know it. You had no idea who the subject was until I told you.  Your xenophobic comment far predated your having any information about him.  So please don't shed crocodile tears about children's rights.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your point escapes me.... and I'm afraid it is a fairly uninteresting side discussion for an article Talk Page.... anyway, rest assured I am probably one of the most xenophilic contributors around in actual fact... Best पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You were xenophobic and you know it. You had no idea who the subject was until I told you.  Your xenophobic comment far predated your having any information about him.  So please don't shed crocodile tears about children's rights.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your point escapes me.... and I'm afraid it is a fairly uninteresting side discussion for an article Talk Page.... anyway, rest assured I am probably one of the most xenophilic contributors around in actual fact... Best पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

After this adroit diversion, the fundamental question remains: in what sense do you consider "fringe" the 4 sources given as a graphical reference to this reconstitution (and I am not even mentioning all the other sources above giving details in textual form: size of the wheel, number of spokes etc...): Don't tell me to "go to RS/N": if you claim that these sources are "fringe", you are supposed to explain why, otherwise the value of your opposition is nil. पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For one Agrawala should be:
 * The book is a collection of papers written earlier by Agrawala. The particular one, "Mauryan Art,"   is an unpublished one written in 1952.
 * The other is a Flickr picture of some brochure of a wheel that in any case has 24 spokes. This is much worse than the bottom of the barrel.  I have already corrected Werner, a facsimile reprint of a 1990 book. Irwin said too many things that contradicted each other; he is not respected much in the community.  See Asher 2020 on Irwin.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As for WP:UNDUE, please examine the major sources in the article, which included the foremost on Sarnath (Asher 2020) and the most tertiary Coningham and Young (2015). They make no mention of 32.  Please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:TERTIARY and the latter's role in due weight.  Oertel and Sahni have been used for straightforward description, not for interpretation for which they are too old, both more than 100 years old.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I will be answering to each of your points:
 * 1) I do not see your point for calling Agrawala "fringe" or "undue". His 1952 book is a collection of previous articles published in journals, and newly written chapters for his book. "Mauryan Art" is one of these newly written chapters, and was therefore properly published together with the rest in 1952. Therefore this source remains entirely valid I'm afraid, as well as his reconstitution of the capital
 * 2) The Flickr picture is not from "some brochure of a wheel", but a photograph of the official display in the Sarnath Museum behind the Lion Capital of Ashoka. You visited the Sarnath Museum I think, so you probably saw it, and here are a few You Tube videos of visits of the Sarnath Museum, if they can help refresh your memory and alleviate your doubts 0:251:427:31-7:40. That reconstitution is mostly interesting because it shows that the Sarnath Museum itself has no problem making a photographic reconstitution of the Lion Capital of Ashoka, in the exact way that I have been proposing above (photography of the base + computer reconstitution of the top wheel). Indeed, that reproduction has only 24 spokes, but the reconstruction with actual fragments next to it does have 32 spokes . Most of the reliable sources also speak about the 32 spokes of the top wheel, so I guess what we are seeing is only an approximation in the photographic reconstitution.
 * 3) Many thanks for rewriting the reference for Werner but I do not see how correcting a reference makes this reference "fringe" or "undue". I Trust Werner's reconstitution is as valid as the others, and can serve as another reference for my proposed work above.
 * 4) About John Irwin, Head of the Oriental Department, Victoria&Albert Museum among others  you write "Irwin is not respected much in the community". This is quite a statement, and would need some pretty damning proof. As far as I know, he is highly referenced on Google Scholar . So again, I do not see any ground in calling Irwin "fringe" and "undue", and his graphical reconstruction therefore seems highly receivable as well, especially since it is not particularly isolated and appears rather uncontentious...
 * 5) You seem to be saying that because Asher, Coningham or Young did not offer a graphical reconstitution of the pillar or talk about the 32 spokes, then all other sources that offer such a reconsitution or talk about the 32 spokes are "fringe" or "undue". I am afraid this is not a valid argument. The three authors you mention just did not go into as much detail about the pillar, but authors who do take a more specialized and detailed approach often do provide such a reconstitution and details. In a dedicated Lion Capital of Ashoka article on Wikipedia, which already goes into extensive detail about this capital (dimensions, precise components, damage level etc...), it is obvious that such specific information about the conception of the capital and its top wheel is adequate, as long as we have proper references.
 * Overall, I find that your justifications for rejecting these sources as "fringe" and "undue" are fragmentary and quite unconvincing. I should add that the matter of the capital and its topwheel is actually a totally uncontentious subject, as can be seen from our sources. I suggest we leave this dispute to rest, and move forward with introducing my sourced reconstitution into the "Description" paragraph (currently crowded with image which have more to do with the excavation, and an un-historical replica from Chiang Mai), where it will greatly facilitate the understanding of readers about the original structure and the nature of the capital. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Aggrawala's is a book published in 1965 which has an unpublished paper from 1952, that paper is "Mauryan art". It is 70 years old. No evidence of any peer review in any journal. The book itself has been cited 10 times in 60 years, and not one of those references is to the 1952 unpublished article. See here.  The only reason that I have the Chiang Mai statue is that it was there when I first edited the article.  Then I couldn't find it and had to go through great pains to produce a copy from Asher. I'm happy to remove both images.  Pronto.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I said, you are an inveterate serial abuser of fringe sources. Nothing modern, nothing from well-worn text books, only old and unread sources for promoting your POV. You continue this much longer on broad scale India related articles you are looking at the same fate as your old pal User_talk:Highpeaks35 or more recently LearnIndology who followed him later who too had vainly crossed swords with me.
 * I don't mean that you can't argume with me, but that I have long experience in editing mainstream broad scale articles and a good feel for what is fringe. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It's never a good idea to resort to ad-hominem attacks when trying to have a rational editorial discussion: it is actually a sign a rhetorical weakness. It sounds more like blind revenge for past perceived slights . And the only person who is breaking Wikipedia rules at this point is someone who has been repeatedly warned by Admins to stop edit-warring and stop breaking the 3RR rule, who has been repeatedly warned not to use abusive language against other users (I'll spare you the diffs), someone who brazenly commits copyright infringement and basks in WP:OWN. That said, I do appreciate many of your contributions and have zero interest in "crossing swords" with you (I don't care), my only interest is in providing quality content to Wikipedia.
 * As User:Johnbod suggests above, you seem to delight in creating conflict out of thin air. So again with the Lion Capital of Ashoka:
 * 1) I don't think anybody seriously disputes the original existence of the topmost wheel above the lions, nor its size (about 1 meter in diameter), nor its number of spokes (32, based on the analysis of remains). These are objective archaeological facts, visible to all in the Sarnath Museum ([]). If you have sources that dispute these facts, please provide them.
 * 2) I don't think either that anybody in the academic community disputes the reconstitutions of the whole capital/pillar made by the 4 scholarly sources I have provided: Agrawala (1965 ), Irwin (1973 ), Werner (1990 ), Sarnath Museum (as of 2019 ). Agrawala may be a bit old (although time runs slow in archaeological sources), Irwin may have been contentious (but even Falk above explains this was an early issue, Irwin remains nonetheless a highly-regarded scholar), but Karel Werner (1990 ), whose quite recent and authoritative reconstruction you skilfully avoid mentioning, has none of these issues, and the Sarnath Museum, which provides a visual reconstruction essentially similar to mine, cannot be discounted with a simple "Fringe" or "Undue". You have provided no sources that contradict these reconstitutions.
 * 3) I have also provided plenty of textual sources that confirm the size and composition fo the topmost wheel (above), but you have provided no sources that contradict them.
 * 4) In the absence of any contradictory sources, it is clear that the existence of the topmost wheel and its reconstitutions are actually uncontentious matters. Your only remaining argument has been that of "undue" or "fringe", based on the fact that some sources do not expressely mention the topmost wheel. Well, it is obvious that some sources will not go into this level of detail, so your point proves nothing. Since the topmost wheel is an archaeological reconstruction, based on remaining fragments (rim, spokes, shaft hole...), it is only natural that some sources with only succinct descriptions, or sources focusing on the beautiful quasi-intact portion of the capital on display in the Sarnath Museum, or sources focusing on the national symbol of India, might indeed limit themselves to the Four Lions, the abacus and the inverted lotus. But this cannot be a reason to dismiss the detailed historical/archaeological sources discussing the original composition of the capital, that do indeed mention the topmost wheel and offer several visual reconstructions, generally coherent with each other. It is in order to reflect these historical/archaeological sources that I have provided a Creative Commons free reconstitution, respectful of copyrights, which fully conforms to these academic works, and will help Wikipedia readers better understand what the capital originally looked like. This is not "undue" or "fringe", this is just common and uncontentious historical/archaeological knowledge, that we have no reason to dismiss in a detailed article on the Sarnath Lion Capital. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I posted at RS/N and they have weighed in. See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
 * There is another reason why you can't have a digitally or hand-drawn reconstruction. What we have are what Herle calls quadruple addorsed lions, i.e. four lions joined at the shoulders looking outward in four directions. They are carved out of a single block of stone.  The big wheel on the other hand is held up by a shaft which fit into a mortise hole of diameter 8 inches in the unfinished rock between the lions. As the mortise hole is circular, the shaft had no fixed orientation.  How are you sure that the wheel showed behind one lion, and not between pairs of neighboring lions. And if it was one lion, which one was it?  The big lions are identical, but the animals on side of the abacus are not? In fact what are the chances that a wheel attached in such a manner, would survive very long?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, here is a copy of my response there:

