Jump to content

Talk:Taxila/Archives/1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Remove "ancient India"

This is a ridiculous notion- Ancient India got nothing to do with republic of India- there is no definition of ancient India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.8.76 (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Solution for all problem!

Everybody on the talk page including editors:

1. "Solution for dispute over banner under which this article has build"  : Consider one thing that it don't matter weather the page is created under Pakistan or India banner. Look, the problem of conflict between patriotic feeling is a common thing. From the both side (India and Pakistan), we get emotion when the matter came upon our countries pride and name. We all know that the Wikipedia solely work for knowledge. Why we're fighting on names. If all of us stands on moon and look our earth from space, no one can tell that from where India's or Pakistan's territory starts or end. You all know that the politician and people of British India feel shame to use there mind and divide India into two part. Everybody knows that the soil of Pakistan never belongs to it at, like soil of India never belongs to it. The soil belongs to humans and dictator's and sometime hack of some Majesty. I apologise form my rude language but you can think about it.

2. "Solution on disputer over the recognition of Takshashila/Taxila as University" : India was a country ancient, great, nice people have there faith in knowledge and science from Ancient time when Europeans starting to build a new social structure. Nalanda and Takshashila/Taxila University were center for learning and education only, on which we are making cold war like politicians. I read all the arguments on every dispute and it's look like Mr. Flower&flower don't like to assume Takshashila/Taxila's center of education as a University. I have only one question to Mr. Flower&flower that what's the problem in accepting Takshashila/Taxila's center of education as University. Should U.N.O. have to establish a INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMITTION to recognise all ancient center of education as University. A University is a place where place create something, develop something, think of the science and art. Tell me, does it matters if you accept a great ancient place education as University.

3. "Solution on dispute over name of place" : Everybody, do a favour with language and don't dispute over it. People of West are call Takshashila as Taxila because it is easy for them to pronounce it and it is well know name for them too. Can you expect three present our Western brothers/sisters to pronounce Takshashila correctly. Nah! It will be great trouble for them to do so. Furthermore little kid of 12 year have his point but dear kid, as you live in London, you know how many people spell even your true name correctly. Even they shorten your name to avoid mis-spell of your name. India can spell english and sanskrit correctly because of there skill in spelling word's as European have great skill over singing songs. So, don't get too much emotional on the matter of language. We Indian's also change European names according to our language, for example, we spell "Kaahira" rather than it's European name Cario. There are many other example's like British-Britaani, Egypt-Mishr, America-Aamreeka, China-Cheen, and etc. The list will never last I think. Kid aged 12 year, I don't know your name but I know you're very patriotic and missing your motherland very much. Carry on that proud feeling and contribute in Wikipedia by making articles in Hindi. Everyone must have to know about the greatness of Hindi and our other Indian languages. 

A Word to all Wikipedia's reader's

You all know that how much arguments already done over Pakistan and India. It make a feeling that we're different person's. I don't like the concept of Global Harmony because it's more like a measure to avoid war created by us. Think about our land if we reunite under the same name Ashoka use for his motherland. There's feeling of brotherhood even in the name of Hindu-staan and Paki-istaan. Politician do there work but we people are the only way to reunite India. Some people can say 'how is this possible, India and Pakistaan are seperate countries', but, don't forget that in 1947 our politician are too close to cancel the partition. If they agreed to do so then there might be two boundrise got erased from the face of the world (Not India, Pakistaan and Bangladesh but only India/Hindutaan. Furthermore less troble and less terrorism). Shivwithshivangi (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)shivwithshivangiShivwithshivangi (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The earliest occupation at Taxila, in light of burnished red ware

I have edited the Early Historic section which deals with the earliest occupation at Taxila. Previously, it was stated that Bhir mound represented the earliest occupation. However, in light of the recovery of red burnished wares (or 'soapy red ware') from the surface of the Hathial area by F.R. Allchin (1982, in Antiquity), it is possible that yet earlier occupational evidence is to be found here. B. Allchin and F.R. Allchin state the following:

"Recent discoveries by the Cambridge-Pakistan team at Taxila have revealed the existence of an earlier settlement of considerable size in the Hathial area adjacent to the Bhir mound. Here the red burnished ware and accompanying materials have shown not only close correspondence with those of Charsada [sic], but even more striking affinities with the pottery and material culture of the latter phase of the Gandharan graves at Swat" (1982, 314).

According to Dittmann's chronology, Swat V, mainly coincident with the burnished red ware (according to Vogelsang, 1988, 110), is dated to between c. 1400-800 (Dittmann, 1984, Table 5).

Therefore, Dittmann (1984), Vogelsang (1988) and others (Coningham et al, 2007) have confirmed the early date for burnished red ware in NWFP, linking it with the Swat V sequence which suggests a date of at least c. 900 BCE. I would say that a general consensus concerns the earlier dating of these north-west sites, representing a pretty major reformulation of Mortimer Wheeler's and John Marshall's original hypotheses in which urbanism was a 6th century Achaemenid 'gift' to India. I've put this in some detail so that my argument can be disputed, and, in order to anticipate some arguments, the surface sherds collected by Allchin in 1982 have no secure in situ provenience. However, I find it hard to believe that ceramics that are earlier than the 6th century BCE would somehow find their way onto site like this. Dune Sherban (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Taxila was never a place of Hindu learning

To say that taxila has been a place of Hindu learning is to mock history. I was born in the city and am well versed in the history of the city. I would request the contributor to substantiate their claim.

I agree that Taxila was not really a place of Hindu learning. This claim of Vedic/Hindu learning cannot be really be verified. We need more research on this. Until we have enoug evidence we should not state this as fact and mislead readers.Eilangko (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I would you request you to come up with any other name, ancient or modern, for "Taxila" other than the original Takshashila which is in Sanskrit, the language of Hindus, before trying to dismiss its Hindu heritage. Even Taxila is an anglicized version of Takshashila.
221.135.246.153 16:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Languages don't have any religion. Sanskrit was not even evolved in India, it was the language of Vedic Aryans who were neither native to India nor were they Hindus.


You may have been born and raised there but that doesn't make you an expert in ancient history of taxila. It is a well documented fact that Taxila was a place of learning well before buddhism was introduced during the reign of Asoka and the religion prevelant before that time was hinduism, tell history like it happened. Please do not pick the facts that you like and omit the ones that you don't. The famous sanskrit scholar Panini (much of the work in sanskrit grammar was done by him at Taxila. Kautilya(the mentor of Chandragupta Murya) wrote his Arthshastra while he was a teacher at Taxila and the list goes on. The fact that Taxila became a seat of Buddhist learning during the reign of Asoka and Kushanas is well known to historians the world over. Read the history before making ignorant and unsubstantiated claims.

Hindu word itself came after Arabic warriors came in India. The city and its culture was flourishing long before that so one can not relate the culture or city with Hinduism. In fact current Hindu belief is a lot deviated from the original Vedic culture.

Really???? the world Hindu(from Sindhu, it literally means the inhabitants of the land of Sindhu or Indus) created and used for centuries by the ancient persians, the immediate neighbors to the west(i.e Zorastrian Persia or modern Iran). It was they who passed on this name to the Arabs and the rest of the world, centuries before the Arab/Islamic conquests July 30, 2006

first university

Cite cop is vandalizing the site, editing and deleting referenced material sep3, 2006
CiteCop is making damn well sure that sources cited verify the text in question.CiteCop 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The source cited in "Early Hindu" refrence is encyclopedia britannica which says that Kautilya was a "Hindu" statesman and a teacher at "taxila" so it was associated with brahminism and early hindu learning before, during and after the reign of Nandas(the dynasty that was defeated by chandragupta with the help of kautilya, who in turn was avenging the fact that he was exiled from Magadha by the Nandas, and spent most of that time at Taxila) All the stupas excavated at Taxila are from either during the later years of Ashoka's reign(two generations after chandragupta) or from a period after that, as is clear from the unesco refrence cited by you. The only religion prevelant before that was hinduism. Taxila was a centre of learning during that period as is clear fron the britannica and Ayurveda(charaka) refrences. We cannont call them Vedic because the late vedic period ended long before Kautilya and Panini lived. Scholars associated with Taxila lived after the 7th century B.C. If we are going to use contemporary terms like Buddhist to describe the Ashoka and Kushan periods, then we have to use Early Hindu(used by most historians to describe this period) for the period prior to that. Cite cop you should be banned for deleting refrenced material your own UNESCO refrence doesn't even use the term buddhist centre of learning but we are all smart enough to know that a stupa is a buddhist monument. Aparently Cite cop you don't know that Hindu statesman(kautilya), ayurvedic scholar(charaka) and sanskrit grammarian(panini) means they were Hindu gentlemen or brahmins to be precise. Or do you think they were all Buddhists???

