Talk:Nalanda mahavihara/Archives/ 1

Recent content removal.

A user names 'Gotitbro' undid my contribution to my article regarding the decline of Nalanda University, without citing any valid reason. This is despite the fact that my recent additions are backed by scholarly citations. It seems this wants only a particular religious community to be held responsible for nalanda's decline when in fact other dynasties , including those from the Indian subcontinent itself have attacked Nalanda. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not "your" article, see the WP:OWN policy. Secondly, you are adding long clearly WP:POVPUSH quotes which contradict both WP:NEUTRALITY and WP:QUOTE policies and the material of the long-winding quote you added is already addressed in the article in a neutral way. Thirdly, you are disrupting the stable infobox by unilaterally adding and creating events. Gotitbro (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I see no mention of the Gauda kingdom's attack outside of the quote that Bodhiupasaka added. The reference appears valid. However, it would be preferable for the quotation to be summarized rather than included as a full block of text. Some of the material from Shashanka#Suppression_of_Buddhism perhaps should be included to indicate that there are historical doubts about Shashanka's actions. --Spasemunki (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Gotitbro, you are right about one thing it is not my article. English is not my first language. So I apologise. You accuse me of unilateral actions ? Aren't you unilaterally removing my contributions ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Spasemunki, there are also historical doubts of Khilji's attacks since there are historical accounts of monks still being ordained in Nalanda after the turkic attacks. But it does not mean the accounts of turkic attacks should be removed from the article . The same way , accounts of Shashanka's attack on Nalanda should not be removed. Fair enough ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I was actually writing in support of including the information from the paper that you introduced. I think you might be better served by slowing down a little. --Spasemunki (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Gotitbro, may I also you a question ? Is a Sangha , really a Sanskrit term ? Then what is samgha (with an m) ? Why did you allow Devanagari transliteration of the pali term for Sangha to persist in the article 'sangha' when you yourself stated that it is only latin that is universally accepted for writing Pali ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It's more constructive to focus on a single issue at a time. --Spasemunki (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Greatest in the world, etc based on questionable sources

Hopping IPs: Tabloids, newspapers and text based on a local-govt-submissions/claims are not WP:HISTRS. We should avoid WP:Soap such as "the greatest in the world" or even "one of the..." etc claims in this article, as it implies the world had many universities (or Nalanda-like influential institutions) over 5th to 12th-centuries (where ?, according to which scholarly sources). You are invited to explain your sources, rationale and suggestion(s). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Amartya Sen

Sen might be a polymath but he is not a historian of medieval India. Being associated with a botched namesake is irrelevant. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Please also cite about how Brahmins had a role in the decline of Nalanda university

Sources have also stated that Brahmins also had a role in the decay of the university, not just the Muslim rulers. No2WesternImperialism (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@No2WesternImperialism: which sources? —Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

False information

When did Nalanda University become a Brahmin and Hindu university? Nalanda University is 100% Buddhist I strongly demand to present true information in front of everyone. We will not accept that you will write the false history of Nalanda. Buddhism has ended in India and there are no Buddhists to protest that's why u distort history... How much evidence was found In Nalanda that was Hindu and Vedic Scripture was kept there!! All evidence shows Nalanda was Buddhist University.... 103.127.0.145 (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this was added very recently in these unreferenced and pov edits, which I have reverted. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I just checked the sources; they don't mention 'Hinduism'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The reference the ip cites in his edit summary is not an RS (by a Canadian undergraduate(?)/blogger), but is probably quite well-researched from RS. There are certainly references lower down here to Hindu (and Jain) patronage, and also excavated imagery. I'm no expert, but I expect both religions could be studied at Nalanda, but it was clearly very predominately Buddhist, as the Canadian source says. The ip edits tried to make it sound mainly Hindu, with Buddhism as a second string. Even the source he refers to doesn't remotely support that. Clearly Hindutva drive-bys are keen to appropriate the "world's oldest university". The issue raised in the previous section also deserves exploration - the shadowy subject of Hindu agression against late Indian Buddhism (rather than blaming everything on the Muslims as before) seems to be a growing theme among historians, but sources are few. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Johnbod, thank you for sharing your views. I also believe the article is more inclined towards a particular point of view and needs proper evaluations. 103.42.88.145 (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Jha, again

@Citizenwikifact: see the thread above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

How is "destruction by Muslim invaders, broadly accepted and historically accurate" when several users @103.78.17.27, 202.142.68.197 have noted just above that this is not true? Citizenwikifact (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Explained above, with links. You have twice removed diff a WP:RS (Buswell & Lopez), and replaced it with a fringe-theory ascribed to Jha, 'supported' by an inverifiable source link. As explained in one of the links above link, the term "Hindu fanatics" is a misinterpretation, based on a piece of text from a mythological story, taken out of context. This is also explained in the Wiki-article. Putting this in the lead, even if you hadn't removed the consensus-view, is completely undue. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"Please take a moment to review WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Could you kindly share the name of the reputable journal or academic press through which your source was published?"

