Talk:Gandhara/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cyrus I or Cyrus II

In the section 'Persian rule', Should the king Cyrus I be changed to Cyrus II the Great? I'm not sure about this point. Who can help me check this? thanks a lot!--141.14.232.132 09:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

gandhara in the mahabharat?

how come no mention of it hindu roots?

->The king of Gandhara was King Shakuni during the Mahabharat time.

Or Gandharan cultural influence on Hinduism. I do beleive the Gandharans were not considered as Hindu but barbarians beyond the caste systems (mlechhas) during those days. At anyrate I think there is a significant amount that needs to be filled but it really lacks definitive historical information atleast till the persians show up. There seems to be little work by qualified historians as well as factual evidences for various hypotheses on this subject so it may be better to just leave it brief mentioning what is known rather than drawing any inferences to fill it up. (Wiki: Original Research)

--Tigeroo 07:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the earlier Gandharis were Hindus later with the conquest of central asians population like the kushans (bactrians) the people of Gandhara became buddhists.

No, they were considered hindu. read the mahabharat.--D-Boy 11:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If the kings of Zabul and Zaranj were Hindu in the early 1st millenium, as is stated in a book by noted historian Alain Danielou, then Gandhara logically (east of Zabul) would be. But as dboy says do read the mahabharat.Bakaman 23:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

the king of Zabul was pagan and not hindu since he was a native of the sacaes who were nomads of northern central asia.

Christian dating or Common Era?

I have changed all the dates to the less contentious BCE and CE rather than BC and AD (except in the map - which is someone else's work, and in book titles - which should not be changed) as many non-Christians (including myself) find the use of AD (standing for "Year of our Lord") and BC ("before Christ") not only wrong (because most scholars, even Christian ones, now admit they don't relate accurately to the year of Jesus' birth) but they seem strange and even uncomfortable (or even religiously repugnant) for non-Christians to use - while nobody, surely, can have any serious objections to using the abbreviations for "Common Era" (CE) and "Before Common Era" (BCE) which have gained very wide international acceptance among scholars in recent years. Moreover, I object to the title of my book being changed in the references - as I chose BCE and CE to use in the title for exactly these reasons. Hope I am not stamping on anyones toes - but I do think this is the preferable and less contentious way to go. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Gandhara Stone

I would like to know more about some stone that we have inherited. We used to live in Pakistan and visited the ruined cities in Mohenjodaro and Harrapa valley and Taxila. I have a Buddha head and also a leaping lion and parts of a frieze. They are 3000+- years old. can anyone tell me more? 61.69.143.42 (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC) mad53@aapt.net.au

Gandhara from 600 BCE to 1000 CE

The lead to this article states that "The Kingdom of Gandhara lasted from c. the 6th century BCE to the 11th century CE." Technically that's not correct; Sometimes Gandhara was independent of neighboring powers, sometimes it was under direct rule by Persia, the Mauryans, Bactrians, Turks, etc. True, it was often independent of those powers, like during Shahi times, or free but under vassalage, like during Kushansha times. But it seems misleading to say it the way the lead currently describes it. Anyone mind if I work on that? Thomas Lessman (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. I noticed the same discrepancy. You might consider its position under the Achaemenid Empire, Alexander the Great and the Indoscythians. --Bejnar (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandal deletion by 142.221.110.4 on 16:12, 25 June 2009

Anonymous user 142.221.110.4 has deleted an entire referenced quote for unexplained reasons grom the End of Gandhara section of the Article.

“ According to Al Beruni , the armies of Ghazni carried fire and sword in Gandhara . The persecution of Gandhara caused irrepairable damage to Indian religions in this region . The ruins of cities ,temples , manastries , etc bear witness to these acts of vandalism . After its conquest by the Ghaznavids , Gandhara , an overwhelming majority of its population embraced Islam ”

Intothefire (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion between John Hill and Intothefire aggregated from three pages to this one for clarity and flow .

Dear Intothefire: I have replaced the above quote with one from Al Biruni himself - as it is best to quote primary sources. I hope you will approve. If not, please leave a note explaining what you think should be done on my Talk Page. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

John Hill replaces above quote from a secondary source with the following quote from a primary source viz Al Beruni

"Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims. This is the reason, too, why Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benares, and other places."