So now the question is why did you delete those refrences and in addition to that you also deleted the words "Early Hindu"(since charaka, panini and kautilya etc. lived after the late vedic period and the epic age)???????? They pretty well expain that these gentlemen were "Hindu" statesmen or Brahmin scholars........i could cite hundereds of history books published during the last century with refrences that say exactly the same thing. I am not a Hindu nor do i have any association with Taxila but as a student of history the ignorance of people like you is really disturbing.

So Cite Cop, is this another attempt at vandalism or not??? Sept 4, 2006

UNESCO was my source. UNESCO said Buddhist so I said Buddhist.
The entry for Taxila in your online Britannica is strangely silent on the issue.
CiteCop 04:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Heading

Why is the image at the top of the page cover the entire width of the page? This is fairly nonstandard. --Whiteknox 20:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sanskrit or Indianization?

Fouler&Fouler, what proof do you have that Sanskrit was used by the ancient people of Taxila? I will accept the script if you provide a non-Indian and unbiased neutral proof for its use by the ancient people of Taxila. (and also provide script for some language Pali or whatever the third language is) Szhaider 04:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, because you want to remove the relevant scripts, you should provide sources that it wasn't used by the people of Taxila. Anyways I have two sources per your request: World 66: Taxila and The South Asia: Taxila. This should clear everything up. Thanks, AnupamTalk 04:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Szhaider, The Sanskrit script at the top of the article is relevant. Sanskrit and Pali/Prakrit were both languages used in the region for 2000 years. See: Peoples and Languages of Pre-Islamic Indus Valley by Tariq Rahman. Here is the first few sentences from the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Taxila:

In Sanskrit "shila" means rock; therefore, the name of the city means "(King) Taksha's rock." Furthermore, Taxila is mentioned in both the Sanskrit epics Ramayana and Mahabharata. Here is the Encyclopaedia Britannica article once again:

So the inclusion of the Sanskrit script in entirely relevant. I am not someone who compulsively asks for Sanskrit scripts in Pakistan related articles. See the Talk:Harappa, where I ask for the Sanskrit to be removed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Fouler&Fouler. Anupam, any information which cannot be proved true can be deleted. See WP:Verifiability. Counter-questioning is not a constructive behaviour and expresses POV-pushing tendency. Szhaider 05:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but your questioning was not in good faith as evinced by the header of this conversation: "Sanskrit or Indianization", especially when the article discusses Vedic civilization as sourced in the article. Oh by the way, thanks for providing the addition sources, Fowler&Fowler. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It was in unbiased faith which might turn out be "not good" for some. Szhaider 05:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay. --AnupamTalk 05:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


The irony of ironies here is that people who now have a problem with sanskrit and ancient vedic religion and its connection to Taxila or Pakistan, are either unaware of or conveniently forget that the greatest Sanskrit grammarian a brahmin to ever have lived, Panini was born not far from today's Taxila in Attock district, and was a prominent personality associated with Taxila, a fact well acknowledged by every credible historian including Pakistani historians---Anon

Taxila was a center of learning, not a University

Why do people feel the need to add text that is plainly not true? Hartmut Scharfe's Education in Ancient India was cited as mentioning Taxila to be the world's oldest university. I read through the relevant pages of Scharfe's book. Nowhere does he call Taxila a university, let alone the world's oldest! He is very careful to only refer to it as a center of learning. Here is what he says:

It's one thing to make a good faith mistake, but it's another to cite the Scharfe's book for a claim, when there is no evidence for it in this source. That is falsification, plain and simple! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was a university. I thought it would be pertinent to produce some sources which include the following:-

  • Official Portal of the Government of Pakistan (Pakistani Heritage)
  • The University outside Europe: Essays on the Development of University Institutions in Fourteen Countries (part 3:India) by Edward Bradby. [1]
  • Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science by Allen Kent and H. Lancour (page 203). Published 1985. CRC Press. ISBN 0824720393

Many regards, Freedom skies| talk  06:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. Your references are not reliable. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica:[1]

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ * Taxila. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved January 15, 2007, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online

Your references are not reliable.

This personal opinion could not be more incorrect. The citations as such, are very reliable. If you're attempting to make a case stating that The University outside Europe: Essays on the Development of University Institutions in Fourteen Countries (part 3:India) by Edward Bradby. is unreliable then you're mistaken. Also, the "It was not a university town with lecture halls and residential quarters" is misrepresented. The structural differences between universites of the world can be gauged by the "Essays on the Development of University Institutions in Fourteen Countries."

Having said that, I'm on a Wikibreak and have prior commitments on Wikipedia itself when I return. I'll not pursue this presently due to time constraints. Regards,

Freedom skies| talk  15:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

From the talk page of Takshashila centre of learning, now merged with Taxila

Note This page was previously named Takshashila University. The first five sections of this talk page were copied from that page, and provide the rationale for the name change. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

University ?

Aren't these "university's" in India more like the Greek "Lyceum" or "Academy"? It seems a bit irresponsible and far-fetched to call them a university. Did they have an established curriculum, building complexes, paid professors? The Europeans don't really begin to call them universities until they incorporate as a university and have paid professors... Stevenmitchell 06:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Stevenmitchell, I don't think it was like a Greek Lyceum; more, perhaps, like a monastery town—like a Mont Saint-Michel, with students living nearby. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica:[1]
  1. ^ * Taxila. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved January 15, 2007, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online
I hope this quote is not too long (i.e. a copyvio), but it does seem to settle the "university" question. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that sound like a European monastery to you? Where students or pupils stayed at someone's house and paid for a room to learn. Doesn't sound like the production facility of a monastery. I think monasteries were a bit flatter in their hierarchy. It may be the Britannica's analogy but it sounds very confusing.

The Buddhist monasteries also catered to the needs of the students and monks seems a bit ambiguous. I would think it would be better if we could get a more effective description, rather than one as speculative.

Regards, Steve Stevenmitchell 13:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Steven, Takshashila is wrongly associated as being ONLY a centre of Buddhist learning, whereas it was a centre of Vedic (or in modern sense, "Hindu") learning also. The Indian equivalent of Michiavelli, Chanakya was a teacher there and he composed his magnum opus, the Arthashastra there.
Takshashila would be incorrectly attributed as only a large Academy or a collection of religious schools. Considering its time, its importance at that time, and the large amount of intellectual products (both Vedic & Buddhist) which were churned out from there, it would be appropriate to call it a University of that time. IAF
Hi Steve, Yes, come to think of it, a monastery (as in Benedectine) is not the best analogy. I've added an extended quote from a book below. It will give you a better idea. In any case, what I was trying to say above, was that Taxila was not a university and shouldn't be labeled as such. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi IAF, As both Encyclopaedia Britannica (quoted above) and Scharfe's book, Education in Ancient India, quoted below, take pains to state, Taxila, was not a university. A university has a specific meaning in current parlance: established curriculum, lecture halls and other buildings, (often) residential quarters, paid professors, and the authority to grant degrees. Taxila did not meet these criteria. It may have been a precursor to a university, but being a precursor doesn't make it the real thing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Guinness Book

I have removed the incorrect claim that Guinness Book recognizes Taxila as the world's oldest university. The Guinness book recognizes a university in Morrocco, see here, as the world's oldest. As I have mentioned above, Taxila was a center of learning, but (as Britannica says as well) it was not a university in the usual sense of the word. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does this page exist?

Why is this page even here (i.e. in Wikipedia)? The Taxila page is more extensive and has everything here and more. This page should simply be deleted, as there is not one sentence in it that is not already in the Taxila page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do people lie?

