Talk:Iron pillar of Delhi

Discrepancy with Welding

Welding#History currently claims the pillar was erected around 310. --Doradus 17:17, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

In the Welding page it was: made in 310 AD and weighs 5.4 metric tons.
On the Iron_pillar_of_Delhi page introduction it is: 22 feet (6.7 m) high and weighing more than six tons.
And in the bottom part of the Iron_pillar_of_Delhi#Description it is: 7.21m (23 feet 8 inches) high.
Any idea which is right? --78.86.133.75 (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

clarification required

The link given for Udayagiri in the introduction is wrong, it refers to a place in Andhra Pradesh while we are concerned about Udayagiri in Madhya Pradesh in this context. Also another link given for Udayagiri Caves in the "Original Location" section refers to the caves by the same name in Odisha, while correct reference should have been made to the Udayagiri Caves of M.P. near Vidisha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranavnlu (talk • contribs) 09:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

can somebody clarify why does it mention kumargupta to have erected the pillar in introduction part while the article says it was erected by vikramaditya in the description part. nids 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

According to this [1], it was probably erected by Chandragupta II.--RF 17:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading somewhere (in the 80’s) that the pillar was manufactured in Sheffield at around the turn of the last centaury, for the life of me I cannot remember where (some book attacking Von Daniken or other). (SS 8/18/07)

delete false claims

listen, can we delete the part wherein it is claimed that the composition and art of making this steel is verified and similar steel is made. i know of various such claims throughout 90s which later proved nothing. high phosphorous just helps the steel in rusting early, when used via contemporary methods.

also it has been a topic of my deep interest. germany has spent millions in order to find a replica of this steel. moreover IIT Bombay set up its own team in 1992 with the sole purpose of deciphering the art. they claimed that several times. even BHU set up its own committee.

i know about the Indian engineering institutes and their skyhigh claims, for i am presently a part of it. we shall restrict ourselves to not mention that the art of making this steel is decoded till it is perfectly found that the claims are right. and how can they explain about the size of pillar which no furnace can still manufacture.

let us provide them as alternate theories and not claim them to be true here. waiting for criticism, but hope that none criticizes. nids 18:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If the claims are wrong, then that should be marked as such. Please include also some references in the article which support your position. (Some of the stuff in the scientific section is already poorly sourced.) Regards. --RF 18:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

for what shall i include some references. you already pointed out that the stuff in the scientific section is poorly sources. i just said that we can put them as alternate theories instead of saying that we are SUCCESSFUL in making the same steel. nids 19:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if some references could be included in the article about the current status of the research. Just edit the article, with accordance to the usual wikipedia standards for neutrality etc. --RF 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

ok. please revert my edits after say 15 minutes, which you do not find NPOV. it is important to change the current version because in other related topics, like Nine Unknown Men, it was said that the secret is now known. nids 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the disclaimer. It suffices if the text makes it clear that the theories are disputed, which I think it now does. --RF 22:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont think that the current version explicitly says that the theories are disputed. may be a disclaimer at the top is must. nids 22:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please look at other wikipedia pages. Can you show me another page where there is such a disclaimer? It should suffice if the point is made in the text itself. Cheers --RF 22:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, can you find some references that support your point, this would be good for the article. If you think it still not clear enough, just edit the article. But edit the text itself, a "disclaimer" is not a solution. --RF 22:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

what i am saying is that a lot of hearsay information has been added to it which the article does not deserve. i have grown up on claims with similar iron being manufactured in technical institutes of india. my simple point is, if you are keeping the sentence that it was claimed that similar iron was manufactured in jamshedpur in 1920s, than in that case, havent we verified that for last 80 years. and if it is true, why were the people still searching for the true way.

i think that the people who claim to have found out the truth need more citations rather than me. i can point out to complete theises wherein they claim the step by step procedure of manufacturing such iron, but it has been proven wrong. and even germany as a nation has spent some good money into it. (i will give you the literary source for this, but this should not be too hard to conceive).

if we want to keep those theories, we should add something of that sort. maybe a bit more clear version to current scientific view is required. nids 22:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

current version is better.nids 22:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

current version is fine for me. this topic can be closed now. please do watch it as i am going to sleep now. (its 4:30 am in my time zone) ZZzzzzz nids 22:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a large amount of published literature on the Delhi Iron Pillar by Balasubramaniam [2] and if one really reads this, then a good idea of the state of current research can be understood. Do not believe all the claims and refutations in the internet. Go to serious original ariticles in original journals. 16 Sep 06—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balaiitk (talk • contribs) .

