Wikipedia talk:Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes

src: inspirechange1.files.wordpress.com

Video Wikipedia talk:Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes

Reasons for creating this page

At Gautama Buddha and Talk:Gautama Buddha various possible birthplaces of the Buddha are being mentioned, and "supported" by various references. To give a more extensive treatment to this discussion, this page was created, in analogy to Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources. It gives the possibility to give an overview of sources, and quotes from these sources, instead of the ling lists of references in the original article. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes

Move page?

I'd like to move this page to "Gautama Buddha/Birthplace sources for Gautama Buddha", or "Talk:Gautama Buddha/Birthplace sources for Gautama Buddha", to make it clear that it is an "appendix", not an "independent" article. But I guess this might be problematical for some. Any opinions please? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest the same for taking this to a talk page! Joseph the writer (talk) --Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

src: webapi.project-syndicate.org

Edit war

What's going on here?!? Did someone somewhere start a campain to promote Nepal? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Terrible organization

This split between "written" and "web" sources is unique to this article --- I hope! Yes, on Wikipedia we like to pay attention to how reliable a source is. But whether you found it in electronic or written form is not what matters! It's the reputation of the publisher and the kind of article it is that matters. If you have disputes with specific web sites not being reliable, take them to WP:RSN, but don't split up the sections this way! Wnt (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Delete/merge/move back off of mainspace?

Would like to start a discussion on moving this, as I see we have three options- merge with Buddha article, delete, or move back to where it was prior to being in the articlespace, when it was subarticle simply to exist as a repository for sources and discussion. A !vote I think is the best place to start and get an idea on which of the three might pass muster if we were tag it with that choice. I realize that means we'd be back here !voting again but at least we will have narrowed it first to the one most likely to succeed.Camelbinky (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Move- while I don't see the sources for India really being all that reliable or convincing I do believe erring on the side of preservation of sources to have at hand is the best course, since merging in my mind really shouldn't be an option as the Buddha article probably has enough problems on this topic.Camelbinky (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Move back to where it was - Least problematic approach at this point. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I think you forgot the fourth and (in my opinion) most obvious choice: improving it. The subject exists; moving it to a talk subpage would just create a need for an article, and would be taking a step backwards. Merging doesn't seem to be an option because the parent article is long enough, and there's no cause to delete the article. - Aoidh (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

