Talk:Nalanda mahavihara

message: It is widely accepted historically established fact that Nalanda Mahavihara was first attacked by Huns under the reign of Mihirakula (455–467 AD) and then in the 7th century by the Goudas after which it was restored again by king Harshavardhana.
It was earlier there in the article with citations but now I cannot find it in the article. I found some sources which are: , , , ,  and more available. 103.42.88.145 (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting inclusion of earlier attacks 

message: Official website and Indian tradition both buddhist and non-buddhist holds (in Patna) that the structure was destroyed and burnt by the troops of Khilji and millions of book burnt in it which took so many days to become ashes.
I think it has became trends like these now-a-days especially with the historian like Trushcke which seems not reliable with their works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.16.145 (talk • contribs) 18 february, 2024 (UTC)
:This got pretty messed-up, with various IP-edits, from 106.211.189.128 diff, 117.205.22.12 diff, and 117.96.16.145 diff, edit-summary diff {{tq|actually I am reverting to the last version .. The edits were misplaced; see it again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nalanda_mahavihara&diff=1208429071&oldid=1198155257 (that is, diff). But looking at this version, you seem to be right. It would be preferable, though, if you edit those bare url's into proper references. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nalanda 

message: If Nalanda is considered a Univeristy then are all Mahaviharas? Cathedral schools? All ancient places of higher learning? Western Universities before they were designated as such legally? 
The current citation for the  is Nalanda mahavihara#cite note-7 (https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1502.pdf). 
On this document on page 13: 
::
1. We see "Nalanda University" and "Nalanda" - in reference to the ancient Mahavihara are two different establishments
2. Nalanda in the sense of the ancient institution is refered to as 'Nalanda Mahavihara' throughout the document.
3. "University" is put in speech marks. 
Again on Page 132:
::
Page 14:
::
1 . Same thing as previously mentioned with the word univeristy in relation to the Mahavihara.
Page 40:
::
1. Again showing the complete difference between the ancient Mahavihara and the University of Nalanda
Page 124:
::
1. 'quality of a university campus'
On page 125 and 126 it is reffered to as a 'planned university' 
Page 139:
::
N.B. 'University-like'
Page 154:
::
In the conclusion (p154):
::
'cetre of higher learning' All univeristies are centres of higher learning but not all centres of higher learning are universities.
In my conclusion: Nalanda is called a Univeristy out of academic laziness and ease, it was not actually a university and should be changed to reflect the truth.  should be removed or replaced with 'some historians'.  should also be removed as proven it is not a revival as the current school is considered to be a completely different thing and an actual university, you cant revive the university if it wasnt a university. MightyPoof (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nalanda being a 'Univeristy'. 

message: We know from recent research in this area that Nalanda was continuing to produce Buddhist scholars like Dhyānabhadra into the 14th century. This info is already included in the article and referenced. Should the lead and infobox be updated to change the operation dates as ending in the 14th century rather than the 1100s? Ixudi (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates it was operational from