This is just a theisis by a professor and cannot be trusted as true. This theisis must either be peer-reviewed by notable sources, or he should be able to produce similar metal on his own. You would also like to see some of the ambitious claims made by Zakir Naik, Stephen Knapp or Prof. Purushottam Nagesh Oak. You are free to add a brief discription on what he thinks is a possible process for manufacture.nids(♂) 00:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted a few of your changes Balaiitk. Your username implies that you are yourself bala or close to him. If you want to go for such large scale edits, you will have to provide neutral third party verifiable refrences.nids(♂) 01:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Modern Blast Furnaces

"Modern blast furnaces, on the other hand, use limestone in place of charcoal..." Not really. They use coke instead of charcoal - you'd not get far trying to get calcium carbonate to combine with the oxygen in iron ore. Rather, the limestone acts as a flux, helping separate out the slag. The makers of wootz used glass in a similar way. Moletrouser (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Good point, another thing that's bothering me is that it says the high temperatures needed to make the pillar required coal... but, that's crap, it's easy to burn charcoal that hot - iron can not only easily be worked or even melted using charcoal, but using coal in place of charcoal was not even an option for making good steel. Coal is too dirty to use in a system where the steel contacts the fuel; sulfur makes steel brittle at high hardnesses, and that's just one example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.59.242 (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Pillar or giant dildo?

Hey I don't know if anybody saw this article that ran in the Hindu yesterday, but I think it should definitely be mentioned in the article... http://thehindu.solidwebhost.com/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvard math professor (talk • contribs) 22:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Phallus, not a dildo, there is a difference. – ukexpat (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the whole article you would have noticed that the professor used the word dildo in his quote. I do agree that phallus is a more appropriate term, though. – Harvard math professor (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

All I see is a pillar. Some folk seem to have their mind perennially in the gutter. —Quicksilver^{T @} 03:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Lingam" would be a more accurate term. Kortoso (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Uses or something else?

"The present research using non-intrusive technique as proposed by Dr.Baldev Raj who is the Director of the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research and a member of the panel of architects and scientists"- not a sentence.69.72.27.75 (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope I've fixed this. I found a recent article by Raj and replaced the old edit with a sentence on the new research. Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Simple Math Error?

Disclaimer: I am not a metallurgist.

"One analysis gives 0.10% in the slags for 0.18% in the iron itself, for a total phosphorus content of 0.28% in the metal. "

I don't think those are additive. Should be 0.1% * percentage_slag_in_mass + 0.18% * percentage_iron_in_mass, right? This math is precisely duplicated on the Wrought Iron page, so if it gets fixed, someone should fix it in both places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riventree (talk • contribs) 07:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That does sound questionable. Mangoe (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I tweaked the summation and left the original values. If anyone finds a good example of why that should be like it was, I'm interested. Riventree (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No mention of the crafting of the pillar

Could somebody add a section about how it was built? If it is unknown exactly then perhaps shine some light on some possibilities?

-As a side note, it would be good to explain why this article mentions that it is "98%" wrought iron.. Does that have any significance in itself; if so, could someone explain why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Aiden (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's unknown, and we can't discuss the possiblities unless someone can finda reliable source discussing them. Dougweller (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's unknown, is it not fair to mention that somewhere in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Aiden (talk • contribs) 13:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrought iron has a high phosphorous content. Phosphoric irons exhibit a high corrosion resistance. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