Why do people feel the need to add text that is plainly not true? The text mentioned that the Guinness book considered Taxila to be the world's oldest university. That, however, is not true. Next, another reference, Hartmut Scharfe's Education in Ancient India was cited as mentioning Taxila to be the world's oldest university. I read through the relevant pages of Scharfe's book. Nowhere does he call Taxila a university, let alone the world's oldest! He is very careful to only refer to it as a center of learning. Here is what he says:

It's one thing to make a good faith mistake, but it's another to deliberately cite the Guinness Book or Scharfe's book for a claim, when there is no evidence for it in these sources. That is falsification, plain and simple! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

UNESCO World Heritage Site Citation

The UNESCO World Heritage List brief description describes Taxila as:

Again, as I have repeatedly said above, no mention is made of a university. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Name changed to Takshashila centre of learning

I have changed the name of the page. The evidence that Taxila was not a university was overwhelming. The new name is more accurate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?

This article is pointless in my opinion. The Taxila article already covers pretty much everything mentioned here. Does anyone else agree that this article should be deleted? Jagged 85 22:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

University

As I have said before, Taxila was not a university in the modern sense of the word. I checked one of the references The University outside Europe: Essays on the Development of University Institutions in Fourteen Countries. I couldn't find any references to Taxila as a "university." Taxila according to the search is on page 209, the word "university" is nowhere on that page.

Similarly, Radha Kumud Mookerji (Ancient Indian Education: Brahmanical and Buddhist) calls Taxila a centre of learning and uses the word "university" only as an example. In Chapter 11, titled "Universities," Taxila is not in that list: I. Nalanda, II. Valabhi, ... etc. So, please stop pushing this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

All of the things mentioned in reference to Mookerji are described on pages 478-489 of his/her book, including explicit references to Taxila as a university. These pages were already mentioned in the reference, and yet you ignored them and removed the reference. Read the actual pages mentioned in the reference itself before you decide to remove them next time. I haven't yet read the sources listed by Freedom skies but was taking his word for it. But if you say there are no references to Taxila as a university in those references, then I'll take your word for it and remove them for now. Jagged 85 13:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I did read those pages. He uses "university" to give an example of "higher education," in contrast to elementary school education; but nowhere does he call Taxila a university. More pointedly, if he thought Taxila was a university, he would have included it in Chapter 11 (which is titled "Universities"). Also, your Jona Lenderling web page link does not say that the Arthashastra was composed in Taxila. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be referring to this sentence (Mookerji, page 479):

"This shows that Taxila was a seat not of elementary, but higher, education, of colleges or a university as distinguished from schools."

However, this sentence is more spefific (Mookerji, page 478):

"Thus the various centres of learning in different parts of the country became affiliated, as it were, to the educational centre, or the central university, of Taxila which exercised a kind of intellectual suzerainty over the wide world of letters in India."

Jagged 85 14:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, apparently, you don't know how to interpret the text. The key words are "as it were" (to the education centre or the central university). That means it is like an educational centre or central university, but not that it is a central university. Again, if RK Mookerji thought Taxila was a university, he would have included it in the Chapter (Chapter 11) on universities. Why is Taxila not in that list?? I have already quoted Encyclopaedia Britannica (2007) above explicitly saying that Taxila was not a university. Please don't keep pushing this. If you do, we'll have to have an RfC on it. I feel pretty confident that Taxila was not a university. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is the Britannica (2007) quote again: According to Encyclopaedia Britannica:[1]

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ * Taxila. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved January 15, 2007, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online

Why should your interpretion be given any more weight than my interpretation? It's very clear to me that Mookerji does consider Taxila to be like a university. If you don't agree, then I suggest it's best we actually quote it so that readers can interpret it themselves (which is what I was doing). Either way, there are a number of other scholars who do consider Taxila to be a university, just as there are others who do not consider it a university. In any case, I think it would be more reasonable to present both sides of the argument and highlight the fact that there is a disagreement among scholars about whether Taxila should be considered a university. Jagged 85 19:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, first of all it's not my interpretation; it is what is meant in English when "as it were" is used. I repeat, R. K. Mookerji does not say that Taxila is a university. And, no it is not best to quote both sides when there is no second side. Your second reference is from 1917 (from an Anatomical journal, from around the time Taxila was being excavated). Your third reference is from a management journal. Neither is reliable as a reference for ancient history. Wikipedia doesn't mandate that the views of everyone—the unreliable, the not notable—need to be mentioned. Clearly, what you have done is to go on Google scholar and do a search on "Taxila university" and willy-nilly thrown in whatever you can find. That is not historiography. I am reverting your edits for a third time; if you persist, I will force an RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've tried being reasonable and unbiased, by pointing out in the article itself that Taxila is not considered a university in the modern sense by other scholars and even added references supporting the opposing point of view, and yet you still reverted it. Now it seems clear to me that not only do you have a biased agenda, but are POV-pushing by completely disregarding the opinions of scholars who you do not agree with and going as far as to censor any references to the word university. Wikipedia is not the place for POV-pushing or censorship, no matter how much you disagree with something. Wikipedia is NPOV, i.e. it does not take sides. The sources I've given are reliable based on the fact that they are peer-reviewed publications and journal articles. Those are only a handful I picked out, but there are plenty more such publications and journal articles which refer to Taxila as a university. You really need to stop removing references to publications and journal articles just because you disagree with them. The only exception to this is when there is a consensus among scholars, for which you will need a source confirming any such claims of consensus, and I have not yet seen any such consensus for Taxila. Even if there was such a consensus, then it will still need to be mentioned in the article itself (not just on a talk page). I am reverting the article back to a more neutral version which presents both points of view. If you disagree with something, you can always co-operate by editing or re-wording. But if you still wish to force an RfC, then keep in mind that you are the one being biased and POV-pushing. Jagged 85 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

University

These sources refer to Taxila as a university.

An official government portal, a peer reviewed journal and a respectable book.

Freedom skies| talk  12:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A Pakistan Government website! Since when did that become a reliable source for Ancient History. As to your "peer reviewed journal," it is a one paragraph book review (in the American Sociological Review) of Bradby's book. Here is the entire one paragraph:

Where is Taxila mentioned in the review? As for the book itself, where is "Taxila university" mentioned there? "Taxila is mentioned on page 209, but there is no "university" mentioned there. Jagged85 and Freedom Skies, from your citations, it is clear that you don't have a very good idea of what a reliable reference is. Do you guys really want to take me on and go for an RfC? I am busy right now with other stuff, but when I find more time, I will quote from the other encyclopedias (Encarta and Columbia) and compare what they say about Taxila vs. Nalanda (which really was more worthy of the title "University"). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

The content is on page 209.
In response to the very heated from your citations, it is clear that you don't have a very good idea of what a reliable reference is I would call for calming down and reading the following citations:-

When the men of Alexander the great came to Taxila in India in the fourth century BC they found a university there the like of which had not been seen in Greece, a university which taught the three Vedas and the eighteen accomplishments and was still existing when the Chinese pilgrim Fa-Hsien went there about AD 400. -- Within the Four Seas: The Dialogue of East and West By Joseph Needham. Published 2004. Routledge. ISBN 0415361664

The ancient university city of Taxila, on the Indian side of the Indus, lay within the reach of Peshawar. -- History of Indian and Indonesian Art 1927 By Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy. Published 2003. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 0766158012

Arab travellers and their teachers came in large numbers to the northern university of Takshashila or Taxila, which was especially famous for medicine. -- Indo-West Asian Relations: The Nehru Era By Najma Heptulla. Published 1991. Allied Publishers

Early biblical references provide accounts of travelling scholars, and interlectual education can be traced to the 272-22 BC reign of Ashoka the great and the establishment of the University of Taxila in Asia minor. -- The Psychology of Culture Shock By Colleen A. Ward, Stephen Bochner, Adrian Furnham. Published 2001. Routledge. ISBN 0415162343

In the early centuries the centre of Buddhist scholarship was the University of Taxila (near the present city of Islamabad) -- A History of India By Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund. Published 2004. Routledge. ISBN 0415329191