Audrey Truschke's recent review of the scholarship in the area led her to carefully consider the prevailing viewpoints and their foundations. After thorough evaluation, they arrived at the following conclusion: The more realistic, honest story line about the potential impact of Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar’s attacks on Indian Buddhist sites runs as follows. Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji and his raiders hit some non-Muslim targets in Bihar, likely including Buddhist sites such as Odantapuri and perhaps Nalanda, and did some damage. But the raids were not cataclysmic for all monastic centers, and Nalanda continued to operate for decades (perhaps even centuries) afterward. Lay Buddhist practices also seem to have continued into the thirteenth century in the area. Nalanda and other Buddhist institutions in the region eventually closed due to lack of interest and support, stemming from larger social and religious changes in premodern North India that are still under-researched and poorly understood. We are not sure exactly when that happened. Fayninja (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The Audrey Truschke review is more evidence that this narrative of Khalji destroying Nalanda is definitely not conclusive: "Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji and his raiders hit some non-Muslim targets in Bihar...perhaps Nalanda, and did some damage."

So how can you categorically state in the lead that, "It was sacked and destroyed by the troops of Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji"?

Under the section 'Narratives of Destruction under Khalji', I had elaborated on this misreading of Khalji's destruction of Nalanda. Historical record is clear that Minhaj-i-Siraj's Tabaqat-i Nasiri actually describes the destruction of Odantapura Vihar which was a few miles away from Nalanda and not the destruction of Nalanda itself. Moreover, I had provided link to historian Dr. A.S. Altekar's Critical Introduction to George Roerich’s Biography of Dharmasvamin published by K P Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 1959. Please refer to page 21 where it says, survival of Nalanda was perhaps because it lay not on the main route from Delhi to Bengal.

I further refer you to the Superintendent of Archaeological Survey of India, D. R. Patil's The Antiquarian Remains in Bihar published by K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 1963.

p. 304 - "It is, however, most striking that no Muhammedan Makhdum, Pir or saint of great repute happened to grace the tops of the Nalanda mounds with their tombs or mosques. This is a feature, which, it should be noted, is commonly to be observed all over Bihar at sites of celebrated and important living sanctuaries, which had invariably attracted the attention of the Musalman invaders for the erection of such monuments. At Bihar Sharif itself many of such Muslim monuments still exist; but their absence at Nalanda, hardly six or seven miles away, is rather surprising. Had Nalanda been a living institution of great repute or importance, at the time of the invasion of Bakhtiar Khilji in 1197 A. D., we should expect the Muslim Chronicles of the event to have known and mentioned the name of Nalanda. The place, said to have been destroyed by the invader, is described to be a great city and a place of study then known as Bihar, which would more appropriately be a reference to the modern Bihar Sharif, which also had a monastery, and not to Nalanda, near which there existed no big city worth the name. As is known, one of the Pala rulers had established a monastery at Odantapuri or Bihar-Sharif itself which may have affected adversely the fortunes of Nalanda. All these circumstances would indicate that, quite before Bakhtiar Khilji's invasion, Nalanda had perhaps fallen to decay or ruins already."

p. 324 - "The end of Nalanda :- As has already been stated (cf. p. 304 above) that the final destruction of Nalanda is still a mystery to be unravelled. There is no clear evidence that the Muhammedans under Bakhtiyar Khilji destroyed it as pointed out before. It should be noted that since stone was not readily available at Nalanda the most common building materials used are bricks for the walls as found in almost all the buildings described above. Stone ruins are scarcely to be seen except in the loose stone images and Bases of pillars used obviously for constructional reasons. It is further observed that for the pillars in the verandahs of almost all the monasteries (except at Site No. 11) and for the roofs of most of them wood was the material used. Traces of burnt wooden pillars and scantlings and beams, used in the roofs, have been seen in the excavations. Traces of chulhas in the verandahs of some of the monasteries are also noticed. Some of the ovens are seen in the open courtyard also. It has been suggested that cooking was done inside the monasteries which involved storage of fuel, consisting obviously of wood and other combustible material, within the premises, as is commonly seen in Indian villages. The monks may have also used naked lamps, if not torches, during nights. Accidental fires in such circumstances are quite common in India even now in the countryside. It is, therefore, most likely that the damages were more common and frequent from such accidental fires and it is quite probable that, because of this past experience, the builders used stone pillars in the later monastery site No. 11. Such fires, however damaging to the building, may not have resulted in the total desertion of the monastery. What was most likely in such circumstances was the immediate restoration of the building, especially of its verandahs and roofs after levelling up the fallen debris, as is commonly to be observed from the excavations."

