A fact from Shanti Stupa, Ladakh appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 December 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Neither of the two sources cited uses the word "relics', so I'm not clear on why it's claimed that the "relics of Buddha" are in the stupa. Mangoe (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the references says so, it was clarified on the DYK page.--RedtigerxyzTalk 13:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all of the seven or so currently present. Obviously if there were such relics they would be no more credible than similar things in Christian medieval churches, so the complaint isn't about their authenticity but the matter of fact of whether there are even claimed by the founding order to be any, cf. Relic of the tooth of the Buddha for one that does. Lycurgus (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that this dubious claim reached the front page of Wikipedia as a "did you know.." fact. -- Henriok (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the English wiki DYK is just a list of recent articles, I don't think there's any claim of it being any more factual than the rest of the content, and presumptively less so as in this case. Lycurgus (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. There isn't even an issue of whether Kundun actually placed the relics, believes them to be relics, etc., before the current one, there wasn't any mention of the relics in the sources. Lycurgus (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