[the Buddhist university of] Taxila, beyond the Gupta boundaries, [was] in the fifth century devastated by the Huns -- Scholarship and the Gypsy Struggle: commitment in Romani studies. Donald Kenrick. Published 2000. University of Hertfordshire Press. ISBN 1902806018

Foreign minister Zulfifar Ali Bhutto arranged for the secretary general to take time out to visit Taxila, seat of the oldest Buddhist university in the world. -- United Nations: the first fifty years By Stanley Meisler. Published 1995. Atlantic Monthly Press. ISBN 0871136562

Taxila university , which is the oldest in the world, has been in existence even before the time of the Buddha and before the occupation of the Taxila valley by the Achaemanid rulers in 6th- 5th century B.C. Probably in the period of the (7th century B.C.) philosophers gathered here to have their own schools of thought and imparted instructions. -- Official Portal of the Government of Pakistan (Pakistani Heritage)

The history of international educational exchange can be traced to the University of Taxila (Taxshashila) in ancient India. -- Indian Education Abstracts By India Ministry of Education, India Central Secretariat Library

The Buddhist influences in northern Pakistan are evident in elaborate buildings at Julian, the Buddhist hill town outside the ruins of Taxila, where a bustling university existed in ancient times to train monks -- Culture And Customs of Pakistan By Iftikhar Haider Malik. Published 2005. Greenwood Press. ISBN 031333126X

Freedom skies| talk  18:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's Quotes from Tertiary Sources (Encyclopedias): Taxila vs. Nalanda

Please don't add any responses or references in this section. I am collecting my own references here. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

From Encyclopaedia Britannica (2007)

From History of Education article:

From History of Education article:

From "Taxila" article:

From "Nalanda" article:

From Encarta Encyclopedia (2007)

From Taxila article:

From Nalanda article:

From Columbia Encyclopedia (2001)

From Taxila article:

From Nalanda article:

Pakistan? I dont think so...

What does taxila have to do with Pakistant, no disrespect to pakistan, but when taxila was built there was no taxila, this should be listed under WikiProject Pakistan. It's insulting to all indians, People who say this is isnt a hindu university are crazy!! It was build in Hindu india, everything during the time of its building was Hindu, the size of this article doesent do it justice, can we call it Takshashila like it was named then, not taxila... You ca shorten most stuff, but not everying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.72.99 (talk • contribs). at 17:25, 17 June 2007

I can understand perhaps why you may think it's innappropriate for it to be under the Pakistani project but it's not in the article and at least it's bringing more editors to improve the article. As for the name, it should remain Taxila and not Takshasila, as that is the naming convention used in English otherwise we would call William I, Confucious and Alexander the Great (among others) by their native names instead. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 18:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC))
To the unsigned anon: Taxila is the Greek name for that historic town, just as India too is the Greek name for a country. Well, if you are hung up on changing the name to an indigenous Hindu name, why not first get the Wikipage page on India changed to "Bharata Varsha" instead? No, its not insulting to all Indians. The Indians mostly didn't have a clue about Taxila (except as a Buddhist center of learning in the Jatakas and Greek accounts, for the infinitesimal number of Indians who had read the Jatakas and the Greeks) until the Brits came along, excavated Taxila, and instituted a modern education system in India that taught archaeology and history. Why shouldn't Taxila be a part of Wikipedia Pakistan? The last I checked, it was well within Pakistan's borders? If you are trying to make the argument that Pakistan doesn't have too many Hindus etc., let me remind you that the proportion of Hindus in Pakistan is greater than that of Buddhists in India. So why don't you try to get the India tag removed from pages like Nalanda, Bodh Gaya etc. before you wax illogical further here? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If they changed India to Bharat Varsh that would simply be correct, India is incorrect, yet we live with it. Im just 12, i have no idea about this Naland(a=wrong), Bodh Gaya... For the last time, Takshashila was build in India, not in what we now as pakistan. How can my above comment interpret as "Pakistan doesn't have too many Hindus," is beyond me. It IS insulting to indians, i am indian, i find it insulting that the first university in the world, a indian one is listed under a pakistani project, pakistan has given NOTHING to the world, India has been the base for most of the worlds knowledge yet the west can accept this(i live in london) Greece is in Europe and India is in Asia, greek people have no right as to the name or ANYTHING of india. I'm not sure if its what you said but if you did i just want to say, Takshashila is NOT ONE BIT A PLACE OF BUDDHIST LEARNING. It has no religious strings. Its a university, a place to learn, religion could be a subject, its not a mandir or monastrey, a universtiy, school.

P.S I dont live in india, i live in london the above anon is me82.13.72.99 17:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Patriotic


so this means im right??? YEAH!!82.13.72.99 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Spartan (i am patriotic, but this name is better)

No, it doesn't mean that, but just that I've been busy. I think it is very commendable that you as a 12-year old are reading and contributing to Wikipedia, but you also seem to have collected a lot of biases and prejudices for your age. I will post some age-appropriate reading (for young teenagers) here that will help you to better understand prejudice. Meanwhile keep reading and don't vandalize the Taxila page, which you seemed to have done twice already. Regards and all the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I shouldntve done that..woopsy... But i s'pose up to a certain extent you are right, i am sort of biased but i say this all because i think its unjust how many people dont seem to realise what India has done, not only that, they dont even acknowledge the facts, they twist the truth, like it wasn't a university, but a place of learning. That makes no sense, a place of learning and a university is exactly the same thing. One user for emaxple, vi5in is racist. He/she has some biased thoughts on ram's bridge, not adams bridge. goodbye thank you please...P.S im on different IP because this is my dads laptop

82.13.72.99 10:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Spartan

A place of learning is not the equivalent of a university, as a primary school, secondary school and an academy can be described in the same light. You're (anon user) biased because you're more concerned with how Indian people are percieved rather than how PEOPLE are percieved. Wikipedia is full of articles dedicated to Indian advancement of the arts so you need not be worried if you feel Indians are being diminished. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 14:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC))


In that day, do you think there were primary schools, secodarys schools, college then university, i doubt it.82.13.72.99 17:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Spartan

Yes! In the same way they didn't have any universities. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 18:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Well they didnt. ur wrong!!!!82.13.72.99 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Spartan .

Indian trying to delete Pakistani history

im sick of these low life indians who think they own south asia and wikipedia get to your own indian pages and edit them and dont spread your jelous filled filth in pakistani articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.129.53 (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Content Dispute

I have left a message on the Wikipedia:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard requesting any assistance with the current content dispute in this article. Knowledgeum (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia hotbed of indians as usual

displaying the usaul islamophobic attitudes editors on this article have totally rubished pakistani history and masked it with so called anceint india this is a typical example of indians being given the favour and pakistanis ignored there was no such thing as india before 1947 is the editors cannot accept this simple fact then you are not fit to edit articles as you are prone to pro india and anti pakistan i urge western editors to drop there racist culture and accept facts about pakistan and its anceint history this is not nazi germany this is the modern world first jews now muslims europeans must be more neautral.