@William Aiden: The "crafting" is not "unknown". As I said above, the pillar is made from wrought iron and wrought iron exhibits high resistance to corrosion. This is all covered by the article in Iron_pillar_of_Delhi#Scientific_analysis which not only "mentions" the "crafting of the pillar" but goes into detail on the subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just passing by. I know I'm a little late to the party, but I have some experience with )and plenty of sources on) forge welding and ancient blacksmithing techniques, and I believe I can answer the original poster's question about metallurgy. Wrought iron itself is very resistant to corrosion. It tends to form an oxide layer on its surface that protects the metal underneath through passivation. It was a popular metal for making seaside fences for that reason. The higher the carbon content in iron; the faster it will rust. The carbon apparently allows pits to form, causing the metal to rust deeper and unevenly. (The small amounts of steel produced during the smelting of iron was more of an impurity and needed to be removed, or else the sponge iron would be difficult to weld into wrought-iron billets.)

Phosphorus is introduced into iron during the smelting process; from the charcoal fires especially. The phosphorus has a tendency to migrate through the hot metal to the grain boundaries, and then to the surface of the metal where it mixes with the oxides, increasing the passivation. The longer the metal is heated; the more phosphorus will reach the surface. For example, it was long known among blacksmiths that when making a hole in bloomery steel or iron, hot-punching it would produce a rust-resistant hole whereas drilling it cold would allow the hole to rust. This is because a drilled hole doesn't have that passive layer whereas a hot-punched hole does. This is not the case with modern steels made with the Bessemer process. Hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits in lede

• "modern Scientist claims this structure notable for the composition of the metals used in its construction." -> unsourced and not needed

• "In spite of the fact that the pillar contains 99.8% of iron, Even with today's technology it would be nearly possible to rebuilt this 100% corrosion resistant iron structure, that our ancestor once did" -> sourced to a blog.

• "This pillar indicates one of the great technological achievements of the ancient Indians, Which today it is close to impossible to construct such a huge corrossion resistant iron pillar." -> unsourced and somewhat redundant.

I've reverted twice but I'd like other opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd have done the same as you, and for the same reasons. And while I'm sure the additions were well meant, they read as simple peacockery, not encyclopedic material. Haploidavey (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Order, structure and sources

The iron pillar is unique and has attracted a lot of attention. A variety of second-hand information has found its way into the article despite the fact that there are a number of good books on the subject and a number of recent scholarly articles. I've tried to give a little coherence to the structure overall and point to recent scholarship. Let's see if the article can now go forward according to WIKI guidelines. There is still quite a lot more to do here, specifically giving reference to all the hard work that scholars have put to the subject.

Some of the research by Willis which I have cited here, under the inscription, might be moved to Candragupta II. Let me know what you think about that.

Moreover, there is a lot written on the inscription of Candra. This might merit a separate article on that subject alone. Otherwise the present article will become oversize and not help people find the basic information. Views?

Zippymarmalade (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Zippymarmalade

Please add a quick info box below the 1st image as we give below cities, countries etc.

Please give,

first made in: weight height above ground height below ground composition current location 121.245.15.117 (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

How Old Is It???

So how old is it... or at least how old is it at the minimum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.15.117 (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I came to ask the exact same question. Seems the most significant thing about this monument is its age, yet the article only mentions some 'theories' that are apparently not agreed upon. Is there any idea of it's known age? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.100.164 (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I reiterate the above comments: info on its age (claimed or proved) is vital info. Shouldn't have to search thru the article to find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.16.170 (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I searched through the article, but all I found about its age is that it "may be" a tribute to some particular king, without the stating the years that king lived (a reader should not have to go to a different article to find the years). And even if it was dedicated to a particular king, it could have been created any number of centuries thereafter. Graffiti or inscriptions could have been added at any time before they were transcribed. So what is the minimum age? In the lede it should say "thought to date back to the year ----" based on reliable sources. Is it mentioned clearly in old documents? The article says "In 1,600 years, the film has grown just one-twentieth of a millimetre thick." without stating previously that it dates to 400CE. Edison (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to reiterate (years later!) that one has to hunt through the article to get any indication of the pillar's age. This seems like something that should be in the lede, even if it's only a statement to the effect that “estimates of the pillar's age range from X to Y” EmmetCaulfield (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added a bit of additional detail to your addition (and another source), because as you correctly pointed out, it should be summarized in the lede. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