The "32 spokes" of the Lion Capital of Ashoka are indeed mentioned by modern scholarship, so I don't think this should block us from providing a Creative Commons visual reconstitution. And I know of no modern sources contradicting this number: they only sometimes just don't go into such detail in their descriptions. For example: and many, many others...
 * "The wheel that once topped the great Ashokan pillar at Sarnath had 32 spokes" in
 * Indian Government communication of 2009, explaining that as early as 1957, the discrepancy between the symbol on the Indian flag (24 spokes) and the topmost wheel at Sarnath was noted by Mukherjee, and was the object of a letter to Nehru: "We are somewhat concerned to find that our State emblem, known as Ashoka Chakra, is not an accurate replica of the Sarnath pillar ... a charkra of 32 spokes was in the original Ashokan monument, placed on the shoulders of the four lions.", but Nehru considered the modification unnecessary in his written answer.
 * "The recovered fragments of Dharmachakra as on the heads of four lions of Sarnath pillar suggest 32 spokes" in
 * "The mahdchakra on top of the Sarnath capital also had 32 spokes"
 * The symbol of the Supreme Court of India actually has 32 spokes Supreme Court siteSupreme Court annual report p.2Supreme Court commemorative coin 1950-2000, as explained page 7, and contrary to what is claimed on Wikipedia this file

I think that the "32 spokes" thing is actually a non-issue and is completely uncontroversial, and should not stop us from providing a visual reconstitution, as already done by scholarly or official sources that I have identified: पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