Copy pasting the same message into everyones talk page will not ellicit any help for you, I would suggest you stick with NPOV and refrain from making any personal attacks on editors just becuase you cannot have your way with an article. Knowledgeum (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Pro indian editors HELP

can any non indian and any no pro indians help with this article its being used as a promotion for india even though taxila is pakistan not india get over it people india has done nothing for pakistan and is not part of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.178.203 (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK now...I know the Indians get emotional about their history and have a tendency to tell a twisted version of it, but let's give the devil its due, Taxila was in Ancient India... Pakistan never existed till recent times...
Pakistani IS ancient India, I think you have missed a lot in your history class. Ancient India and the India of today do have as much in common as the inhabitants of India and the "Red Indians" of north America do. It doesn't make them the "real" owner of the whole of the South Asian history just because they chose to retain their colonial name after getting independence.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eilangko (talk • contribs) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Is Taxila Ancient India or Ancient Pakistan

Try and solve once for all with a RFC request to solve the current content dispute. Knowledgeum (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

India is the name given by the white europeans to a nation which they occupied in the 18th century before then india was nothing but a vast expanse of land ruled by moghuls and various other kingdoms india has hundreds of names Hindustan Bharat and several others so it is unfair and offensive to label pakistan soil as indian as india came into being in 1947 before then taxila was just taxila in punjab india was nothing and has nothing to do with Pakistans history or taxila it is offensive to state pakistans land as indian stop the bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.69.108 (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Taxila was a part of the kingdom of Gandhara which was an autonomous state. You are right, in reality it was Punjab that was known as Hind(India) in ancient times. Punjab is the real ancient India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.54.174 (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
A little education can go long way ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC))
The anon ip user is the reason for this rfc, as all they do is change india to pakistan on every article they come across, while calling other editors "indian racist or biased" (see thier edit history). Knowledgeum (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
To me, the fact that Pakistan didn't exist 1947 and the name appears to have first come up in 1934, makes the arguement about India not existing until 1947 seem like a non-issue. As mentioned in the link from Giani, thanks BTW, India was used by the Greeks at around the same time as Taxila was an important center of learning to describe the entire region. And since Pakistan was only used since 1947 to describe the country that arose out of a region of British India, there's no point in calling it Ancient Pakistan. Of course it could be mentioned that it is now in modern Pakistan, but the culture and population were "Indian", as the Greeks appear to have called anyone from the Indus River region.
Since this is the English Wikipedia, and since (right or wrong) most of the names used for historical populations in English come from the sources that are most familiar to Europeans, and since the Greek sources would have been most familiar, those names have transfered into English.
All this having been said, I think Ancient India is the most correct and understandable to an English audience. Punjab may be more correct, but less well known and Ancient Pakistan would be incorrect.Tobyc75 (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Another thing to point out, would it be appropriate to call the Ionians, ancient Turks? Of course not, nor would it be sensible to call the ancient Hebrews, ancient Palestinians. [[User:Giani g|Giani g]] (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The image File:100px-Pk-punj.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Takshashila came from Ramayana

I don't think the word Takshashila came from Ramayana as Takshashila pre-dates Ramayana's time period (400 BCE - 200 CE as per wikipedia). I put Ramayana to be around 250 BCE. However, Taxila has existed in the 5-th/6-th century BCE. It kind of defies logic for a name that has been taken from a book to appear before the text was actually written. Therefore it should be removed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eilangko (talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC) WHAT!!! Ramayana dates 250 BCE? dude, you have got a serioes problem with dates. Its not about the text ramyana, its about the occurence of the events of ramayana. Before stating its actual occurence period, i would like to tell that mahabharata occured in the time around 600 BCE, which way after ramayana occured. you can chech this thing again from ikipedia, in which the article "mahajanapadas" i there, where the kuru/gandhara/anga states are described, the states in mahabharata. Ramayana occurered 100s of years before mahabharata. according to NASA, it was the period around 2500 BCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.93.60 (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My undertstanding is that Taxila is mentioned in the Mahabarata and that that epic describes events around 1000 BCE. See Kurukshetra_War#Historical_context and Takshaka. Pashley (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Name in Sanskrit

The problem with Taxila's name in Sanskrit is that we nowadays use Devanagari to write Sanskrit, but Devanagari is much younger than the language itself and would not have been in use at the time of Taxila. Giving the name in Devanagari is thus an anachronism; we do better by just giving a romanization of the Sanskrit name. The script in use at the time of Taxila's heyday would probably have been Brahmi or one of its close descendants. Huon (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a piece of software turning Latin text into Brahmi here. https://sites.google.com/site/brahmiscript/ Could you try it Huon? I can't because I am running Mac OS but the software is written for Windows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.98.197.34 (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the purpose. I have no idea what script exactly was in use in Taxila or how the name would have been written in that script. Converting the modern name into Brahmi via that program would be original "research" and has a rather great chance of not producing the right result. Besides, we don't usually give place names in scripts that are no longer in use - I don't think we give Thebes, Egypt in hieroglyphs or Babylon in cuneiform. Huon (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The only place this script would be found in Taxila is in the Taxila museum perhaps, yet this comes up every now and then. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Another problem is that current text has (without any supporting citation):

(Sanskrit: तक्षशिला Takṣaśilā, literally meaning "City of Cut Stone" or "Rock of Taksha")

How can there be two "literal" translations?

Then, following one of the article's links to a Pakistani government site, you find:

The Oldest rulers of Taxila, the Takshakas, ... have given rise to the name of the city, Taxila, correctly Taksha-sila, i.e. the hill capital of the Takshakas, ...

So we have three different translations for the name. My inclination would be to delete the existing text and replace it with the third explanation. I already did that at at voy:Taxila, but might revert myself if discussion here reaches another conclusion. Pashley (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, looking at Takshaka I find another story giving yet another origin for the name. Pashley (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the devanagari and "literally" but resisted the temptation to change the claim on the origin of the name. Pashley (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Taxila. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Folklore in wrong section

Why is this even here?

"Afghana or Avagana[32] (born ~ 1000 BC according to folklore[citation needed]) is considered by Indian and Pathan folklore a tribal chief or prince of Bani Israel (Israelite) origin and a progenitor of modern-day Pashtuns,[33][34][35][36][37] the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and second largest in Pakistan. The ethnonym "Afghan" is believed to derive from his name."

I fail to see how this is even relevant to the political section history or this article in general. This falls under folklore, NOT history and does not belong in this article. I beleive this should be completely removed. Akmal94 (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Folklore in wrong section

Why is this even here?

"Afghana or Avagana[32] (born ~ 1000 BC according to folklore[citation needed]) is considered by Indian and Pathan folklore a tribal chief or prince of Bani Israel (Israelite) origin and a progenitor of modern-day Pashtuns,[33][34][35][36][37] the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and second largest in Pakistan. The ethnonym "Afghan" is believed to derive from his name." I fail to see how this is even relevant to the political section history or this article in general. This falls under folklore, NOT history and does not belong in this article. I beleive this should be completely removed. Akmal94 (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Folklore in wrong section

Why is this even here?

"Afghana or Avagana[32] (born ~ 1000 BC according to folklore[citation needed]) is considered by Indian and Pathan folklore a tribal chief or prince of Bani Israel (Israelite) origin and a progenitor of modern-day Pashtuns,[33][34][35][36][37] the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and second largest in Pakistan. The ethnonym "Afghan" is believed to derive from his name."

I fail to see how this is even relevant to the political section history or this article in general. This falls under folklore, NOT history and does not belong in this article. I beleive this should be completely removed. Akmal94 (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Taxila. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Taxila. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Name

Regarding edits made on June 1, 2017:

The fact that the Pali and Sanskrit names of the city has fallen out of favor is self-evident by the fact that we now only use the Greek recorded name for the modern city. Any reference to the modern city uses only the name "Taxila," and remember, this page is about the modern city of Taxila, not the ancient city of Taxila.

There are no articles regarding the modern city that refer to it as "Takshashila" aside from those of fringe groups online who refer to the city by its Sanskrit name for a variety of reasons. That is, no one ever refers to the city as "Takshashila, Pakistan" because the use of Takshashila has obviously fallen out of favor and is now unused. And let's not forget that this is a Pakistani city, and the only official name for this city is "Taxila." Therefore, the Greek-recorded name is now even the only official name, which again points to the fact that the city's Pali and Sanskrit names have fallen out of favor.

If this is controversial, please explain why. Have you found any reputable modern sources that have referred to Taxila, Pakistan (the subject of this page) as Takshashila or Takkasila? Of course not. Therefore it is obvious that the Greek recording Taxila is the only name still in use, and hence, the Pali and Sanskrit names must then have abandoned in favor of the Greek name. That is why it is self-evident. Willard84 (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Further, the sites at Taxila are actually referenced by different names. Sirsakh, and Sirkap, for example, are the actual names of the settlement ruins at Taxila. Taxila is a broader name referring to the area around Taxila. Sirkap, for example, was founded in the Greek traditionWillard84 (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Sanskrit in lead

Regarding edits on June 1, 2017: ""It is common enough to be prominently listed as the alternate title in entries in Britannica, etc.. Please take this to talk if you disagree."