While I understand improving could be an option, the fact that the Indian "hypothesis" of a birthplace is considered to be fringe and the existence of this article could be classified as a POV fork.Camelbinky (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That's going under the assumption that the article needs to be structured only in a certain way, but it doesn't. - Aoidh (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the current structure could reasonably be seen perhaps as being in violation of one or more of the following: WP:PSCI, WP:UNDUE, WP:MNA, and WP:GEVAL. Those factors all have to be taken into account as well. Taking all of them into account, honestly, the best ways to deal with this topic on a short-term basis would be either to stub it and wait for someone else to develop it neutrally later, or move it to some other location, where it can with luck get some more attention. But at this point I have to question whether the article contains sufficient encyclopedic content to merit a standalone page, which isn't yet obvious, and think that moving to a development page is probably still the best way to go. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You forgot WP:SOFIXIT, because every part of the alphabet soup you just listed can be solved through editing, and such issues (if applicable) don't appear to be so insurmountable that the article is a blatant violation of any policy or guideline by merit of simply existing. Just because it "could reasonably be seen perhaps" less than ideally isn't cause to delete it or tuck it away into a talk page's subdirectory. - Aoidh (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't. If you want to fix it, by all means do so, as you have the right to. That is your choice. While I regret seeing people write off policies and guidelines as "alphabet soup", simply dismissing those concerns in such a manner does not address them, and, like I said, I am myself far from convinced that this article as it stands has sufficient encyclopedic content to merit a separate article in any event. If it doesn't, then the best choice would be to either delete it, or move it elsewhere. So, yes, if you feel the urge to yourself act in accord with "alphabet soup" policies and guidelines, by all means do so. I encourage you to do so. However, as it stands, I think it may well be that the most immediately effective way to "fix it" would be to delete it, given the fact that, so far as I can see, I don't see that there is sufficient content for a standalone article, and if that remains the case, deletion might be the best way to "fix it". That being the case, moving it would be preferable to deletion, wouldn't it? John Carter (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Move/Userify unless there are some volunteers to clean up the article in the very near future. It seems that the alternate theories of Buddha's birth in India mainly trace back to officials from Odisha state government and institutions rather than being a genuine academic debate among mainstream scholars of Buddhism (the only listed academic paper, was published in a Odisha state journal, not by a professional historian, but by the Odisha state's chief secretary and current state election commissioner). As such much of the content of the article may fall under the purview of WP:FRINGE. This doesn't mean that we don't cover it, but it does mean that the page needs to be substantially rewritten. Abecedare (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Move to Wikiquote King jakob c 2 added the "Too many quotes"-tag, which contains the solution: move to Wiki-quote. I'm the one who created this page with birthplace-sources, being unaware of the possibility of Wiki-quotes. Great option! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-quote doesn't work either; it's only for quotes, not for additional explanations. In the meantime, I've trimmed the quotes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Question - Joshua Jonathan, since you created this originally and there seems to be consensus for it, would you be opposed to userfying this article at User:Joshua Jonathan/Birthplace of Gautama Buddha and just integrating the content as appropriate into whatever articles would be relevant? - Aoidh (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply An sich a good idea, I've considerd this myself too, but... I expect the article will still eb edited, since it is such a heavy disputed topic. See Talk:Gautama Buddha. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There are userspace pages that are still edited by others, that would be up to you how to handle that since this is your page and you created it, but that way it's not in the mainspace at all (using a mainspace's talk page to subcategorize it is rather unusual, as that's typically only for archived talk page discussions). I've already removed the link to this article from Gautama Buddha, which I believe was the only mainspace link to this page. Unless anyone has any objection to doing so, I don't see a problem with moving it back to your userspace; an RM seems quite unnecessary as there already appears to be a consensus to move it from mainspace. I don't agree 100% with removing it since I think it could be improved but I have to respect the consensus, so I don't think there's any opposition to moving it, as long as you're fine with moving it back to your userspace I'd imagine we could go ahead and do that. - Aoidh (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Will it be moved then with the previous versions included? When it is in my userspace, I'd prefer the longer quotes. Could be useful to link to at the Talk Page of Gautama Buddha. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The history is retained and you'd be free to do with this page as you'd want, since you created this page and it'd be back in your userspace. I'm not seeing anyone objecting to moving it there; would you have any objections to doing so now? - Aoidh (talk) 09:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

See next section: move it to Talk:Gautama Buddha/Birthplace sources and quotes, as a reference for future discussions. Easier than repeating over and over again the same arguments, references and quotes. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Is everyone ok with that? I'm not sure what will happen to this talk page if the article is then moved to being a talk page itself. I wanted to pose that problem before I went ahead and moved the page, otherwise I would have moved it today. I will be moving the article someplace, but just need to know where without causing issues that cause people to say "just leave it". Im getting frustrated with just leaving it here this long already. This talk page would probably get speedy deleted, there is a category tag for such an occasion. But from what I can see there is nothing fundamentally important worth saving for posterity on this talk page.Camelbinky (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I suspect you'll get an additional, blank, talk page for the newly created page. We'll see... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Not quite sure what the outcome of this discussion was, but following a CSD tagging, I've deleted the article as it was a cross namespace redirect (a wiki article was redirecting to a talk page}} which we can't have. There was no substantive content, which still exists at Talk:Gautama Buddha/Birthplace sources and quotes. This page is currently sitting without an article, and I'm not quite sure what to do with it. It can stay here for now while I try to work something out. GedUK  13:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. Having reread the discussions here and in the move request below, I've made a decision. This isn't a binding decision, but I'm just trying to tie up the loose end of this talk page sitting without an article (an article I deleted). A user page is the most sensible option. Someone suggested moving it to a subpage of the talk page of the main article. That's possible, but the problem with that is that there's no place for this page to go; you can't have a talk page of a talk page. I'm going to move this page and the article draft to my userspace and connect them back together so that this is the talk page of the other. I've no problem with it being in my space, but equally if you want it moved to someone else's let me know and I'll move it. GedUK  14:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Your solution worked wonderfully. The discussion below can be ignored regardless of outcome, this discussion's consensus that it did not belong superseded it, as does the consensus on Jimbo's talk page where the community decided it didn't deserve to be an article of its own.Camelbinky (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

src: www.daimanuel.com

Requested move

src: upload.wikimedia.org

More sources

• Mohapatra, G. (2000). Two Birth Plates of Buddha, Indologica Taurinensia 26, 113-119 JimRenge (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing! Bladesmulti (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This one argues for Lumbini, giving sources and presenting quotes from the canon. I think it is worth reading but it may be biased because it does not even mention the less probable alternatives.