Intothefire response (1) to John Hill posted on John Hill talk page

Hi John Hill

• I thought that secondary sources were preferred on Wikipeddia , now you suggest primary sources are preferred .?
  
• Since I don’t delete (by and large) specially not referenced information , I don’t have any objection to your quote .
  
• Have you replaced the content in the capacity of a wikipedia admin...or as just another wikipedian ..because if your edit is in the capacity of an editor then I respect your choice ...otherwise your quote made by Alberuni while true ...I wonder if it was made in the context specifically of Gandhara .
  

Intothefire (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC

John Hill response (1) to Intothefire post on John Hill take page as well as Intothefire talk page

Hi again!

I don't know whether there is a policy that primary or secondary sources are preferred in the Wikipedia, but, in very general terms, I believe it is preferable to go to the original source to be sure the information is accurate.

The quote you gave was:

"According to Al Beruni , the armies of Ghazni carried fire and sword in Gandhara . The persecution of Gandhara caused irrepairable damage to Indian religions in this region . The ruins of cities ,temples , manastries , etc bear witness to these acts of vandalism . After its conquest by the Ghaznavids , Gandhara , an overwhelming majority of its population embraced Islam."

This quoted text is badly punctuated and difficult to follow and contains many grammatical and spelling errors, while the final sentence does not make sense. Further, in the previous sentence, the word monasteries is so badly misspelled ("manastries ") that a reader without a very good command of English might not even know what it was meant to represent (and would not be able to check it in a dictionary).

It was partly for these reasons that I replaced that quote with a much clearer quote from Al Biruni himself. While he does not mention Gandhara specifically, the statement was was made referring to Mahmud's invasion and conquest of northwestern India which, as we know, included Gandhara. I can see no difficulty here.

Finally, seeing as you ask, I am "just another wikipedian", not an editor - but if I were an editor why would you, on that basis alone, accept my changes if you thought they were wrong? Are we not trying to make this article as factual and clear as we can? Please let me know if you still disagree and, if so, why. Yours sincerely, John Hill (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

John Hill also posts this discussion on my talk page . I request that this discussion is held only on this page and aggregate all the parts here .Discussion carries hereon

Intothefire response (2)
Hi John Hill

• Wikipedia does prefer primary sources over secondary sources however I do admit to having used them as well on other articles
• The quote and punctuation is verbatim , the spelling mistakes on the two words are my mine . You could have have simply repaired the spelling ?
  

but as you have chosen to replace the quote with an entirely new one , then your reasons citing spelling mistakes are indefensible .

• With regard to not challenging an admin , I believe that in general wikipedia articles are benefited with users respecting Administrators (fairly) implementing wikipedia policy . If I found the intervention patently unfair or erroneous...I would challenge it ....following the wikipedia procedure to dissent .
• Yes offcourse I am trying (as I am sure you are) to make the wikipedia articles as factual as possible . However I do recognize that I do not have a monopoly on the facts ...and that others may post content that completely conflicts with my posts .
• Apparently you believe directly quoting Al beruni here enhances the factualness of the section on End of Gandhara .
• You have provided the following citation details Translated and annotated by Edward C. Sachau in two volumes. Kegana Paul, Trench, Trübner, London. (1910). Vol. I, p. 22

However while I could find Alberuni's quote you have added , in the preface of Sachau 's translation on page XV of the Preface , however here the quote is alluded to Al beruni commenting on Mahmud and not specifically the attack on Gandhara . Therefore can I request you to please tell me which is the exact chapter in the book that this quote is taken ?? Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Intothefire:

I am really happy to keep the discussion here - I do think it is a good idea to keep it all in one place. I also hope to keep it cordial and particularly hope that I have not upset you - as this is certainly not my intention at all. I notice that, going back in the process, some anonymous person had previously had just deleted your quote with no explanation at all - which is really unfair - and then I came along and deleted I again - so I can understand you might well feel under attack.