The name isn't commonly used, because the Encyclopedia Britannica article is the only article referring to the MODERN city that includes the Sanskrit name so prominently - the article you quoted, by the way, was written by "Baij Nath Puri." The UNESCO page on Taxila also omits the ancient name, as does any official page regarding the modern city.

The only cities with a description of something along the lines of "formerly known as" are those cities which have had a relatively recent name change, not a shift that occurred 2000 years ago. Hence, it makes sense to include Bombay on Mumbai's page, but doesn't make sense to include "formerly Tenochtitlán" on the Mexico City page, even though the city of Tenochtitlán was one of the pre-Columbian worlds most magnificent cities.

The ancient name is prominently included on pages referring to issues regarding the historic ruins. So pages regarding Hindu though/texts, ancient history, and art history will often include the Sanskrit name. But even thats not always the case, as the prominent Oriental Architecture database does not include the Sanskrit name here.

And again, this is a page not about the ancient city of Taxila, but instead the modern city of Taxila, Pakistan. Just as the page on London doesnt include "formerly Londinium", neither should the Taxila page include some ancient name from 2000 years ago that has almost no bearing at all on the modern city itself. Willard84 (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the compromise. I disagree however with your contention that this page is not about the ancient city of Taxila. The ancient city is the primary topic of this name and this article and it's only your edits in the last day that have restructured the page to give prominence to the modern "city" of Taxila. Since this appears to be the primary source of confusion, I'll address this by opening a separate topic here. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Taxila is a modern Pakistani city. The article even included sections on modern things like the economy and museum. Takshashila was the old city.Willard84 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Primary topic

So, according to Willard84's statements on this talk page, this article is about the modern "city" of Taxila and not about the ancient city and world heritage site. Consequently, he has gone about restructuring the page so that the first infobox is now Infobox settlement and the World Heritage infobox has been shoved halfway down the page. Now, even though 90% of the article is about the ancient city, the lead has been amended to give importance to the modern settlement. However, in my opinion, the primary topic for this article is the ancient city and primacy should consequently be accorded to it. General references support this:

  • Encylopaedia Britannica: Taxila, Sanskrit Takshashila, ancient city of northwestern Pakistan, the ruins of which are about 22 miles (35 km) northwest of Rawalpindi. Its prosperity in ancient times resulted from its position at the junction of three great trade routes: one from eastern India, described by the Greek writer Megasthenes as the “Royal Highway”; the second from western Asia; and the third from Kashmir and Central Asia. When these routes ceased to be important, the city sank into insignificance and was finally destroyed by the Huns in the 5th century ce. Taxila was designated a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1980.

No mention of the modern settlement.

  • Dictionary.com: an archaeological site near Rawalpindi, Pakistan: ruins of three successive cities on the same site, dating from about the 7th century b.c. to about the 7th century a.d.; Buddhist center.

No mention of the modern settlement.

Scholarly sources all talk about the ancient city as do the majority of Google search results. From what I can tell, the modern Pakistani settlement of Taxila is not a city at all and is, at best, a town and a minor one at that being only a short distance away from both Rawalpindi and Islamabad. I believe that the ancient city and heritage site should be the focus of this article and mention of the modern town relegated to a subsection perhaps linked to a separate article.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


Taxila is indeed a modern city, with ancient ruins. The reason why such a huge percentage of this article is dedicated to the ancient city is because the currrnt city is of relatively minor significance. As with most non-major Pakistani cities, there isn't a huge amount of scholarly sources out there. Sialkot is a large city with very few scholarly references. The fact that the modern city of taxila is not have as great scholarly interest as the ancient one isn't surprising. But if you notice at the bottom of the page, this page is linked as "neighbourhoods of Rawalpindi," suggesting that users turn to this page for info about the modern city too. The fact that more information is available about the ancient city then the current city does not mean that this particular page should be about the ancient city.
Further, the primary subject of the article is easily deduced from the fact that the articles further, the primary subject of the article is easily deduced from the fact that the articles prior to my edits included such things as current educational institutions, local economy, and modern culture. The fact that the modern city of tax law is not as prominent as the engine city doesn't mean that the modern city is of secondary importance Willard84 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The best thing to do would be to create a separate page for the ancient ruins of taxila Willard84 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't understand exactly what you are saying as your autocomplete is wonky. The burden is upon you to show that the modern town of Taxila takes precedence over the ancient city for which the name is known. Passing mentions of one school and one factory in the location is not proof. There's no denying that the modern town exists. And I'm afraid that you're not adhering to WP:BRD either. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
As to your latest revert message You're the one changing the entire page's focus to an ancient city when the page even before my edits was clearly in reference to the modern city (e.g.: section on economy, modern educational institutions etc, please note that I'm reverting the lead and primary infobox to exactly what it was before you changed it to be about the town and not about the ancient city. This, IMO, is as per WP:BRD.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Before I made any substantial edits to this page, you can see here that the very first sentence on the page said Taxila: "is a town and an important archaeological site in the Rawalpindi District of the Punjab, Pakistan, situated about 32 km (20 mi) north-west of Islamabad and Rawalpindi, just off the famous Grand Trunk Road. The town lies 549 metres (1,801 ft) above sea level. It is the headquarters of the Taxila Tehsil in the Rawalpindi district."
Not only did the page mention modern amenities like educational institutions, museums, economy, etc, it clearly said it is also headquarters of the administrative district known as Taxila Tehsil. In order to clear up ambiguity, I made a page for the Ruins at Taxila to clearly refer to the ancient city, and even bolded its old Sanskrit name. And yes, the infobox was about the ancient site, but the article is not just a reference to the ancient city. And yes, as you pointed out earlier, most scholarly research focuses on the ancient city rather than the modern one. That's not a surprise, nor is it particularly relevant. 22:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello Willard and C[a]pt[ain?] Haddock, may I join the discussion? I agree that it would be good to discuss carefully before making big changes, so that people can use their time effectively once there is a better sense of the best way to proceed.
(A similar issue is in dispute at the article on Delphi with the result that things have been awkward and stagnant for about a year.)
Willard, can you supply a little more information about the present-day situation at Taxila? Maybe there are some other web sites describing it? How many people live there? Heavy Industries Taxila does sound like quite a big deal. Cheers, ~ groupuscule (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
"Excavation work of the vast ancient site of Taxila had been completed and a well-managed museum"[3]
"The ancient site of Taxila"[4]
"A brief history of Taxila, ancient site and at one time the center of Gandhara art, is given below."[5]
That is how reliable sources refer the site. @Willard84:, don't use your opinion and follow WP:BRD. Capitals00 (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Capitals00, there is no doubt that the ancient site of Taxila is widely cited. This was never ever ever in disagreement. The issue was whether the page should be about the modern-day city of Taxila, or the ancient site. Your last edit that Taxila "is not a settlement" is shocking. Anyone who has ever driven on the road between Islamabad and Peshawar passes by a moderate sized town named Taxila. Of course, you may not know this, but one only need look at a map to realize this is true - look at a satellite image on Google Maps if you dont believe me. In fact, there is ALREADY a page on Ancient Taxila that your references refer to. It's exactly the same situation as when some histories say "Rome was home to the greatest amphitheatre in the world" to refer to ANCIENT Rome. The fact that the word "ancient" is implied and therefore omitted isn't an indication that ive introduced opinion into this. That's rather condescending, after all. Especially given that modern Taxila's existence is so obvious and easy to demonstrate. And we're following WP:BRD right here.
Plus its super ironic that your justification for reversion to a site about ancient ruins was that "Taxila is not a settlement," yet the info box you re-inserted even says "Settlement"