• Weise, Kai et al. (2013). The Sacred Garden of Lumbini - Perceptions of Buddha's Birthplace, Paris: UNESCO JimRenge (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Good for reading about his connection with Lumbini. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

src: s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com

Bihar

Some have also claimed that he was born in Bihar. I have only one citation.[1] Citation can be considered as reliable one. I am only adding it here for preference. Because Bihar is usually considered as the birth place of Buddhism, it is possible to have confusion. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

In his encyclopedia of birth control, L. Bullough mentions Bihar as the birthplace of the Buddha, without giving any source or argument. The author is probably not an expert on Buddhism, history or archaeology. I agree, he might have been confused. I think he should not be cited. JimRenge (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless we take a "complete IDIOT's point of view": any source will be judged on its merits, in case some does come up with it (which does not mean that you are an idiot, Blades; on the contrary, the fact that you find thi source shows again your intuitive abilities. I guess you're a great software-tester ;where's the one wrong punctuation that screws up the whole program?). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation seems reliable, but not reliable for Buddhism, since he is not an expert on it. I said that even if citation seems reliable(looking at publisher, ISBN), it is possible that it is biased, and here the author must have confused Buddhism with Buddha. On this page we can list opinions about the place of birth, I did it only for preference, so if any other citation ever comes up with same kind of information, we can identify. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Kapilesvar

I have added the publication by Hartmann which argues quite convincingly against Kapilesvar. I propose to remove the Tripathy source from the Buddha article. He does not contribute anything useful that was not already published, he does not appear to be an expert on the topic (politics dissertation) and he has a clear COI. The use of this source seems to be suitable to provoke our Nepalese colleagues. See also Abecedare's comment on this page. JimRenge (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

My two cents

Here four contenders are listed as possible birthplace of Buddha; and I think this is very misleading. I feel that there should really only be two contenders in this list: Lumbini and Kapileshowr. The two other places Tilaurakot in Nepal and Piprahawa in India are not the contenders for the birth place of Buddha. After closely reading the article on Piprahwa and this paper as well as the one by Huntington (already referenced in the page), I feel that the controversy between these two places is not much about the exact birth place of Buddha, but rather the identification of the ancient city of Kapilvastu, which was the capital city of the Sakya state. This is a big difference.

Nobody disputes the authenticity of the Ashokan inscriptions in Lumbini, which gives the most direct written evidence of Buddha's birth place. The Jataka tales also claim that Siddhartha was born of Mayadevi not in Kapilvastu but somewhere outside the city. I don't think there is anything controversial about this part of the tale and can be considered credible. So it is absurd to claim that Buddha was born in Kapilvastu at all, regardless of where it is located on the map. Even the authors quoted in the project page, if you read carefully, do not claim Kapilvastu as his birth place. Rather they claim that Buddha was born in the Sakya Republic, which had Kapilvastu as its capital, which is true but rather vague. This is like saying I was born in Japan, which has Tokyo as its capital, but not mention exactly where in Japan I was born in. However, the controversy among the scholars is regarding the identification of the city of Kapilvastu itself, with some identifying it at Tilaurakot in Nepal, while other identifying it at Piprahwa in India.

That being said, I think Kapileshowr, Orissa as the birthplace of Buddha is a real stretch. Like someone mentioned before, the Hartmann article gives convincing argument that this inscription is a forgery and could not have dated before 1928; and most importantly, Hartmann states that the view that Kapileshowr is the real birth place of Buddha is a fringe view point among scholars. Thus, as per the Wikipedia:Fringe theories policy, it is best to give Kapileshowr only a footnote at best. I would thus recommend Lumbini to be stated as the birthplace of Buddha in the main article on Siddhartha Gautama without any ambiguity.