Anyway, to reply to your points:

• Thanks for the information on Wikipedia's policy in regard to original and secondary sources which I did not know about previously.
• I did not try to correct the spelling, grammatical or punctuation mistakes in the quote you made as I had no way of telling if they were in the book you were quoting from or made by you. I believe it is very important to keep quotes as exact as possible with any editing or changes added only when really necessary and clearly marked as such.
• Thanks for the explanation of your comments about Administrators' actions.
• Yes, I do believe quoting Al Biruni directly on the invasion of northern India (including Gandhara) by Mahmud is likely to to be factual as Al Biruni was reporting on what had happened only a few years before his time and he also has a good reputation as a reliable historian.
• The quote I made comes from Chapter I of his book. I will include more of the quote below so you can see it more in context. Please let me know if you think I should insert this whole quote from p. 22 of Sacau's translation to make it all clearer.

"Now in the following times no Muslim conqueror passed beyond the frontier of Kâbul and the river Sindh until the days of the Turks, when they seized the power in Ghazna under the Sâmânî dynasty, and the supreme power fell to the lot of Nâṣir-addaula Sabuktagin. This prince chose the holy war as his calling, and therefore called himself Al-gâzî (i.e. warring on the road of Allah). In the interest of his successors he constructed, in order to weaken the Indian frontier, those roads on which afterwards his son Yamin-addaula Maḥmûd marched into India during a period of thirty years and more. God be merciful to both father and son ! Maḥmûd utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims. This is the reason, too, why Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benares, and other places. And there the antagonism between them and all foreigners receives more and more nourishment both from political and religious sources."

Hope this helps answer your questions. Please let me know what you think we should do at this point or if you have any further queries. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Intothefire response (3)

• OK I could locate your quote in the first chapter.
• Your choice then ,weather you wish to include a larger chunk or your earlier segment.

Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again!

I think I will use the longer quote - it is all really of interest, but it a bit long, I think. Please have a look at what I have done and tell if you think I should shorten it. I am really not sure what to do here. Cheers and best wishes, John Hill (talk) 04:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

I have deleted the following unreferenced content
In 665 Kabul was besieged by the Arabs who did not cross the Hindu Kush. The Arabs took Kabul

This is factually incorrect because

“ The presence of Arabic settlements on the Iranian Tablelands dates back to the early seventh century AD , when Arab troops, after a lightening like conquest of Persia , proceeded to occupy Khorasan and Bactria. In the second half of the 9th century they extended their hegemony to the south of the Hindu Kush. Kabul to the east fell in 871 despite the heroic resistance of the Hindushahi . ”

Intothefire (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Gandhara and the Ramayana

The section that mentions Gandhara's presence in epic literature includes a particularly dubious claim about Bharata settling in Gandhara until the time of Alexander's invasion. I have never come across a version of the epic that mentions this, and even if such a version exists, it would be difficult to qualify. This is because the Ramayana is considered to have a date of composition no later than the 4th century BCE, which would have either barely preceded or coincided with Alexander's invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.168.160 (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge Gandhara Kingdom to here?

I noticed there's a rather poor article "Gandhara Kingdom" - basically unreffed, no illustrations - which seems not really worth keeping given the fine work here. Any reason not to redirect it here? If not, we can do a formal merge request. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Khestwol (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Something wrong?

In the section of puranic tradition it is stated: "According to Vayu Purana (II.36.107), the Gandharas were destroyed by Pramiti, aka Kalika, at the end of Kaliyuga." This cannot be the case because we have not reached "the end of Kaliyuga" yet!

There arises also a question: Shouln't be mentioned, that this region was also stated to be the home of the Nagas (Dr. Naval Viyogi: "Nagas: The Ancient Rulers Of India" page 5)?--87.178.207.90 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Un-sourced material removed

I have removed and changed this particular line " was an ancient kingdom in the Swat, Peshawar, Rawalpindi, Ghazni, Kandahar and Kabul river valleys and the Pothohar Plateau, in modern-day states of northern Pakistan and northeastern Afghanistan."