,,forge welding" (in ,Scientific analysis") not found in source

the article claims the pillar to be manufactured by ,,forge welding" and cites a source with no mention of that method; remove or get a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.218.137 (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed citation, which adds nothing to section, but Balasubramaniam (see following citation in article text) supports wrought iron and hammer-welding technique. Can find no scientific basis or support for "98 percent pure", which does seem an unwarranted and rather non-scientific generalisation. Haploidavey (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Cannon shot

I have removed the recently-added section on the cannon shot, because it was plagiarized virtually verbatim -- grammatical errors and all -- from this primary source, citing, as sources, the sources cited in that article. While I agree that this information is appropriate for the article, this is not the way to add it. If it can be properly written, with proper sourcing, feel free to add it back. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Images

An editor insists on replacing [3] with [4] (current at time of sign. stamp below). The original was slightly distorted, but at least suggested the size of the pillar in relation to human beings (per WP:FIDUCIAL). The replacement is way more distorted, and suggests the pillar as even higher than Qutb Minar; imo that makes it misleading and non-encyclopedic. I'm already at 3R over this, and would welcome some kind of consensus here. Haploidavey (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see your post earlier but removed the image as it was in the inscription section but shows no inscriptions. It was also putting a lot of white space between paragraphs. I'm not at all convinced we need more images here anyway. Doug Weller talk 12:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Good man. I hadn't noticed that the original and its replacement were in the wrong section. Anyhoo, I agree with you on the article already having enough images. Haploidavey (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge of Iron pillar inscription of King Chandra

Two articles on aspects of the same topic. Not sure why they were ever split, but they would give a clearer overall article if united. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

They are two different topics. This article is about the iron pillar itself, and contains information about things like its origin, composition etc. The iron pillar has multiple inscriptions: the article Iron pillar inscription of King Chandra is about a specific inscription, which is notable for being the oldest of these inscriptions, and has been discussed in multiple reliable sources. utcursch | talk 10:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thus it would best form a section within the pillar article. There could of course be a redirect from one name to the section. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind that, but I'm concerned that some users may find the information on the inscription as excessive detail (e.g. orthography, history of study etc.) This article is already 23 kb in size; the article on the inscription is nearly 15 kb. utcursch | talk 16:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

So that's a modest article then and there's no size problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll merge the two articles then. utcursch | talk 19:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iron pillar of Delhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060718064654/http://www.iitk.ac.in/infocell/Archive/dirnov1/iron_pillar.html to http://www.iitk.ac.in/infocell/Archive/dirnov1/iron_pillar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Galvanic reaction

If the metal is the anode in this reaction, it would corrode even faster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.220.75.249 (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding inscription section

@DoctorJoeE: You removed the "citation needed" tag that I had added for this statement:

"The pillar carries a number of inscriptions of different dates, some of which have not been studied systematically despite the pillar's prominent location and easy access."

With the edit message: "Inscriptions are all cited adequately in following paragraphs".

I had added the citation needed specifically for this part of the statement: "some of which have not been studied systematically despite the pillar's prominent location and easy access"

If I missed some citation that states this, please let me know, or let me add citation needed / remove "some of which have not been studied systematically despite the pillar's prominent location and easy access" from the article.

Thanks! --ShellPandey (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't understand that you were referring to the second half of the sentence only. That phrase appears to have been taken (word for word) from here [5]. It's difficult to source a negative, but I will give it try. The point (if true) that some of the graffiti on the pillar has not been studied is significant, and should remain in the article if it can be verified. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! If you find a reliable source please let me know. In the meantime shall I add back the citation needed/cite the article you linked, and add need additional citation, or should I remove the statement altogether? LMK what would be the right thing to do in this case. TIA. --ShellPandey (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I would vote for adding back the CN. As mentioned, the statement is significant, if true, and should remain in the article if verified. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the "See also" section

There are so many pages that have been linked in the see also section. Some of them aren't even directly linked to the topic at hand. Suggestions on how to clean that up? --ShellPandey (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

They mostly have some relation to the subject. Many will, or should, be linked in the main text, and those should go, per WP:SEEALSO. The "related topics" could go, though I'm not too fussed myself. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)