As to your latest comments: "the shaft had no fixed orientation. How are you sure that the wheel showed behind one lion, and not between pairs of neighboring lions.", I think this is interesting but irrelevant: we only have to follow our sources, which in all their reconstitutions do align the topmost wheel perpendicularly with one of the lions. In particular, we are fully consistent with the alignement adopted by the Sarnath Museum. No need to second-guess our sources on that. Best पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I am copying here a relevant statement by User:Johnbod on RN/S regarding the acceptability as a source of
 * "I don't see a problem per se with using Agrawala, which has fuller descriptions than most sources, which just mention one aspect of pieces or the period. Yes, it's rather old, but the delay before publication means little. An equally comprehensive more recent source, by a proper specialist, would be preferable, where available. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)"
 * पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think I can help judge poor and fringe scholarship in this field from good and modern consensus without a deep dive into the literature, which I am not willing to do at this time. One issue I have with your reconstruction is that it's a real photoillustration, which in my opinion lends it an assumed credibility in the eyes of the casual reader. There are only a few cases I can think of in which a photoillustration is appropriate for a WP article, such as to overlay simple diagrams and/or in certain types of collage, and in both cases the original photo layer itself is not actually significantly modified). And such assumed credibility in an image should really only be allowed for images coming directly from an RS. A viable alternative would be, for example a vector illustration of Fig. 4 from Werner 2019 that you cite above.
 * Regarding the sources you just posted, I can at least say that the documentation on the Supreme Court logo is notable. As the image is no doubt copyrighted and fair use can only be justified on the article about the court itself, this would be another candidate for a vector sketch. The number of spokes may also be worth mentioning in relation to another wheel representation that would note that it was representing the abacus wheel of the Sarnath column, but that used a different number of spokes. I haven't yet seen a strong source (in my limited reading) saying that India's national symbol is specifically a representation of the wheel on the Sarnath column, to the exclusion of, or far more so than, any other wheel depiction. Mukherjee's letter to Nehru is possibly also worth noting, depending on whether Mukherjee is or was considered at the time a decent scholar of the era (he has one book on the Mauryans). It concerns me for notability that his letter was signed only by him "& Others". Nehru's response is meaningless as far as I can tell -- he may as well have not responded at all. At the end of the day, while some of these government sources may be worth mentioning, the number of spokes may not be unless it is directly conflicting with non-fringe assertions or other government sources' assertions. Otherwise, the symbolic meaning of 24 vs. 32 spokes is of course essentially identical, so any controversy, should a serious one exist, would seem to be of little importance (and I don't buy the 24-hour symbol thing for several reasons). SamuelRiv (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the insight!
 * 1) The issue of too-realistic rendering (although such a rendering is already provided by the Sarnath Museum) is the reason why I have provided a "degraded" image for the capital itself (here in black-and-white, with low-res and pencil-line rendering) and a rather schematic reconstruction on white background for the whole pillar, which could also be rendered in black-and-white with pencil rendering (attached image in the middle), although I think the white background for the standing pillar should be enough to convey the spirit of reconstitution.
 * 2) Regarding the Supreme Court logo and its reconstruction of the Sarnath capital, Indian government material is normally available under the GODL license, so there would be no problem using it in the article (attached detail in gold on black background). This reconstitution by the Indian Supreme Court is good, but not perfect, as the proportions are a bit off compared to the real thing, and the grooved design of the shaft supporting the wheel is an invention, as no fragment of it have been found.
 * 3) I think Radha Kumud Mukherjee was already extremely notable and respected when he wrote to Nehru in 1957, but User:Fowler&fowler would have a better sense of that. Mukherjee died just a few years later in 1963.
 * 4) Apparently, the design of the new Indian flag was proposed in 1947 bu Nehru himself in the form of a bill, and he said explicitly that the wheel on the flag should the "wheel which appears on the abacus of the Sarnath Lion Capital of Ashoka" p.9, the abacus being the bottom circular portion, which does have 24 spokes in its four small wheels, so in that sense the 24 spokes on the Indian flag is not particularly mistaken. What is mistaken is the later assumption that the topmost wheel also had 24 spokes.
 * 5) The symbolic meaning of 24 vs 32 spokes escapes me a bit, but I think Mukherjee attached a lot of importance to it, attributing super-mundane qualities ("the superiority of spiritual values") to the 32 spokes over the 24 spokes . To me, it is essentially a matter of being correct in our descriptions, and not perpetuating mistaken conceptions about the original design of the Sarnath capital, as highlighted by Mukherjee in his letter to Nehru. Best. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to make sense of the discussion above (not easy!) and, Pat, it would be helpful if you stated (very briefly!) why you think it necessary to include the "reconstitution" in the article. Ignoring the issue of sourcing out for the time being. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts! I think it is important to provide a reconstitution as it is the only way to properly understand the original design and appearance of the Lion Capital of Ashoka. Besides all the textual references about the specs (above), graphical reconstitutions are provided by many sources which we can use as reference, for example:
 * Best, पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I get that part, that you want to show that there was a wheel above the lion heads (that there was a wheel seems to be a settled issue). But, the issue seems to be how to represent a wheel whose actual contents are unknown. The discussion above points to the number of spokes and, looking at the references you provide, there does seem to be uncertainty as to whether there were 24 or 32 spokes (the Sarnath museum drawing has 24, the Sharana visual has 32, Werner doesn't mention the number of spokes. Should we be showing an image that may not be accurate? Is 32 the dominant view and can we verify that?--RegentsPark (comment) 18:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Best, पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I get that part, that you want to show that there was a wheel above the lion heads (that there was a wheel seems to be a settled issue). But, the issue seems to be how to represent a wheel whose actual contents are unknown. The discussion above points to the number of spokes and, looking at the references you provide, there does seem to be uncertainty as to whether there were 24 or 32 spokes (the Sarnath museum drawing has 24, the Sharana visual has 32, Werner doesn't mention the number of spokes. Should we be showing an image that may not be accurate? Is 32 the dominant view and can we verify that?--RegentsPark (comment) 18:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Best, पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I get that part, that you want to show that there was a wheel above the lion heads (that there was a wheel seems to be a settled issue). But, the issue seems to be how to represent a wheel whose actual contents are unknown. The discussion above points to the number of spokes and, looking at the references you provide, there does seem to be uncertainty as to whether there were 24 or 32 spokes (the Sarnath museum drawing has 24, the Sharana visual has 32, Werner doesn't mention the number of spokes. Should we be showing an image that may not be accurate? Is 32 the dominant view and can we verify that?--RegentsPark (comment) 18:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I get that part, that you want to show that there was a wheel above the lion heads (that there was a wheel seems to be a settled issue). But, the issue seems to be how to represent a wheel whose actual contents are unknown. The discussion above points to the number of spokes and, looking at the references you provide, there does seem to be uncertainty as to whether there were 24 or 32 spokes (the Sarnath museum drawing has 24, the Sharana visual has 32, Werner doesn't mention the number of spokes. Should we be showing an image that may not be accurate? Is 32 the dominant view and can we verify that?--RegentsPark (comment) 18:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Right, as far as I know, no scholarly source ever claimed 24 spokes for the topmost wheel, since it has been clear since excavation that there were 32 ("It apparently had 32 spokes, while the four smaller wheels below the lions have only 24 spokes" in, "Total number was presumably 32" ). The archaeological remains themselves are pretty straightforward, since simply geometry indeed shows that there can only have been 32 spokes. But there certainly are some sources which do not go into this level of detail. The often heard popular misconception about 24 spokes for the topmost wheel is probably a halo effect deriving from the adoption of a 24-spoked wheel for the Indian flag, which has generated many logos showing such a wheel on top of the four lions (such as this one, although this might be a fake since the Supreme Court properly uses 32 spokes as in or ), and this configuration is sometimes seen in popular unscholarly books (I can only find ), and is indeed seen in the Sarnath Museum, next to the reconstruction with archaeological remains that shows 32 spokes... On the contrary, there is a huge number of academic sources mentioning the 32 spokes of the topmost wheel: etc, etc... पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "the lions in turn originally supported a wheel of thirty-two spokes, also carved in stone"
 * "The wheel that once topped the great Ashokan pillar at Sarnath had 32 spokes" in
 * "The recovered fragments of Dharmachakra as on the heads of four lions of Sarnath pillar suggest 32 spokes" in
 * "a crowning dharmachakra with thirty-two spokes" in
 * "four lions set back to back as in Sarnath Pillar and the big wheel of Dharma, with 32 spokes, placed on their shoulders." in
 * "It had 32 spokes" in
 * "It apparently had 32 spokes" in
 * Indian Government communication of 2009, explaining that as early as 1957, the discrepancy between the symbol on the Indian flag (24 spokes) and the topmost wheel at Sarnath (32 spokes) was noted by Mukherjee, and was the object of a letter to Nehru: "We are somewhat concerned to find that our State emblem, known as Ashoka Chakra, is not an accurate replica of the Sarnath pillar ... a charkra of 32 spokes was in the original Ashokan monument, placed on the shoulders of the four lions.", but Nehru considered the modification unnecessary in his written answer.