@Groupuscule, here are some links for you to demonstrate that the actual town exists, and is of decent size enough that it has its own neighbourhoods.
News references that show I'm not making up the fact that this modern city actually does exist, and the name doesn't refers solely to some ancient city
  • "Taxila man allegedly sets himself ablaze for failing to pay back loan" [6] This is clearly not referring to an ancient city.
  • "LEAs, along with local police searched five houses in the Manzoorabad neighbourhood of Taxila and arrested five men and seized illegal weapons." [7]
Demonstrating that Taxila industry is significant, though it admittedly is a third-world city, and so has only one major industrial operator (HIT):
  • "Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) and Ukrspecexport signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) for work related to various Pakistani armour programs. According to Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence, the MoU is valued at $600 million U.S. [8]
  • "Fourteen delegations from Pakistan as well as leading Pakistani companies including Pakistan Ordnance Factories (POF), Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT), Defence Export Promotion Organization (DEPO), National Radio & Telecommunication (NRTC) etc are participating in the event." [9]
Showing that Taxila is "real" enough to have a university
  • "The University campus is located on the outskirts of Taxila at a distance of 5 km from the city. It is situated near railway station Mohra Shah Wali Shah on Taxila-Havelian branch line. The city of Taxila is 35 km from the twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi on the main Rawalpindi- Peshawar highway. The University buses commute daily between the campus and the cities of Islamabad, Rawalpindi and Wah Cantt. The campus covers an area of 163 acres. All the teaching departments, residential colony for teachers/ employees, student hostels, guesthouse, post office and bank are housed on campus." [10]
* Another university in Taxila: [11]
* On page 12 here: [12] you can see that Taxila is it's own Tehsil (subdivision in Pakistani local government administration that includes a town and its immediate suburbs and rural environs). It's urban population is 270,773. So it definitely is not some made up town.
I hope this is enough convincing evidence to show that Taxila is indeed a city in modern day Pakistan, and not JUST an ancient site (which already has a page at Ancient Taxila!) This really shouldn't be an issue since the new page was created, except for the fact that another user has taken it upon himself to revert literally dozens of edits based on a disregard of the fact that Taxila also refers to a modern city - including the edits which weren't controversial. The fact that the ancient city is quoted more is not surprising, or even particularly relevant. Its obvious that a great ancient capital (once again, here at Ancient Taxila) would get more attention than a typical mid-size city in Pakistan. Its most interesting history is its ancient history, so again, of course ancient Taxila would be referenced more.Willard84 (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Note that the fact that there is a modern town at Taxila is not in question. What is in question is whether it takes precedence over the historic ancient city and its ruins. Random news stories do not confirm that the town is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for English Wikipedia. Googling the word Taxila results in overwhelming results for the ancient city and the ruins and nothing need be said for Books and Scholar. Even with Google News, with the exception of a news story about a guy being stoned to death in Ghourgushti, Taxila tehsil, most of the stories are about setting up a new university in the ancient university city of Taxila or about Sri Lankan Buddhist monks wanting to make a pilgrimage there. Going by these results, when people want to look up Taxila, they overwhelmingly want to look up the ancient city of Taxila/Takshashila/Takkasila. Consequently, the article should be about that with a section on the modern town which can perhaps be linked to a separate main article.
(IMO, you're also being misleading with the population numbers. The largest town in Taxila tehsil is not Taxila town, but the nearby military town of Wah Cantt; the PDF that you've provided notes that out of the tehsil's urban population of 270773, Wah Cantt accounts for 198891. Going by Google Maps, the modern town of Taxila is basically centred around the Taxila Museum and Taxila Cantt. And going by the same PDF, the cantonment area has a population of 22,978. You're also being misleading with statements like which already has a page at Ancient Taxila! as you created the page yourself in the middle of this content dispute. For those watching, this spin-off article was previously named Ruins at Taxila and Willard84 had also begun redirecting links to Taxila to his new page.)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Even if modern Taxila has 50,000 - 70,000 people, that is still a decently large town with its own cantonment of 20,000. And the total Tehsil population was over 300,000 - the 270,000 was just the urban population of the Tehsil. Willard84 (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
These websites linked by Willard84 are not reliable sources to the degree that we should totally change the focus of this article, nor he has represented them that well. Capitals00 (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Willard for supplying some information and thank you Cpt. Haddock for the response. I think we have established the following:

  1. The modern city of Taxila is worthy of coverage on Wikipedia, as it contains tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of residents, as well as at least two institutions with their own articles: University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila and Heavy Industries Taxila. (HITEC University seems to be the child of both.)
  2. When you search for "Taxila" in English-language publications you get far more references to the ancient city. The majority, probably the large majority, of people coming to this article, are interested in the ancient history.
  3. Ancient Taxila and Modern Taxila are not two unrelated places, even if there has not been continuous settlement in this location, since Ancient Taxila is part of Modern Taxila's identity, tourist economy, and physical location.

Therefore I think it would be reasonable to cover both ancient and modern Taxila in this article. There should be a good deal of emphasis on Taxila's history, including its historical name, since this represents the best-known part of Taxila, which people want information about. At the same time there is room for information about the modern city. Should such information start running too long, it could be forked off to another page (Modern Taxila; Taxila, Pakistan; Economy of Taxila; or something else). (I notice that ancient Taxila also forks to sub-articles: Sirkap, Jinnan Wali Dheri, other articles found at Category:Taxila.) I would recommend including the information about modern Taxila in one main section, rather than having it confusingly interspersed as it is now. It seems that Cpt. Haddock is thinking along similar lines.

Willard, how does that sound? If you think that the outcome should be something different, what should it be, and why? Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've already wrote the new page, now I'd like for this page to be termed "Ancient Taxila" since it's been decided that this page is in sole reference to the ancient city. The new page is Taxila (modern). Both cities are rightly called Taxila, so there should be a distinguishing page title between the two. Since Taxila doesn't just mean the modern or ancient city, each "Taxila" must have a clearer page name so that it is obvious which "Taxila" is being referred to when someone clicks on a link to this page.
As for consolidating all the pages from Sirkap, Sirsukh etc into the main ancient Taxila page, then someone can go ahead and do that. My concern is to make sure that the modern city of Pakistan is represented and doesn't get swept away by the ancient city from 2000 years ago. Capitals00 or capt.a.haddock who display interest in this ancient site would be good candidate, IMO. Willard84 (talk) 06:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes we can write here about the modern city. I won't bother writing it myself though but I will sure keep checking. Capitals00 (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

A user intends to change the intro to a previous version which includes facts not typically included in lead paragraphs such as ekevation, and undue prominence of a centuries old name. Thoughts? Willard84 (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The previous version might be poor, but it deals with the primary topic of this article. Please discuss and obtain consensus on the "primary topic" issue as per WP:BRD. The revert is to the lead used before you changed the nature of the article.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
see above Willard84 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@Willard84: you cannot unilaterally change the topic of an article. You need discussion and consensus, at the least. Wikipedia articles describe what reliable sources say about a topic. What the reliable sources say about the ancient Taxila far outstrips the present day Taxila, perhaps by a factor of thousands to one. You are on thin ice here. If you think it is not possible to cover both the topics in the same article, you are welcome to create a separate page for the modern Taxila. But this page must remain, covering the ancient Taxila. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Reliable sources deal primary with ANCIENT Taxila, and the "ancient" is implied, as when people say Julius Caesar was emperor of Rome. The reason why ancient Taxila is so heavily represented is because ancient Taxila has far more scholarship surrounding the topic, and so ancient Taxila is obviously going to be cited more.
And I made a new page to differentiate from this old one , but these pages need to be clarified from one another: "Taxila (ancient)" [ this page], and Taxila (modern). And no need to threaten people for being on "thin ice" - I had been blocked by the time you made that comment. It's a petty warning that is typically used only for children, btw. Willard84 (talk)

Move titles

Since there are so many issues with this page's name, what is wrong with making two pages: 'Taxila (ancient)' for this page, and 'Taxila (modern)' for the other? While most sources regarding ancient history imply "ancient" in front of the word "taxila," it doesn't detract from the fact that Taxila is also a decent sized modern city in Pakistan with its own cantonment. "Taxila" thus does not simply refer to ancient taxila alone. Willard84 (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

So, create a proper move request.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 06:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
You'll see there is a request pending. It took several minutes to type it up. I apologize for not making it faster. Willard84 (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I see it. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved DrStrauss talk 09:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


Taxila → Ancient Taxila –

"Ancient Taxila" refers to the ancient city of Takshashila which is referenced on this article, while "Taxila" can ALSO mean the modern city. Since the users here argue that this page is referring to the ANCIENT city of Taxila, I think the Idea of clarifying this page's topic by renaming it Ancient Taxila is a good idea in order to avoid confusion.