p. 325 - "One inscription of about 1003 A. D., found at the temple site No. 12, actually refers to such destruction by fire and something saved from it and a grant made by one Baladitya of Telhada near Nalanda. (cf. agni-dah(o)ddhare........deya-dharmo-yam...... ...). It does not however, say how the fire was caused. Unfortunately the inscription does not refer to what was actually destroyed, whether it was the temple itself in the ruins of which it was found or a monastery nearby. The record is on a piece of a stone door-jamb. It does not mention Nalanda by name. It has been presumed that it refers to the restoration of the temple. From the list of inscriptions from Nalanda given below, it may also be observed that this is the last datable inscription so far known to us and found at Nalanda. It has been already stated (cf. p. 311 above) that the temple shows clear indications that it was restored during the declining days of Buddhism as inferred from its "plain exterior" and from traces of a protective compound wall seen around it. If Baladitya had really restored this temple, or had done a part of the work, as appears quite probable, the fact would be very significant for the history of Nalanda and its final end. It would give an impression that the end of Nalanda was fast approaching in the first decade of the 11th century. Unfortunately the antiquities and finds from the excavations have not been closely studied and dated; though we can say that the above is the latest datable inscription so far known and recovered from the ruins. There is, therefore, reason to believe that Nalanda had met its final end some time in the 11th century i. e. more than hundred years before Bakhtiyar Khilji invaded Bihar in 1197 A. D."

p. 326 - "It is known that Odantapuri or modern Bihar-Sharif had a similar and rival institution functioning under the royal patronage of the Palas and, being a capital town, it must have inevitably snatched away the fortunes of Nalanda. Muhammedan chronicles apparently refer to this latter place and do not even mention the name of Nalanda. Presumably Nalanda was then a desolate place and had already fallen to ruins." Citizenwikifact (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting, yet contradicts Jha's opinion that 'Hindu fanatics' (did he use that phrase?) destroyed Nalanda. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict Jha at all. In fact it supports the first part of Jha's thesis that Khalji was not involved in the destruction of Nalanda. Let's tackle one thing at a time. My previous response is to specifically address the falsity that, "It was sacked and destroyed by the troops of Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji". This needs to be corrected in the lead and clarification added under the section 'Narratives of Destruction under Khalji'.

In fact, even the dossier sent by Archaeological Survey of India for the site nomination in UNESCO’s World Heritage List in 2016 makes absolutely no mention of Bakhtiyar Khalji with regard to its destruction https://whc.unesco.org/archive/2016/whc16-40com-inf8B1-en.pdf

I suggest a correction in the lead along these lines, adding references to material provided in the previous response -

"Although popular belief attributes the destruction of Nalanda to Bakhtiyar Khalji, all historical evidence points to the fact that Bakhtiyar Khalji was not involved in the destruction of Nalanda." Citizenwikifact (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Nalanda was a desolate place and had already fallen to ruins. Yet, there is plenty of reliable scholarship stating that it was alive in some capacity even after Khilji raids in and around the area as concluded by Audrey. This is why it is important that "the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses"(WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Anyway, all the necessary changes have been made in light of Audrey's 2018 review of the prevailing viewpoints most of which have been covered in this article and also, refuted as per opposing sources.(WP:RSUW) Fayninja (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Citizenwikifact, I disagree with your suggestion. We are obliged to follow WP:NPOV and WP:RS. JimRenge (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, then why WP:NPOV is not being followed? It says "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"

...so why a particular view is mentioned in the summary which is based on only one account? Why other significant views with several historical records that pass WP:RS are not mentioned or presented? Why terming other sourced texts as legendary? Why editorial bias instead of presenting all facts to the readers with proper citations? Please explain. 103.42.88.145 (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Fayninja, I provided two references - Dr. A.S. Altekar (Head of the Department of Ancient Indian History and Culture at Banaras Hindu University) and D. R. Patil (Superintendent of Archaeological Survey of India). Both are widely cited texts published by K P Jayaswal Research Institute. Dr. A.S. Altekar's Critical Introduction is from George Roerich’s Biography of Dharmasvamin which is a text already referenced in this Wiki page.