 * The lion capital of Ashoka is what there is in the Sarnath museum, the result might I add very likely of Persian (Zoroastrian) stonemasons working in India after the fall of Persepolis. If you would like to imagine what there might have been and sell models of the capital for garden ornaments, or tell stories about nationalistic historians and Nehru (who had no time for them), please wax ad nauseam at the State emblem of India page, which you likely already have. I will fight you all the way to inviting expert witnesses.  You know nothing about Indian history. Nothing. You have your obsessions.  I don't bother when you exercise them in little-known pages, but if you tread on broad scale India-related articles and waste the time of productive editors, stand warned. This ball game is over.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've requested an expert to send me a picture of the fragments of the big wheel. I will make a sketch of them and add it along with the picture of the broken pillar to the description article.  But no "reconstitution" nonsense.  It won't happen.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I do know a bit about Indian history actually, thank you. No, I have never edited State Emblem of India in any major way, just 7 gnomish edits in all (I am not interested in modern politics, only in art history, mostly...). No, as long as reconstitutions of the Sarnath pillar and capital are provided by reliable sources, only the Wikipedia community can decide if a Creative Commons version can be used in any given article or not. And in case you hadn't noticed, I have been providing a photograph of the remaining fragments of the topmost wheel all along, coming from the Sarnath Museum:  (as well as a secondary source: ). The three rim fragments cover about half of the circumference, there are three fragments of the spokes, which are actually quite thick, and there are the many "spiggots" on the rim which give information about the spacing between the spokes. Together with the 8" shaft hole between the lions which confirms the original fixation point of the topmost wheel, these fragments indeed do "enable the wheel to be restored with some certainty" as Oertel wrote in his excavation report p.69, and provided the basis for the later scholarly reconstitutions and descriptions of the topmost wheel. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Supreme Court logo I was thinking just use the entire court logo, as it is presented, and call it the logo of the Supreme Court. Don't imply in any way that it is meant to be an accurate historical reconstruction. It's notability is simply because it's the Supreme Court. Regarding Nehru, the documentation you provide give a strong case, absent supporting evidence to the null or contrary (which there may well be), that the national symbol -- at least the form proposed by Nehru -- is based off the Sarnath Chakra. I had initially read the "on" in "appears on the abacus of ..." as something more like "as found on top of the abacus of" rather than "on the face of the abacus of". Now it does seem more like he's envisioning the latter, though it's such a subtle distinction in the language that it could go either way. Regardless, that makes Nehru's reply to Mukherjee notable provided that indeed Mukherjee is at least a somewhat notable mainstream academic and was not considered a fringe wacko by the mainstream of the time (and I think one should generally assume a published post-war scholar is somewhat mainstream unless it is suggested otherwise).
 * I still have concerns with the reconstruction. I am not raising concerns with the number of spokes when it's clearly marked as a user-created image based on an RS design, until such time as there can be some good second opinion on whether there's a scholarly consensus, if not on the fixed number, then that there is/was some fringe scholarship on this issue. In your horizontal array of images that you posted above, the pencil-style version on the left still looks like a monochrome photograph, which raises the same concerns as I had before. (It's not that those concerns are necessarily objectively the reason to reject a reconstruction in the first place, but that is my basic argument.) The middle image with the entire column however seems sufficiently devoid of the possibility of being confused with a genuine photograph that it could be an acceptable illustration with regards to my basic objection. I addressed the right image at the beginning of this post.
 * To address @Fowler&fowler's comments, if there is indeed a clear reluctance in the modern scholarship to make comments, estimates, or sketches as to the position of a larger wheel on the column, then that is indeed supporting weight against doing so in this article even if older RS are more willing to speculate (much of this is covered in WP:HISTRS). However, that doesn't make the use of the column's symbols by Nehru or the Supreme Court not notable -- indeed, it will be more notable the more incorrect they may eventually turn out to be.
 * To seek a second opinion on evaluating the quality of the scholarship in these sources, perhaps you could reach out to Wikiprojects such as WP:ARTS or WP:INDIA. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks you for your comments about the reconstitution of the entire column: "The middle image with the entire column however seems sufficiently devoid of the possibility of being confused with a genuine photograph that it could be an acceptable illustration with regards to my basic objection". I note that an important point for you is that the reconstitutions should not be mistakable for actual photographs. I am attaching the two versions so far for clarity (color, and penciled black-and-white). As a reminder for those who might be put off by this looooooong thread, the graphical sources for this reconstitution are:
 * पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't think there is any kind of "reluctance in the modern scholarship to make comments, estimates, or sketches as to the position of a larger wheel on the column". Please see this most recent (2019, originally published in 1995) graphical reconstitution: Actually, I think this is probably a totally uncontentious subject: as far as I know, nobody among academics disputes the existence of the topmost wheel, nor the number of its spokes (32), nor the reconstitutions, which are all quite consistent between themselves, and date to as late as 2019. Not a single reliable source contesting these facts and reliable reconstitutions has been put forward, and the only contention I am aware of is that which has been raised by a single user on this page without any proof...  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * , Nehru was a smart fellow, both his formal proposal in the Constituent Assembly of India supported by full quotes in books published by Harvard University Press (2), Columbia University Press (1) within the last five years, he was clear that the flag would have the wheel on the abacus, by which he meant on the side of the abacus. There was no question of a reference to the lost big wheel above as no one in India, not even academics, except perhaps for a few archaeologists, knew that there was a big wheel.
 * The acceptance and formal press announcement by the Government of India states that the emblem is the Sarnath capital without the lotus (bell) below. When they are not even including the lotus (and going out of their way to explain the reasons), they surely would have mentioned the big wheel (and the reasons for excluding) had it been even remotely notable. Please see the last citation in the emblem section.
 * I had written to an archaeologist who replied that they have a picture of the suriving fragments of the big wheel in the Sarnath Museum. I am happy to add that picture, if they grant me permission, or make a sketch.  They said there was not much there.  Four wheel fragments and three or four small pieces of the spokes.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I case you hadn't noticed, I have been providing a photograph of the remaining fragments of the topmost wheel all along, coming from the Sarnath Museum:  (as well as a secondary source: ). The fragments are actually quite significant: the three rim fragments cover about half of the circumference; there are three fragments of the spokes, which are actually quite thick; and there are the many "spiggots" on the rim which give information about the spacing between the spokes. Together with the 8" shaft hole between the lions which confirms the original fixation point of the topmost wheel, these fragments indeed do "enable the wheel to be restored with some certainty" as Oertel wrote in his excavation report p.69, and provided the basis for the later scholarly reconstitutions and descriptions of the topmost wheel. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that because I don't read your data dumps. In any case your picture is copyrighted.  I have received an old picture but it has all kinds of ASI stamps  on it. Please don't keep arguing with me.  You did not even know about Oertel.  Your original text had something derogatory about him.  I found his report. I read it.  It is not a modern RS.  I am drawing a sketch of the broken fragments.  But I will not allow your  reconstructions.  Not a snowball's chance is hell.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) You write: "I hadn't noticed that because I don't read your data dumps". Interesting to know you don't actually read responses, but nevertheless delight in answering to them with your usual litany of abuse, and nevertheless move forward obliviously with your editing and deletions.... Doesn't this amount to WP:OWN combined with refusal to actually engage in discussion? We are spending an inordinate amount of time and efforts trying to deal with your objections, but you visibly have zero interest in achieving a resolution...