Since it is wrong, Gandahara was confined to North-Western Pakistan all the way to indus river valley therefore Ghazni, Kabul, Rawalpindi and Kandahar could not have been included in Gandahara. Kandahar was located in Schytia while Kabul was located in Pactya and Rawalpindi was in Taxilia. I also removed this part since the link for the source is very weak; http://www.heritage.gov.pk/html_Pages/gandhara.html

The website itself is very nationalstic and even uses the term "any proud Pakistani" indicating it is not a good source. It also does not say anything about Jalalabad or Gardez being linked to Gandahara.Akmal94 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Difference between Purana (epic) and Ithihasa: Purana (Epic) are mostly fiction oriented stories created. Ithihasa means (this is how it happened) "History". Almost all ancient books and literary references refer to Ramayana and Mahabharata as Ithihasa until recently Western historians started using the word "Epic" (in line with Greek mythologies) without realizing the difference. Some food for thought ... (Vasu C.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.59.212 (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

Is the name "Gandhara" derived from "Alexander"? Or is it textually attested to from before the Alexandrian conquests? CiteCop 13:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, from Iskandar (Kandahar and Gandahar). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.209.236 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Gandhara existed way before Alexander and the name was referenced in much ancient literature — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.59.212 (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It looks like it hasn't been proposed formally but I think that Gandhara Kingdom (which probably should be Gandhard kingdom) should be merged to Gandhara. The contents there just discuss the references to the Gandhara kingdom within the Mahabharata (and aren't sourced) which, while interesting, isn't the same as actually historically sourced material (which Gandhara doesn't have a lot of anyways). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Mythical section on "Jewish King Afghana"

Why is this even here? Its totally based on myth and has nothing to do with the article. Its crap like this that makes Wikipedia not worthy of reading and lowers its readability even more. I request anyone with a bit of power to remove this whole section as it was probably added in by some troll. Otherwise i may be entitled to do it. Akmal94 (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Translation Edit War

This IP hopper is making ridiculous edits and removing official translations. Gandhara is located in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. Pashto and Urdu are spoken in that province. This IP hopper and suspected sock puppet [1] removed the Pashto translation for no reason whatsoever. No logical explanation was given. When I tried to revert the edits, the user simply ignored my question. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit wars by sock puppet

To whom this may concern,

An IP hopper is making some serious nonconstructive edits on several Wikipedia articles, among which one is this. What this user does is delete any mentioning of Pakistan, deletes the History of Pakistan template and replaces a specific region (ie. Punjab, Sindh) with a vague, obsolete term "Indian subcontinent". The first bone of contention is why this user has an issue with Pakistan claiming its history. I don't see this user going to the Mauryan Empire and removing the History of India template. Clearly a bias is present.

Also, they have removed the Pashto translation with Sanskrit, which makes zero sense again. Gandhara is in Khyber Pakhtunkkhwa province, a Pashto translation would be obvious. I asked the user to provide evidence of Sanskrit being spoken in Gandhara and he or she has not provided it.

The second issue is how this user is replacing specific regions with Indian subcontinent. This would be like replacing Texas with North America. It makes zero sense to me. I've tried several times to contact the user, but he or she seems to be using some program which prevents me from posting on his or her talk page. The user is also using several IDs at once which I am noting down here: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]

The other articles he is creating havoc on include: History of Sindh, Ror dynasty, Gandhara, Gandhara grave culture, Riwat,

Not only would I like to report his or her deconstruction edits, I'd also like to have his or her actual IP address banned for using several different user IDs at once. Thank you. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

1. National templates for historical eras are fine. But, not for pre-history, such as Indus Valley Civilisation. See talk page.
2. Mature Gandhara civilization was before the advent of modern Pashto. Unnesscessary.
3. See talk page Indian subcontinent, it is not an obsolete term.
4. As mentioned, I have been a wiki editor for 5 years. Wiki has no terms where IP users are not allowed. (2600:1001:B025:D62C:1C23:8806:4DE9:D0F0 (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC))