The current page should be renamed Ancient Taxila, while the modern city of Taxila's page should be entitled Taxila (modern) - a page I've already created in order to help clear confusion. (Please also note that the modern city is refered to only by the name Taxila as well. That is, it is not called anything like "New Taxila," "Modern Taxila," or "Taxila City," etc etc. It is just Taxila.)

Another good alternative would be to refer to this page as Taxila (ancient) to clarify that this is a page about the ancient city of Taxila. But both titles should be unambiguous. Allowing "Taxila" to refer only to the ancient ruined city from 2000 years ago completely neglects the sizeable present day city of the same name.

Given the fact that naming conventions can cause heated debates, it would be best if third-party and unbiased users could weigh in - that is, those of you who are not from South Asia might offer a better perspective, rather than a group of Pakistani editors outnumbering Indians, or vice versa.

Willard84 (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Support move to Takshashila - The ancient city is better titled by its native name. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
    • No, it's better titled by its common English name. —  AjaxSmack  14:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't be opposed to this name either, since it clearly differentiates the Ancient city from the modern one. Takshashila is synonymous with "Ancient Taxila" after all. But if common English must be used, then Ancient Taxila is the term which most accurately describes Takshashila. But I appreciate the recognition that this is a page in reference to the ancient city, and could use a more accurate page title.Willard84 (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The ancient city and world heritage site is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as outlined here. As it now already has a separate article, the present-day town can be mentioned in the lead here and, as already done, prominently highlighted in a hatnote linking to the separate article. The minority of users who are looking up the modern town should have no problem finding the appropriate article.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • If the ancient city is the primary topic, no move is needed per WP:TWODABS. This move would not save readers any time; those looking for the modern city still have the same number of clicks. —  AjaxSmack  14:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Hi and thanks for your input. I think that the primary topic issue has only resolved that the primary topic of this page is the ancient city. It did not address the fact that "Taxila" also refers to a modern city with tens of thousands of people. The argument of the Indian editors has been that Google searches/sources for taxila disproportionately show results for the ancient city rather than the modern one. This isn't a surprise since ancient taxila was a major learning center, while present day Taxila isn't as illustrious ( although important enough to have 2 universities, and its own Cantonment. But those authors referring to the old city as Taxila simply aren't including the implied word "Ancient" in front of Taxila - akin to when people say "Julius Caesar was ruler of [ancient] Rome." Present day Taxila is also referred to only as "Taxila", with the words "present day" implied, but usually omitted. Hence why I think both pages need to be qualified. Since discussion has agreed that this page refers to ancient Taxila (which was noted by user Kautilya to actually be named Takshashila), the name of the page should be Ancient Taxila to make this clear.
"Ancient Taxila" refers to the ancient city of Takshashila, while "Taxila" can mean the modern city.--Willard84 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator. This particular page may have a primary topic of the ancient city, but the word "Taxila" alone does not have the primary meaning of just the ancient city. "Taxila" refers to the modern city with tens of thousands of people, so there is a need for disambiguation, which I think is actually in accordance with WP:TWODABS. Taxila (ancient) would also be acceptable. Willard84 (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify? The earlier debates have established that this page is indeed in reference to the ancient site, and advised creation of a page for the present day city (as you had agreed to), and now we are turning to clarification of this page to ensure a more accurate/precise page title since this page is in reference to the ancient city.Willard84 (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a tricky situation. On the one hand, I agree that Taxila by itself is the WP:COMMONNAME used for the archaeological site over other alternatives. However, I can also see the need to differentiate between the ancient site, and the modern town which exists in Rawalpindi. In my opinion, this page should retain its title while the article on the city should be moved to Taxila (city). This would perfectly meet WP:DISAMBIGUATION. A hatnote can be added on the top of this article: This article is about the archaeological site. For the modern city, see Taxila (city). Regards, Mar4d (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: if the ancient city is primary for the topic, i.e. readers are far more likely to be looking for ancient Taxila than modern Taxila, then the article should stay where it is. However, since both ancient and modern Taxila are cities, "Taxila (city)" makes no sense as a disambiguated name for the modern town. "Taxila (modern)" or even "Taxila (modern city)" would be clear, but "Taxila (city)" would be confusing, since it implies that ancient Taxila was not a city. P Aculeius (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
You are correct about this. Taxila is largely the ancient site and the "modern city" may work. Capitals00 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I also saw the modern settlement referred to as a town on quite a few sites. For example, the Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation notes, The modern town of Taxila is 35 km from Islamabad. There might be an official system of classification of urban areas which might shed light on any official designation for the settlement.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Consideration

"Others do not consider it a university in the modern sense, in that the teachers living there may not have had official membership of particular colleges, and there did not seem to have existed purpose-built lecture halls and residential quarters in Taxila"

One source has been tagged for "page needed",[13] it is from 1966 and other source includes a quote from 1944. How about we entirely remove this? Unless one can find modern sources. Capitals00 (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

IMO, it's premature to remove the source. Quotes have been provided and it's very likely that they're genuine. Page numbers should be relatively easy to locate. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The Altekar quote is on page 106 of the 1944 edition if someone wants to edit the edition. --regentspark (comment) 16:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I will try finding some new sources, if there are none then we will see. Capitals00 (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: Page 109 in the 6th edition (1965) on Google Books. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead

The defining factor of this ancient city was the fact it was a center of learning for Vedic Hindu and Buddhist learning. This should be mentioned in the beginning sentence, as mentioned, this charastic is what makes this city unique from other "ancient city". This is also mentioned in multiple sources as a defining charastics.[1][2][3][4]

I propose my revision be reinstated, which @Cpt.a.haddock: has undone. If @RegentsPark: can help solve this conflict between Cpt.a.haddock and I -- will be greatful. (63.143.226.184 (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC))

References

  1. ^ M. K. Agarwal (23 December 2013). The Vedic Core of Human History: And Truth will be the Savior. iUniverse. pp. 101–. ISBN 978-1-4917-1595-6.
  2. ^ Multiculturalism. Syed Ali Raza. pp. 73–. ISBN 978-969-9757-01-3.
  3. ^ Kapur; Kamlesh (2010). History Of Ancient India (portraits Of A Nation), 1/e. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 307–. ISBN 978-81-207-4910-8.
  4. ^ Jyoti Barua (6 July 2016). Ancient BUDDHIST UNIVERSITIES in Indian Sub-Continent. Fulton Books, Inc. pp. 18–. ISBN 978-1-63338-188-9.
  • My apologies. I did not see your message until your revert. No, those sources are not reliable. MK Agarwal's book, subtitled Antidote to the Blunders of Imperial Hegemony, is self-published which is a no-no. Syed Ali Raza's book "for peacefull global village" which speaks of Taxila as a "Canter of Learning" is no better. I haven't bothered looking at the other two mentioned here. That said, Taxila's importance as a centre of learning is already mentioned prominently in the lead. Outside the Indian subcontinent and corners of the Buddhist world, Taxila is known as an important provincial seat and the city of Taxiles from Alexander's campaign. And frankly, the section here on Taxila as a university is both poorly written and sourced. If you'd like to improve the article, please follow the recommendations of WP:HISTRS and improve this section first before looking to rework the lede. Please also familiarise yourself with WP:NPOV. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Importance of Taxila in budhism ?

Is it a sacred place for Buddhists or Jains — Preceding unsigned comment added by StLouis2 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

This place is sacred for people of all Indian religions. Anmolbhat (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes I agree. StLouis2 (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Map of India Shown wrong. Jammu and Kashmir Integral part of India shown in Pakistan

Dear Sirs, I have been an old user of Wikipedia since a decade, but I have noticed you have been showing part of Jammu and Kashmir (POK) in Pakistan. This is a grave mistake pl. Correct the same as it is Pak Occupied Kashmir but have always been an integral part of India. Pak is yet to leave the area but must be shown as one J&K which has been part of India since centuries. Mssamant (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide WP:THIRDPARTY reliable sources that show the kind of map that you prefer? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taxila/Archives/1&oldid=1247933758"