 * 2) Of course I knew about Oertel. He has been in the article for many years before you started editing it 2 weeks ago (bar one weird attack on the main photograph in 2020 ).
 * 3) I did not write the original content on Oertel, which you deem "derogatory" (I only reinstated content once because of your massive deletions). Please stop attributing to me things I have never written.
 * 4) Of course Oertel is not modern RS, but he is an excellent source as pertains to the excavation.
 * 5) Good luck with the sketch of the remains of the topmost wheel, I am sure that it will be a great addition.
 * 6) We are a community of editors who edit collaboratively. Nobody can say "I will not allow" anything: like it or not, these reconstitutions are sourced, and the community, not any single individual, decides if we can use them or not. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not happening. I will take it to the highest levels of Wikipedia if need be, so deceitful it is.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems you do not understand how Wikipedia works, nor show any desire to follow its editorial rules. I am sure User:RegentsPark will be interested. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To address several comments, I looked around for the basic evidence of the crowning wheel and perhaps its mount and orientation, and it certainly doesn't seem controversial that the wheel pieces found at the site were meant to be mount on top of the column vertically, given all the carved depictions of such pillars and the (only?) in tact one at Sanchi: Lion_pillar_capital_at_Sanchi_Joseph_Beglar_1875.jpg
 * I don't know why the depictions of the mounting on the Sarnath capital don't have that large axle support block, especially considering the museum photos of the fragments don't seem to indicate where a mounting shaft would go in absence of such a block. The only reason I could think of is the number of carvings that don't depict such a block (which could easily be a stylistic choice), or the notion that such a block would be very likely to survive on site given everything else that did. Nonetheless I don't see why a sketched undetailed depiction of the full column and capital, including the large wheel on top, would not be appropriate for this article, especially if taken directly from a copyright-acceptable RS, even if largely outdated. I also don't see why the number of spokes in such a sketch would matter if it remains generally undetailed.
 * @पाटलिपुत्र: none of your photo-style "reconstitutions" are appropriate for WP, including the one you did of Sanchi. The Sanchi capital has more than enough surviving structure that the reader can infer the size and composition of the crowning wheel, in my opinion. Also, all such images need to be labeled as "illustrations" or "photoillustrations" (there might be a new term, but those are the terms I learned) -- the Commons "retouched" template is not sufficient, nor is the non-standard term "reconstitution".
 * In my online search I found there is a problem with many modern depictions or replicas of the capital being claimed as genuine, such as in Wat Umong (they may have since stopped claiming it was not modern), or uploaders not distinguishing between old art and added modern reconstuctions as this chakra clearly is. This is hardly unusual for internet images, but WP absolutely should not contribute to the problem and should try to help by having captions of images on articles and their file descriptions that clearly specify where, when, how, and by whom the work was created.
 * Finally, as far as being faithful to the damaged state of the capital, the best bet is probably more detailed photographs, such as those here (all likely or definitely copyrighted and Asher died last year). And again, to reiterate, any depiction of a restored or original state must clearly look like a drawing/illustration, be labeled as such, and have minimal detail, and should preferably come from an RS or be a copy. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking interest in this topic.  Frankly, I had not expected much at RS/N, so your reply when it came and the many that have since have been very pleasant surprises. The mounting block, which has survived in Sanchi, is beautiful. It shows a wheel with 16 spokes atop the lions but whose mounting block is oriented in a fashion that separates two groups of neighboring lions from the adversed twins, which was precisely one of the things I had enquired about above.  It would seem the more logical arrangement given the space the sculptors were working with (about which more below),  Now to Sarnath.
 * There is nothing as definitive as Sanchi. The original report of Oertel (1908) says  he found some fragments of a bigger wheel in the vicinity that allow him to reconstruct a wheel with some certainty and it had "apparently 32 spokes;" the site museum catalog Sahni (1914) mentions a shaft, but not a mounting block.  Maybe Sahni is including the mounting block in his "shaft." As I've stated above, he goes on to say that the mortise hole in the unfinished rock between the lions in which the mounting block or shaft fit has a diameter of 8 inches.  (Note: the abacus has a diameter of 31 inches; the big lions are mostly sculpted inside the (imaginary cylinder rising from the) abacus, only their faces (i.e. beyond the chins) stick out.
 * The lions are each 3 ft 9 inches tall, so that gives you a sense of the artistic space or lack thereof the sculptors were working with. The lions' faces (judging from the middle lion's) are each 12 inches wide.
 * So, if the unfinished or semi-finished rock between the lions was a squarish space of side 12 inches, a large part of it was taken up by the 8-inch wide circular mortise hole, which argues for a mounting block, for stability and then a shaft reaching up to the axle. But nothing had survived beyond some fragments.
 * I did visit the museum on a visit to India quite a few years ago, was in fact shown around by the director. There was a big sign up front, "No photography is allowed inside the museum."  So there was no question of taking pictures.  For some reason, he didn't spend much time on the lion capital which was the first thing a visitor sees, much more on the various statues against the walls, so much so that my family began to leave one by one.  I did manage to find a picture of the pieces of the column outside some 300 or 500 feet away. I have included it in the Description section.  I had written to a contact in India (as I mention above).  They sent me a picture of the fragments which I have sketched and uploaded, but I can't use the picture per their instructions. (I don't know how kosher it is for WP; you can tell me.)
 * The various reconstructions on the web including the silly ones of the supreme court are useless for WP. There is no record anywhere in the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly that anyone had proposed anything about a flag with 32 spokes. India had already announced to the world on 15 August 1947 that it had a flag with 24 spokes File:1947 India Flag 3½ annas.jpg  So what is the point of giving space to Radha_Kumud_Mukherjee, born 1884,  a washed up nationalist historian (he was washed up then) who because of his nationalistic credentials was made an appointed member of parliament (like a House of Lords of pseudo-egalitarian, post-colonial India) and therefore found the leisure to wax eloquent in the 1950s about inconsequential things that Nehru, a smart and busy man, paid no attention to?
 * Sorry for sounding a little cynical. I'm just incredulous and exasperated that WP has given user:Pat the kind of space it has to doctor images in the manner they have been doing.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant "... WP had given ... in the manner they have been doing." That is, until you came along."  So thank you  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for sounding a little cynical. I'm just incredulous and exasperated that WP has given user:Pat the kind of space it has to doctor images in the manner they have been doing.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant "... WP had given ... in the manner they have been doing." That is, until you came along."  So thank you  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you In actual fact, we do not have the right to make "copies" of copyrighted material: it is called "derivative work" and constitute copyright infringement (FAQ/Copyright, Commons:Derivative works), as was attempted in the paragraph just below. We can use old PD images, and I also do that a lot, but they can often be outdated, and often don't reflect current scholarship. Therefore we have the obligation to create our own artwork for illustration purposes, but closely based on referenced material: the characteristics of the image we create should be based on reliable sources, but the style and outline has to be original and free of copyrights. Making a photographic simulation along these lines is, I believe, possible, since we have reliable sources that do the same, such as the Sarnath Museum . This is, in a word, current practice. But I do agree that degrading the image, and going towards the direction of something more schematic, might be a good way to graphically separate the original from the simulation in some cases (as you seemed to agree with the attached image, and which I think is a good idea). I am open to more comments from relevant parties. Best  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