I don't see why these wouldn't qualify as "material published in reputable peer-reviewed sources"? Citizenwikifact (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not think you will get a correct response because from my personal experience I felt that the editors here are neither neutral nor well-versed in history or academic sources so they tend to believe only popular myths presented by Google searches. Even there are no mention of Gaudas who first attacked Nalanda in the lead section but mention of Khilji only! 103.42.88.145 (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Unbalanced views

The article mentioned Bakhtiyar Khilji as the destroyer and the source provided for that doesn't seem to be a reliable reference. There are other views as well from Historians that mentions that Bakhtiyar Khilji didn't destroy it. Once such is online/2014/07/09/how-history-was-unmade-at-nalanda-d-n-jha/ How History Was Unmade At Nalanda! which many not be a reliable source but it is well-researched from several other reliable sources. Historian D. N. Jha has also wrote it in his book.Prof D.N. Jha (1940-2021), a rare historian who wore his knowledge with ease. So, I belive the readers should be presented with all facts without providing any undue weight to any particular view. 103.78.17.27 (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, these edits certainly are not the right way to go forward. The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; this opinion isn't. And even if it was, it would be WP:UNDUE to give it so much attention. Not to mention the problem of WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

See also this, this and this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

D. N. Jha is unreliable but the history section needs a rewrite. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

TrangaBellam and Joshua Jonathan: I got your point. Forget about D.N. Jha but what about the Tibetans texts that attributes the destruction to Brahmins? It is also written in the article here[1]. The article also mentions that "This record of Minhaj-i-Siraj is not an eyewitness account, but it is an account of Samsamuddin who was with Muhammad-i Bakhtiyar Khalji, and Minhaj-i-Siraj merely summarizes it" so my point is why giving importance to a particular point of view and why not present all point of views and let the reader decide themselves?

Historical records also shows that: Nalanda was first destroyed by Mihirakula then by Gaudas and looted by Bakhtiyar khilji. Specially what is written in Pag-sam jon-zang, edited in the original Tibetan by Rai Sarat Chandra Das, Bahadur, C.I.E., at Calcutta, p. 92. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.68.197 (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding why giving importance to a particular point of view and why not present all point of views: because one specific point of view, the destruction by Muslim invaders, is broadly accepted and historically accurate, while the story about 'angry Brahmins', while also mentioned in the article, is legenday and taken out of context in popular writings and blogs. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Who wrote this article - Sarah? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

JJ, your version does not detail why "such a reading" is misplaced.

Further, Buddhist studies scholars and historians such as Peter Harvey,[83] Charles Prebish,[84] Damien Keown,[84] Donald Mitchell,[85] Steven Darian,[86] Stephen Berkwitz[87] and others attribute Nalanda's destruction to Bakhtiyar Khalji. is Sarah-esque POV pushing. What remotely relevant expertise does Damien Keown, a scholar on Buddhist ethics, or Steven Darian, an expert in God knows what (his degree is in linguistics and he taught communications), or Charles Prebish, an expert in ancient Buddhism (and Buddhist theology), or Peter Harvey, an expert in early Buddhist thought and Buddhist ethics, or Donald W. Mitchell, an expert in Buddhist philosophy have on this issue? Or, maybe every academic working on S. Asia, Education, Islam, and Buddhism can have their bytes? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Sarah writes,

[H]istorical records in Tibet affirm that monks from Nalanda and nearby monasteries such as the Vikramashila monastery who "survived the slaughter, fled to Tibet", according to Scharfe.

This is a balatant misrepresentation of the citation [Scharfe; pp. 154–155, 157.] I reproduce the entire paragraph:

The third international Buddhist university, founded in the eighth century by king Dharmapala, was the Vikramasila monastery in Bihar, probably on a hill 24 miles east of Bhagalpur. Royal patronage kept it prosperous for four centuries [..] The Vikramasila monastery was still in existence at the time of the Elder Dharmasvamin (A.D. 1153-1216) and the Kashmirian scholar Sakyasribhadra (A.D. 1145-1225), but destroyed when the younger Dharmasvamin visited India (circa A.D. 1234). Even though it had been fortified by the king and a garrison was stationed there, it was destroyed by Bakhtiyar Khilji sometime between A.D. 1198 and 1206, razed to the ground and its foundation stones thrown into the Ganges. Some scholars who survived the slaughter, fled to Tibet.
— p. 155

As is blatantly obvious, the last line is restricted to the Vikramasila monastery.