Cheers,

(Manoguru (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC))

You've provided no reference whatsoever for your changes; and this page is meant to be an overview of the various theories, no matter how weird, so we can shorten the endless discussions at the Buddha-page. Cheers to you too, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: my two cents: nobody knows where he was born - and it doesn't really matter either. Just follow the way, that's what matters. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter? You got to be kidding me! Then why the hell did you even bother to create this page? BTW, I'm irreligious and I'm here only for the sake of history. You can keep your religion to yourself. If you are really asking for references, then I might as well pull down the section on Kapilvastu and Piprahwa, since as I argued earlier, the reference and quotes do not claim that Siddhartha was born in these places at all and that that controversy is of completely different matter. That is just sloppy scholarship. Also you seem to be confused regarding the concept of neutrality versus objectivity. Neutrality is openness to every ideas, regardless of their truth or falsehood, like this page is doing. While objectivity is weighing the evidence for and against an idea, and ascertaining its merits. While on the face of it, your glib statement is true that nobody can be a hundred percent sure where exactly Buddha was born, but there is considerable historical evidence that lends credence on where he was born. The data may be false, but it is up to you to show that it is false. In the mean time, that is all we got; and we need to accept it as "so far not falsified". This is how historical research works, whether you like it or not, and it advances by consensus among scholars. I didn't intend to be long winded, but your P.S. just blew my caps. Peace. (Manoguru (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC))

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ I think you're right, that Kapilavastu is just deduced reasoning. Nevertheless, this page provides an overview of the sources. I'll make adjustments. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Lumbini is also disputed. Starting with Alexander Cunningham, who excavated many Buddhist and Hindu sites in his archaeological researches had also disputed both Lumbini and Kapilvastu, he added that they lacked the evidence. These theories have been endorsed by other scholars as well. It is not about what is widely believed, but it is more about how others have treated these theories. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the sentence "Most scholars regard Kapilavastu, present-day Nepal, to be the birthplace of the Buddha." is sufficiently supported by the sources given.

Huntington insists that: "except for Rajagriha, none of the sites associated with Shakyamuni are established by contemporaneous archaeological evidence but are mostly known by what this author shall term Mauryan validation." (Huntington 1986, p. 56) JimRenge (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Now I see why that part was changed, just now, thanks for pointing. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ I think the way forward would be to first state the places of birth and upbringing of Siddartha as given by the Buddhist legends, being Lumbini and Kapilvastu respectively. Then, we can parse through the speculations of possible current day locations of these two ancient legendary places. We might even give a list of arguments for and against why these current places correspond or not correspond with these two legendary places. You people (JJ, Blade, Jim, et al) seem to have been digging into this thing much longer than I have, so I'm sure you folks are qualified to make such a list. The way the page is set up currently, it is difficult to understand why (or why not) anyone will think Tilaurakot or Piprahwa or Orissa might be (or might not be) the said legendary locations. The many quotations by scholars, while giving a veneer of authority to different claims, hardly allows a casual reader to understand the underlying reasons for these scholars to make these claims in the first place. (Manoguru (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC))

I re-read the synopsis of Tilaurakot vs Piprahwa as given in Huntington, which re-affirmed that neither of these proponents dispute Lumbini as the birth place of Buddha (at least so far as the Mauryas believed it to be so). I also got around reading the Orissa hypothesis as given in Tripathy, and I must say that he does makes a lot of unwarranted conjectures. Manoguru (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Your two cents are worth a lot more! Good, clear, calm and convincing reasoning! I'll have to read those sources myself, but you're convincing me. Very good! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to have been of some use :) Last night, before going to sleep, I completed reading the blog post by Chandrashekhar Athavale, and I must say that I was quite convinced of the arguments for Piprahwa as Kapilvastu. (I think I will lose half of my Nepali friends by making that statement.) The archaeological evidences are overwhelming; and between literary sources and archaeological sources, primacy must be given to archaeology. The basis for the Tiluarakot as Kapilvastu lies in the account given by one of the two Chinese travellers (and its archaeological verification, but with major caveats). But for all we know, that old fool might have been lost, and he might reached a totally different place. Nevertheless, when two different groups of Nepalese and Indian researchers with differing claims for the ancient city of Kapilvastu can still have a minimum common agreement about the spot of Lumbini, then I don't see why Lumbini should be presented as controversy in the main article on Siddartha Gautama. My personal thoughts about Kapilvastu controversy is that it is not really a controversy. While we are informed that the Sakya republic was small, we do not know how small that republic was. If we assume that an average modern city has diameter of about 15 to 20 miles and that we can extrapolate this data to ancient times, then both Piprahwa and Tilaurakot will fall within this range. Thus both Piprahwa and Tilaurakot might have been part of the larger Kapilvastu. It is just unfortunate that an international border separates these two places, and with it an acrimonious controversy. Manoguru (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I think it would be wise to explicitly state in the article on Gautama Buddha that the hypothesis of Lumbei at Orissa as being the legendary Lumbini to be a fringe theory, as per Hartmann. The way it is currently worded, readers come off with a false impression that Lumbei is a serious contender for legendary Lumbini. Also, here and here are a few more links discussing this issue. Manoguru (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I introduced the Hartmann ref. He did not verify his statement "The inscription has generally been considered spurious (...)" with more than one reference (Sircar). I think an asserted scholarly consensus about Lumbai/Kapilesvar should be verifiable with several reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Any judgement about the claims of Lumbini/Nepal and Lembei/Orissa should be left to the experts. JimRenge (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Further two cents