New and improved
Following our discussions, here are two purely graphical, public domain, reconstructions of the Sarnath Lion Capital of Ashoka and its pillar. As always, the graphical references are:

As to the factual details, such as the topmost wheel or the 32 spokes, all the textual sources have already been provided in the thread above, and I trust this should not be an issue anymore. Comments welcome! पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * If I did that to someone, I would call myself deceitful. How many times do I need to tell you that it is not Werner 2019, but:
 * It is a facsimile reprint of New Age ramblings by John Irwin about cosmic waters and heavenly suns. Should we also add that the Ashokan pillar of yours is the navel of the earth? Should we cut down Darwin for being too positivist? Do you even read your garbage or just like to inflict it on us?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Flickr picture that you call a museum notice has 24 spokes. ❌  So that leaves us with the same three stooges: Agrawala, Irwin and Irwin.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As for Agrawala, should we also wax on with him about the Maurya polish on the pillar and capital going back to ancient India? Should we tell stories from the Mahabharata with floors so shiny that strangers mistake them for water?
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  09:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Point taken (if not the tone...) for Werner > Irwin. Here is the official brochure of the Sarnath Museum with a reconstruction essentially identical to my proposal above, dated 2017:
 * As for Bopearachchi, your quote is interesting, but largely irrelevant I am afraid. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a brochure for heavens sake with dozens of errors. It says, "a conjectural view."   So you get to endlessly but politely shunt the same sloppy garbage back and forth and I get to actually read it.  If I blow my top then I'm the bad guy and you go crying to the admins.  Is that the deal?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As your sources don't amount to a hill of beans, please tell us why the Sarnath big wheel in your reconstitution is not in the same orientation as the Sanchi big wheel on the right (as SamuelRiv has already asked) And which of the four cardinal directions are you favoring and why? [[File:Pillars, lion capitals and fragments of statue to the north-east of the Great Stupa, Sanchi, Bhopal State.jpg|thumb|right|Why is your big wheel not in this orientation?  It does not favor any one direction.]]  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe the sources I have been providing for the graphical reconstruction above are actually quite significant (Agrawala 1965, Irwin 1973, Irwin 1990, Sarnath Museum 2019). Agrawala, whom you have been attacking, is supported by User:Johnbod , whose expert, balanced and courteous opinion I trust. I don't think your comment about wheel orientation is actionable, although interesting. The first reason is because I am following the sources above, which all position the wheel perpendicularly to one of the lions: it is not our role to second-guess sources. The second reason is that the Sanchi capital you are mentioning is actually dated to the Gupta period, or to the late Gupta period (3-6th century CE), which is about 600-900 years after Ashoka: I'm afraid this can not be construed as anything relevant to the period of Ashoka. Lastly, all the sources I know about the Sarnath capital mention an 8" shaft, nothing about an axle support block, probably because the corresponding 8" hole was found in the middle, between the lions. So this idea unfortunately seems to belong to the realm of WP:OR पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the wheel's face has to be oriented in a certain direction by the expert and the courteous. It can either face the same direction as a big lion, which means it favors that lion and (its reverse side favors) the addorsed twin, leaving the other two (and their corresponding cardinal directions) in the lurch.  Or it can face in the direction between two neighboring lions; that way its reverse side favors the other (the addorsed twins) and the wheel as a symbol of the Buddha's message is being roared out without fear or favor in all directions. It would seem the more logical orientation.  It is also physically more stable as every schoolgirl and -boy knows after Pythagoras that the diagonal is longer than the sides.  There's more room there.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, interesting but pure WP:OR: we have to follow our sources for the illustration of the Sarnath capital. Thank you for this rare civil post by the way... पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is it OR? If the New Age rambler or the gloriously glorying nationalist have given no reason why is their picture reliable especially when it flies in the face of Sanchi?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm aware they are not contemporaneous to Sarnath. It is obvious in the lions faces and paws. But they are part of a Buddhist tradition.  Why would it change so consistently?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is it OR? If the New Age rambler or the gloriously glorying nationalist have given no reason why is their picture reliable especially when it flies in the face of Sanchi?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm aware they are not contemporaneous to Sarnath. It is obvious in the lions faces and paws. But they are part of a Buddhist tradition.  Why would it change so consistently?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Based solely on the four sources provided, I'm reluctant. Generally, I'm not a fan of reconstructed images of objects and would like to see very strong scholarly sourcing if they are to be shown. These sources are nowhere near enough. Agarwala appears to be a grammarian, not a historian. Ditto for the museum image (which, as I point out above, shows 24 spokes rather than 32). Neither Werner nor Irwin discuss the wheel in detail and, though I don't doubt this, none of the sources discusses any evidence for placing the wheel on the top. Given the paucity of evidence, I'd say we should eschew using the reconstituted image. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record:
 * Vasudeva S. Agrawala received his "M.A. from the Lucknow University in 1929 and obtained the Ph.D. and D.Litt. degrees of the same University respectively in 1941 and 1946. For his research degrees he made a Cultural study of Panini's Astadhyayi under Dr. R. K. Mookerji.", he "started his career as a Curator at the Mathura Museum in 1931", in "1940 he came to Lucknow as Director of the State Museum" 8-9. He was later "Professor & Head of the Department of Art and Architecture" at Benares Hindu University.
 * Irwin discussed the whole pillar in detail in his many works.
 * Nobody actually disputes the existence of the topmost wheel nor the "32 spokes" in the wheel. It is totally uncontentious, even User:Fowler&fowler now accepts it.
 * Following comments about the issue of realism for reconstitutions, I made a graphical one, which by the way, is totally consistent with the official brochure of the Sarnath Museum  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. I have said time and time again, "32 spokes is entirely WP:UNDUE" There are a dozen sources of the highest level in the article.  All modern 21st century sources. Not a single one mentions 32 spokes.   Stop keep listing your loony bin sources again and again  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The description of the topmost wheel and the 32 spokes is currently in your version of the article. And you haven't provided a single source arguing against the existence of the topmost wheel, or the fact that there were 32 spokes (archaeologically speaking, it is obvious enough so as not to be contradicted by any careful academic). On the contrary, details about this are available in plenty of modern sources:
 * "The wheel that once topped the great Ashokan pillar at Sarnath had 32 spokes" ... '"1.07 meters in diameter approximately"
 * "The recovered fragments of Dharmachakra as on the heads of four lions of Sarnath pillar suggest 32 spokes"
 * , where the wheel is also reconstituted with 32 spokes
 * पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So, summing up folks: A century after John Marshall attributed the Lion Capital of Sarnath to the work of Persian craftsmen in India, the general consensus today (after nationalism is a spent force) is that whereas the abacus animals may show some sensitivity to Indian megafauna, the four lions atop remain cast in the prototypes of Achaemenid Iran. In other words, not only is India's motto "Satyameva Jayate" (Truth Alone Triumphs)  cast in a language that had its Indo-European beginnings on the grasslands of the Dneiper River Valley in Ukraine and to the South in Anatolia, its national emblem the Lion Capital of Ashoka, was the Lion Capital of Darius in disguise, the work most likely of Persian craftsmen (the so-called Refugee Theory), rendered in Persian polish.  They are not even the work of Indians who had trained under Persian masters, though in later centuries the Indians adapted those styles to their own ends magnificently.  They are the real Achaemenid deal.  Just look at the paws in the Influences section; look at the whiskers.
 * Agrawala in his unpubished ramblings of 1952 finesses this thus: Thus it will appear that this element of Asokan capital is more naturally explained and understood in the contest of Indian art tradition. Of course, there is the element of stylization, so far as artistic rendering of the motif is concerned. That also can be properly appreciated when we see that even in the rendering of the lion figures in this capital the artist did admit a certain amount of conventional treatment as in the case of the moustaches and manes of the lions Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Even those who take a Buddhist middle-position and grant an Indian past to axis mundi say this:
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agrawala in his unpubished ramblings of 1952 finesses this thus: Thus it will appear that this element of Asokan capital is more naturally explained and understood in the contest of Indian art tradition. Of course, there is the element of stylization, so far as artistic rendering of the motif is concerned. That also can be properly appreciated when we see that even in the rendering of the lion figures in this capital the artist did admit a certain amount of conventional treatment as in the case of the moustaches and manes of the lions Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Even those who take a Buddhist middle-position and grant an Indian past to axis mundi say this:
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Time to end this?

 * Thus spake Daya Ram Sahni, first Indian director general of the Archaeological Survey of India in the Catalogue of the Museum of Archaeology at Sarnath, 1914, which constitutes the documentation of the museum's holdings:"A 1 .—Capital of Asoka Column (ht. 7'; width across the abacus 2' 10'). The lower portion, 2' in height, has, as usual, the shape of a bell decorated with conventional petals in Persepolitan style. They are sixteen in number. The necking above the bell is circular in horizontal section and has a torus moulding with plain surface. The middle portion, which is fashioned into a circular abacus resembling a common drum, 1' 1/2' high, ... The abacus is surmounted with figures of four life-sized lions placed back to back, so that only the fore-parts are shown. They are each 3' 9' high."

