user254: Given all the latest edit[s], should this question be reopened: Why did Marco Polo say the Buddhist religion originated in Sielan?
Is it answerable?
Does it contradict the way on which this site should be used, i.e.:

Question and answer, not "discussion"
Question and answer, not "preaching"
Not for "criticising" the doctrines of other schools (this may invite criticism of the view that the Buddha lived in Sri Lanka)?

If the question isn't good as-is, can it be edited somehow to make it on-topic?
My guess is that the only way it could be posted might be as an answer not a question, e.g. ...

Q: Why does anyone say that the Buddha lived in Sri Lanka -- what are their historical arguments?
A: See [this post] on quora.com

... but that would contradict the "posting a question for the sake of self-answering it" guideline.

user254: If this topic is controversial, one of the answers to Questions asking for an answer to a controversy ...

Instead of changing question to be about controversy it is also possible to just outline controversy in the answer.
Or, answer could state that it presents just one point of view.

... suggests that a way to frame the topic on this site might be as answers to a question such as ...
Question: Some people say that (the historical Buddha lived in what is now Sri Lanka, and that Buddhism originated there -- this may be controversial -- what are the "historical reasons", the "historical arguments", both for and/or against this thesis?
... but (e.g. as a moderator) I'm worried that even this topic might lead to ...

"Extended discussion"
Criticism or hostility (maybe sectarianism)
Preaching (and posting question in order to answer them yourself, as a form of preaching)

I'm not even sure how this topic is meant to be beneficial, though I guess that's not my business (i.e. it's not up to me as a moderator to decide whether a topic is worthwhile) -- and even the meta-question of whether and why it's worthwhile might itself be controversial or debatable.
Still my personal view (i.e. as a user not a moderator) is that it doesn't seem to me a topic that I want to invest much effort into answering or asking.

user43: It seems to me this question has four problems:

It's not about Buddha's philosophy, teaching, ethics, meditation, practice, experience, or interpretation.
It looks like OP is trying to promote their own view, instead of being sincerely interested in learning something new - as it should be.
Also, the "why they did/said this"-type questions are hard to answer objectively. Who knows why, and how can we know? We can only speculate, while this site is about knowledge sharing.
So far it has not attracted, and it looks like it may never attract, an interesting answer informed either by studies or by experience.

The only argument I can see in support of this question, is that it is (remotely) related to Buddhism, specifically, to the history and origin of Buddhism. That's 4:1 against reopening. 

254: <p>Given all the latest edit[s], should this question be reopened: <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31526/254">Why did Marco Polo say the Buddhist religion originated in Sielan?</a></p>
<p>Is it answerable?</p>
<p>Does it contradict the way on which this site should be used, i.e.:</p>
<ul>
<li>Question and answer, not &quot;discussion&quot;</li>
<li>Question and answer, not &quot;preaching&quot;</li>
<li>Not for &quot;criticising&quot; the doctrines of other schools (this may invite criticism of the view that the Buddha lived in Sri Lanka)?</li>
</ul>
<p>If the question isn't good as-is, can it be edited somehow to make it on-topic?</p>
<p>My guess is that the only way it could be posted might be as an answer not a question, e.g. ...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Q: Why does anyone say that the Buddha lived in Sri Lanka -- what are their historical arguments?</p>
<p>A: See [this post] on quora.com</p>
</blockquote>
<p>... but that would contradict the &quot;posting a question for the sake of self-answering it&quot; guideline.</p>
 254: <p>If this topic is controversial, one of the answers to <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/114/254">Questions asking for an answer to a controversy</a> ...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Instead of changing question to be about controversy it is also possible to just outline controversy in the answer.</p>
<p>Or, answer could state that it presents just one point of view.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>... suggests that a way to frame the topic on this site might be as answers to a question such as ...</p>
<p><em>Question: Some people say that (the historical Buddha lived in what is now Sri Lanka, and that Buddhism originated there -- this may be controversial -- what are the &quot;historical reasons&quot;, the &quot;historical arguments&quot;, <strong>both for and/or against</strong> this thesis?</em></p>
<p>... but (e.g. as a moderator) I'm worried that even this topic might lead to ...</p>
<ul>
<li>&quot;Extended discussion&quot;</li>
<li>Criticism or hostility (maybe sectarianism)</li>
<li>Preaching (and posting question in order to answer them yourself, as a form of preaching)</li>
</ul>
<p>I'm not even sure how this topic is meant to be beneficial, though I guess that's not my business (i.e. it's not up to me as a moderator to decide whether a topic is worthwhile) -- and even the meta-question of whether and why it's worthwhile might itself be controversial or debatable.</p>
<p>Still my personal view (i.e. as a user not a moderator) is that it doesn't seem to me a topic that I want to invest much effort into answering or asking.</p>
 43: <p>It seems to me this question has four problems:</p>

<ol>
<li>It's not about Buddha's philosophy, teaching, ethics, meditation, practice, experience, or interpretation.</li>
<li>It looks like OP is trying to promote their own view, instead of being sincerely interested in learning something new - as it should be.</li>
<li>Also, the "why they did/said this"-type questions are hard to answer objectively. Who knows why, and how can we know? We can only speculate, while this site is about knowledge sharing.</li>
<li>So far it has not attracted, and it looks like it may never attract, an interesting answer informed either by studies or by experience.</li>
</ol>

<p>The only argument I can see in support of this question, is that it is (remotely) related to Buddhism, specifically, to the history and origin of Buddhism. That's 4:1 against reopening. </p>