It is interesting to see how two people can read the same passage and walk away with different understandings. Here are my further two cents: 1. There is a long gap of 36 years separating Sircar's work (from 1965) and Hartmann's work (from 1991). 2. It should be noted that Hartmann's article is not about Buddha's birthplace, and the criticism of Kapileswar hypothesis by Sircar is quoted in a brief off-hand manner. Hartmann is merely reporting what others have already said and are saying about Kapileshowr. 3. When Hartmann writes, "The inscription has generally been considered spurious", the word generally has been used to indicate a foregone conclusion, which means there already is a scholarly consensus regarding the spuriousness of Kapileswar inscription. Conclusion: This all goes to show that Hartmann is indeed a tertiary source, so far as Kapileswar is concerned, and a reliable one too, considering the meticulousness of the main article on the dating of Buddha.

If what Hartmann reports regarding the spuriousness of Kapileswar is true, then is it any surprise that you find very little scholarly work on Kapileswar hypothesis? Also, it is a mistake to regard the lack in quantity of scholarly criticism of Kapileswar to mean the existence of scholarly support for Kapileswar. In research practice, it is enough to rebuff a claim once, unless that rebuff can later be proved to be incorrect. If the rebuff is standing, then the subsequent researchers do not need to repeat that claim as a possible contending hypothesis. This is evident in the Piprahwa-Tilaurakot debate, where Kapileswar is never even mentioned as an alternative contender.

As far as I can tell, the old allegations of spuriousness, dating at least as far back to 1965, has not been addressed in the recent works of Mohapatra and Tripathy. I am not sure about Mahapatra, since I don't have access to his work; but I am skeptical that he has addressed this issue, otherwise I'm sure Mohapatra and Tripathy would have mentioned it. There seems to be no scholarly dialogue for Kapileswar case as with the Piprahwa-Tilaurakot debate. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I appreciate your efforts to maintain a neutral point of view. But you seem to have lost your objectivity in that process. Lumbini and Lumbai are not equal hypotheses.

Peace. Manoguru (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I just found these old blog posts from 2010 discussing the Orissa hypothesis here and here. Here is also a quote by Huntington in pg 57, 3rd column, regarding Chakradhar Mahapatra's book, "...it is of little scholarly value, if the reader has a fairly thorough knowledge of the archaeology of the pilgrimage route." Here are a few more links discussing the issue here and here.

Lost my objectivity? Hmm, I don't think I agree with that. But it doesn't matter; I appreciate your efforts and additions. It's the kind of info we need to persuade (if possible...) the adherents of fringe theories. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean to call you that. This whole posted was addressed to JimRenge's reply to my earlier post. Sorry if I caused you unexpected offence. I have also added the contemporary testimony regarding the forgery of Kapileshowr inscription as recounted by U.C. Mohanty. If that doesn't convince, then nothing will. Manoguru (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I'm really happy with your efforts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Buddha was born in Iran?

In the spirit of NPOV, let me make a contribution as well. Here is one article that makes the claim that Buddha was born in Iran. Manoguru (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Good reading. That article is as much or more about Zoroaster, whose birthplace is even more disputed, whether he born in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Gujarat. Although Buddhism was a popular religion of Iran, before the establishment of Sasanian Empire. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Maoguru, did you actually get through that article? I quited aleady after two sentences... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Lol, no. I too quit the article after the first paragraph. I posted this as tongue in cheek. Manoguru (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course, seemed like some attack page. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

The redirect Kapilavastu (Shakya capital) to Kapilvastu_District (Nepal) is currently discussed. Your comments would be much appreciated. JimRenge (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Source of article : Wikipedia