The total height can be confirmed by the mathematical identity 3 3/4 + 1 1/24 + 2 = 6 19/24 ft. That leaves 5/24 ft = 2 1/2 inches for the necking. All good.


 * Thus spake V. S. Agrawala in this 1965 printing of an unpublished essay of 1952, "Mauryan Art," which is being used for the "reconstitution." "They supported on their heads a Dharma Chakra (Fig. 49) of bigger size which forms the fourth part of this capital. The total height of the lion capital without Dharma Chakra is 10 ft. and its breadth across the abacus is 12' 11'. The Dharma Chakra on the top was about twice as big as the smaller Dharma Chakras on the abacus. It had 32 spokes and its base was inserted in a mortise hole 8' in diameter with a depth of 4'. During the excavations at Sarnath about half a dozen fragments from the spokes and the rim of this Dharma Chakra were found which bear the same bright polish as the rest of the capital.<"

I won't waste more time by actually drawing the lion capital to VS Agrawla's specifications, but you can imagine its grotesque shape.

There is another thing. There is simply not enough room in the free space between the lions, i.e behind their backs, for a wheel of that size to fit in an addorsed parallel orientation posited by Agrawalla and promoted by user:Pat. The only manner in which it can be done is to either raise the height of the wheel by having a further mounting block or slab between the lions or orienting them in an addorsed diagonal orientation or both, as in the later Sanchi lions shown above. If Emperor Ashoka did force this structurally unsound plan on his seasoned Persian carvers, I'm sure they would have carried it out because they needed the money, but how long a mortise hole of depth 4 inches would have propped up a three-foot-wide marble wheel through the blazing 110 degrees Sarnath summer and then how long its close-fitting 32 spokes could brook no passage for the monsoon rain and winds is anyone's guess. The fact that in the picture that I have of the wheel's fragments, there is no fabled Mauryan (or Persian) polish to be seen, speaks to the wheel falling long before the capital. Shall we end this nightmare, request user:Pat to remove his reconstitutions big and small, and allow WP to return to being a purveyor of Encyclopedic information?

On the plus side, I did manage to write an article of sorts during this time, even if I haven't accommodated all my sources yet and found the perspective to narrate them. In another week, it should be done. I had no idea of the extent of the debt to Zoroastrian Persia. Perhaps the Indian president will consider (on this 75th anniversary of Nehru's proposal of late July 1947) awarding the Republic's highest civilian honor to the President of Iran (in the name of its people and culture) for creating one of India's proudest works of art and the model of its national emblem Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

1) Talk about huge "data dumps" of unrelated content... I think nobody disputes that the Lion Capital of Ashoka owes a great deal to the Achaemenids, I am actually a great proponent of these views: you seem to be enthusiastically discovering this, but you could read a few related articles I wrote, such as Mauryan polish (which I am sure you could improve of course). 2) As for the Lion Capital of Ashoka, I am totally unmoved by your invectives against Agrawala, Irwin, or the Sarnath Museum, who are generally quite respected authorities/organizations. They are sufficient to support the reconstructions I have been providing, especially since they do in fact themselves provide similar recontructions. We do not advance discussions on Wikipedia by simply trashing the sources of the other: your judgement on them is not in itself reliable (WP:RS), and you have not been able to provide a single source that do trash Agrawala, Irwin, or the Sarnath Museum's reconstructions specifically. Of course, there might be some academic criticism here and there on some other aspects of their work, but that's all, and that's usual between academics (and we cannot consider your views as that a RS academic, as far as the workings of Wikipedia are concerned). 3) Neither have you provided a single source disputing the existence of the topmost wheel, nor the 32 spokes: as far as I known nobody disputes this, it is totally uncontroversial, and the information stays squarely in our Lion Capital of Ashoka article today (which is why I am saying you agree to it, since you obviously WP:OWN this article). You are only saying that many sources do not discuss the 32 wheels, which is true, but it is quite obvious that many authors would not go into this level of detail when only giving overviews about this capital. For the record, the sources offering a direct graphical reconstitution are (and there are myriads of sources specifically describing textually the topmost wheel and its 32 spokes above):