That said, a few pages earlier, Scharfe did state

Nalanda, together with the colleges at Vikramasila and Odantapuri, suffered gravely during the conquest of Bihar by the Muslim general Muhammad Bhakhtiyar Khalji between A.D. 1197 and 1206, and many monks were killed or forced to flee. [116]
— p. 150

So, maybe Sarah mis-cited the page? Nope, the footnote goes:

The Muslim historian does not state clearly which of these monasteries were destroyed by Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji; the Tibetan sources suggest that it was Vikramasila: see p. 155

If I continue to dig in, Sarah had brandished the heaps of ashes and charcoal — that were found during the excavation — as the third prong of evidence in favor of the theory that the monastery was arsoned by Khalji. However, Scharfe cautions:

[T]hey [the ashes and charcoal] may stem from a fire that apparently occurred in A.D. 999: Hirananda Sastri, Nalanda, p.107 and B.N.Misra, Nalanda, vol.1 p.203.

Maybe, Sarah just missed it - who knows? Afterall, errors of omission and commission is how I have come to define her editing. Anybody who has taken a cursory look at the evidence concerning Nalanda and is not intellectually dishonest will, in a jiffy, come to Truschke's excellent summarization of the issue:

Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji and his raiders hit some non-Muslim targets in Bihar, likely including Buddhist sites such as Odantapuri and perhaps Nalanda, and did some damage. But the raids were not cataclysmic for all monastic centers, and Nalanda continued to operate for decades (perhaps even centuries) afterward.

The length one needs to go to contradict such a conclusion, citing random scholars with nil expertise and thus sneaking under the illusion of argument from authority, is interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate your efforts to dig history and burst the popular myth. Wikipedia needs more editors like you who can enrich it with pure knowledge & facts, but no bias. Satyameva Jayate 🙏 103.42.88.145 (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan, you provided sources like hindupost.in, an opinion written by Arun Shourie to conclude that because one specific point of view, the destruction by Muslim invaders, is broadly accepted and historically accurate, while the story about 'angry Brahmins', while also mentioned in the article, is legenday and taken out of context in popular writings and blogs. ?

Could you be kind enough to mention, broadly accepted and historically accurate by "whom"? How other sources have became "story about 'angry Brahmins' and legendary"? I believe all historical viewpoints from noted historians should be presented in the article instead of cherry picking one particular account of "Minhaj-i-Siraj" otherwise someday I will have to read that the famous Jagannath Temple was converted from Buddhist shrine by some Muslim invaders, not by 'angry Brahmins'! 103.42.88.145 (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

As you may have noticed (or not), the alleged destruction by Muslim invaders has been corrected. Yet, Jha's view is an outlier, and seems to be based on a legendary account. If I recall correctly, reliable sources have already been requested for Jha's suggestions. You have them at hand? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Some scholarly sources have been provided by the user:Citizenwikifact

In fact there were no mention of the previous attacks by Huns and Goudas. Here is a quick source for Goudas Rajvansh's attack: [2] and [3].

Also, this following part which was referenced and already in the article, have been removed in later revisions. Can you please have a look:

"The record of Minhaj-i-Siraj is not an eyewitness account, but it is an account of Samsamuddin who was with Muhammad-i Bakhtiyar Khalji, and Minhaj-i-Siraj merely summarizes it. The above abridged quote refers to an attack on a Buddhist monastery (the "Bihar" or Vihara) and its monks (the shaved Brahmans). Minhaj-i-Siraj record dates it to 1193 CE, prefaces the above quoted sentences with "Khalji had already been busy a year or two in this region" before this attack, and mentions the sack of a college-monastery in the context of an Islamic conquest of Bihar Sharif region, but he does not explicitly state it was Nalanda. It could have been one of several monasteries near Nalanda. However, considering that these two Mahaviharas were only a few kilometres apart and little qualms about the massacre of clean shaven residents there, it is very likely that Minhaj-i-Siraj summary is not an extensive record and both befell a similar fate. The other great Mahaviharas of the age such as Vikramshila and later, Jagaddala, also met their ends at the hands of the Turks at around the same time."

? 103.42.88.145 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

References