4) In terms of the tally of opinions so far, besides me User:पाटलिपुत्र the drafter, since I have now provided a purely graphical rendering of the reconstruction per User:SamuelRiv's request, I suppose his objections based on verisimilitude are now removed. I would appreciate if he could communicate on that. User:Johnbod has been supporting Agrawala as a reliable source for the reconstruction . User:RegentsPark has been expressing reluctance, and User:Fowler&fowler has been voicing opposition (surprise!). So I don't think there is anything like a clear-cut consensus at this point against providing the graphical reconstitution on the line of the authors I have provided. We could even say something like "conjectural reconstruction of the Lion Capital of Ashoka according to Agrawala, Irwin and the Sarnath Museum" if needs be... Five does not a crowd maketh, so I will attempt to broaden comments through an RfC. 5) You started editing this article 2 weeks ago by using a historical hoax, the Chiang Mai Wat Umong Ashoka capital with its 24 spokes as a justification . It is a historical hoax because it was bebunked, by no less than historian Nayanjot Lahiri . I am afraid this shows how little you really know are about this part of Indian history.... 6) Your editorial style is typical and obvious: highjack an article, edit-war and systematically revert to the point of breaking the 3RR rule and be warned by Administrators, keep insulting your opponent (plenty of examples above...), trash his sources, do not read his answers , refuse Wikipedia editorial rules ("I will not allow..." ) use anything, include historical hoaxes (Wat Umong) or WP:OR with unrelated Gupta era sculptures (above), or infringe copyrights (below) to push your point of view (all not very scholarly...). This is very unwikipedian, and I am truely surprised Administrators allow this type of toxic and disfunctional behaviour to prosper. पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyright infringement by Fowler&fowler
Pinging (copyright infringement)  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * you made a drawing of "the Sarnath capital at Wat Umong" (attached) by copying a copyrighted image from a 2020 book (per your own admission "The lion capital of Sarnath at Wat Umong Chiang Mai Thailand hand drawn by Fowler&fowler based on the picture on page 76 of Asher, Frederick M. (2020), Sarnath: A critical history of the place where Buddhism began, Los Angeles, California: Getty Research Institute, pp. 2–3, ISBN 9781606066164, LCCN 2019019885" ). Your drawing is actually an exact copy of the outline of the pillar in the original published photograph, obviously made using tracing paper (!!!. Who said "Dishonest, shameful, unethical" ???). Your drawing of copyrighted material is considered as "derivative work" (even if it were not an exact copy), and thereby constitutes a clear copyright infringement (FAQ/Copyright, Commons:Derivative works), except if the photograph itself is free (Public Domain, Creative Commons etc...), which it is probably not as it was made by Frederick M. Asher (1941-2021) himself (Photographic credits, Fig 3.3 "Photos are by Frederick M. Asher when not otherwise credited") and is covered under the 2020 copyright of his book . If so, please remove the drawing and ask for deletion on Commons with .  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It was not made with tracing paper! Please don't judge me by the standards you observe on WP. I don't own a hard copy of the book.  I determined the proportions as they appeared in the e-book on my screen with a wooden ruler.  For the capital itself.  I measured to proportions as they appeared in other images on the web. I tried to be too faithful at first, drawing the banana leaves or palm leaves in the background, giving it perspective effects by adding the path leading away from the column, and the Buddha images that flanked it and whatnot. It was drawn with Microsoft Paint using three-click curves, not the pencil.  Please examine the railing around the column.  Please examine the wheel. Does they appear to be a faithful renditions? The only thing I did make sure was that the wheel have 24 spokes, which it does, not the vaunted 32 you have been obsessed with. Please examine the lions' heads.  The have the appearance more of caricature than reality. When I finally put together the sketch.  It was too busy and the lines too thin.  I had to use the software Matlab to thicken the lines.  But that turned a large number of painstaking details into glop. I then had to remove the entire background. I couldn't remove the railing for obvious reasons, so I spent more time fixing it. I referenced Rick Asher not because of the picture, for there are dozens similar ones available on the web, but for his statement. I have now seen enough images of the Chiang Mai capital that I can draw it from memory.  (For the record, I did go to Wat Umong a long time ago, but don't remember the capital, for we went to a Meo village the same day on the outskirts of Chiang Mai and the deep ruts in the dirt mountain track being navigated by the expert Thai drivers which turned the day into a cliffhanger of sorts is what I most remember,but I could have simply said, "Drawn from memory.")  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There are two Wat Umongs in Chang Mai; on Commons you categorized this as the other - perhaps you visited that one. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that! But I discovered another Wat in Chiangmai the pictures whose lion capitals are already on WP. I've traded those for the sketch which I will ask the powers that be to remove.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To remove the drawing from Commons just add the following code on the file page of your drawing on Commons: . It will be deleted within a few hours.  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I need to get some coffee first. I have just realized by clicking on your link there already is a [[:File:Ashok Pillar replica at Thailand.jpg|picture of the capital
 * of Asher's mention]] on WP! I could have spent time wasted on the sketch in working on Darjeeling. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Johnbod Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your drawing superposes almost perfectly with the original, just check in case you don't know it already... but, I am not really interested about your travails in accomplishing it. The fact that you knowingly take some copyrighted material and brazingly copy it speaks volumes about your standards, and is quite ironic given your propensity to make endless accusations against other users. Your lack of ability to take responsiblity for your own mistakes or misdeeds, and your creation of a flurry of irrelevant excuses and personal attacks instead, are also quite revealing. Whatever the imperfections or approximations, your drawing completely fits the definition of a derivative work of copyrighted material nonetheless, and your admission above to copying from copyrighted material suffices. Please remove the drawing and ask for deletion on Commons with .  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a sketch. I acknowledges Asher's picture.  I give the page number.  I give the reference to the book.  If WP considers it close visual paraphrasing, so be it.  I'm happy to remove it. By the end of the day, I'll produce another sketch whose provenance no one in the world will figure out. What then?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your drawing is not just a vague "sketch" with a reference, but on the contrary a quite precise hand-drawn copy which almost perfectly derives from a copyrighted photograph . Your very actions in copying it makes it an infringement of the photographer's and the publishing company's copyrights. That's the law. So, yes, please delete. Please go ahead with making a true creation of your own (such as a schematical frontal view for example), based on multiple references if you wish (but certainly not partial copies of multiple copyrighted materials, which would again be copyright infringement). पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I took great pains to get it right, but did not trace it by any means as I've indicated. I did not make a vague sketch because it would constitute original research, and the lord forbid I might add something that could be considered disrespectful to Buddhism. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  Despite your assuming the mantle of WP's guardian of copyrights, I'm pretty sure Rick Asher would have been proud of my work. I made the sketch because I couldn't make any free copies on the web.  Then Johbod pointed to a link which had one; finally someone else noted that a picture of the upper half had been present in the article.  Go figure.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But I do like the idea of schematic or thematic representations in non-controversial topics. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to understand what copyright infringement is. That you took great pains to make your drawing is irrelevant: many forgeries are time-consuming enterprises. Copying original pictures is simply prohibited. Maybe you can now better understand why I create reconstitutions from Commons or Public Domain material, reconstitutions that are properly based on academic references, but different nonetheless from the original source.... That's the pictorial equivalent of paraphrasing, where you use Public Domain words and formulations of your own to reflect as accurately as possible the statement of your source, but the final result is clearly different from the original so as not to constitute copyright infringement. So, no, "making a vague sketch" of yours would not "constitute original research", as long as your sketch is properly referenced, and that its constitutive elements are properly traceable to these sources.  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Then and now
For anyone who cares, before I made my first edit,
 * The article looked like: this It was already obsessed with Chiang Mai and with spokes, but the number of spokes was 24. Its lead had waxed, "The capital was originally crowned by a 'Wheel of Dharma' (Dharmachakra popularly known in India as the "Ashoka Chakra"), with 24 spokes, of which a few fragments were found on the site.[3] A 13th-century replica of the Sarnath pillar and capital in Wat Umong near Chiang Mai, Thailand built by King Mangrai, preserves its crowning Ashoka Chakra or Dharmachakra.[4] The wheel on the capital, below the lions, is the model for the one in the flag of India"
 * Farther down, in the Rediscovery section, the obsession was with a different number, 32. It was waxing, "The Lion Capital served as the pedestal of a large stone Dharma-chakra with 32 spokes, which was found broken into pieces.[9] This Dharma-chakra was intended by three Constituent Assembly to be the symbol of India. However, mistakenly the smaller dhakrachakra with 24 spokes became the symbol. The mistake was pointed out to Jawaharlal Nehru, by Radha Kumud Mukherjee, historian, scholar and Rajya Sabha Member during Jawaharlal Nehru's administration; however, Nehru decided to stick with the 24-spoke wheel.[10] The symbol for the Supreme Court of India preserves the image of dharma-chakra on top of the Lion Capital.


 * Accompanying it was a bizarre picture, a WP-blessed "reconstitution," in which the capital at Sanchi had been crossed during the lion mating season with the capital in Sarnath. As is well-known lions mate frequently over many days, perhaps weeks.  But if it is four lions, it can take years for the Jungian synchronicity to be achieved, four years to be precise,  Please scroll down File:Sanchi Ashoka Capitol reconstitution.jpg to see how the Sarnchi hybrid was born. And the birth certificate is a citation to a copy of a sketch from 1892.  No wonder the copyist has boned up on copyright laws and thinks all sketches are copies (view the haranguing above). I have to laugh at what I have just discovered.


 * Long story short. The article: then and now
 * The sources? Well, then and now I rest my case and have other things to do. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Nobody doubts that you can make valuable contributions, they are actually very welcome. The problem is your systematic rejection of the contributions of others. As your last Edit Summary clearly reveals, you seem to have no rest until all text and all sources are yours only: "the text, and the sources are all mine and all scholarly" . That's the core of the problem: you cannot edit in a collaborative manner, and all content which is not yours is either "Undue", "fringe" etc... Please stop this blatant WP:OWN behaviour, and respect the contributions of others. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, why don't you post at RS/N and ask if totality of your sources is considered mainstream and reliable on WP. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not the way things are done on Wikipedia, Fowler&fowler. You cannot just make a blanket requests like "go with the totality of your sources to RS/N". Since you are supposedly having issues with some sources, you have to explain which are the problematic ones in your view, and for what reasons. Then, if we cannot agree, I will go to RS/N. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)