talk and where is your evidence? Pashto wasn't around back then, says who? As for "Indian subcontinent", the talk page says nothing about enforcing that ridiculous term on Wikipedia. It's an obsolete term with no historical value whatsoever. It's just a Colonial term, which Indians refuse to let go of. If you want an edit war, you got one. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Just noting that this article is about the ancient region, and so it makes sense to have the native name in the relevant literate languages of that time. Hence the presence of Sanskrit, Avestan and Chinese. Modern languages spoken there aren't normally relevant and generally aren't included (Nicopolis ad Istrum is in modern Bulgaria but the article doesn't give the Bulgarian name. Hierapolis is in modern Turkey, but again the article only gives the Ancient Greek names). Of course, this wouldn't apply if the region still has contemporary relevance for the local people, but I'm not seeing that here. On a side note, the list of native names is a bit too long for the first sentence, and I think it's best if it's moved to the end of the first paragraph, where the names are discussed anyway. – Uanfala 10:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Uanfala for your educated response. Glad to see we have rational wiki users on this website. I'm reverting his edits. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I've no idea re: naming for ancient regions etc, except that we need to avoid original research. However, the lead should say "what is now Pakistan" or "present-day Pakistan" etc - the place certainly was not Pakistan back in the day and we should avoid anachronisms. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gandhara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9035986/Gandhara
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040626090537/http://www.washington.edu/research/showcase/1996a.html to http://www.washington.edu/research/showcase/1996a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gandhara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040405065830/http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2002archive/08-02archive/k082002a.html to http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2002archive/08-02archive/k082002a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070222024000/http://home.comcast.net/~pankajtandon/galleries-gandhara.html to http://home.comcast.net/~pankajtandon/galleries-gandhara.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Animism

Maybe Gandhara was a center of animism, but there's no source for that statement, nor any further information in the body of the article. And, as a matter of fact, it was added to the lead 29 march 2015, replacing the term "Hinduism." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Edits by IP 99.252.20.102

IP 99.252.20.102 changed

Gandhāra was one of sixteen Mahajanapada of ancient India, currently situated in modern-day northern Pakistan

References

into

Gandhāra is a region currently situated in modern-day northern Pakistan

with the dit-summary

This is referring to Gandhara as a region.

No, it's not; this article is about the anvient historical kingdom.

This edit was reverted by Kautilya3, with the correct notion that sourced content was removed by IP. Next kautilya3 added an extra source, which was then reverted by IP with the edit-summary

No consensus was made when making the original changes. Reverting back on previously accepted version.

On top of that, IP then reverted back to his own preferred version, witht he edit-summary

Reverting back to last accepted version. Please discuss in talk section before making changes.

My... removing sourced info, and then requesting to discuss the addition of sources before they are added. Grossly misleading, and violating basic Wiki-policies... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, I mentioned this before. This is referring to the Gandhara as a region. It was part of several empires, including the Achaemenids, Indo-Greeks, Indo-Sassanians etc. What you're referring to is the Gandhara Kingdom, which was part of the Mahajanapada. --99.252.20.102 (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. The line in question says

Gandhāra was one of sixteen Mahajanapada of ancient India,

References

That's factual correct information. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You're not understanding the crux of the argument. Refer to the entire article, where it states the entire history including the stone age, which predates the Mahajanapada. This article is discussing Gandhara as a REGION, not as a particular Mahajanapada. Gandhara Kingdom refers to the Mahajanapada. --99.252.20.102 (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I've seen you reinserted it in the 2nd sentence. That I can agree with...as it is part of Gandhara's history. My only argument was that Gandhara as a whole was not always a Mahajanapada. This article only refers to the Gandhara region as a whole which was part of many empires. That was my argument. I wasn't denying it was not a Mahajanapada, but the opening title made it suggest that Gandhara since 1200 BCE was a Mahajanapada. Anyhow, the current version is fine. --99.252.20.102 (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Well a mahajanapada is a region, a "grand region" if you will. That is the first reference we have historically, during the Vedic and later Vedic times. The "kingdom" bit, which has now been inserted, presumably came later, around 600 BC. But it was called a mahajanapada before there were any "kingdoms". I really don't understand what problem the IP is talking about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

But as people from other region got settled among most of them were converted muslims they became so intolerant for other religions this has lead to destruction

"But as people from other region got settled among most of them were converted muslims they became so intolerant for other religions this has lead to destruction of many monuments and structures over the years.[62]" This is clearly inaccurate, the reference does not support the claim, yet it is allowed to remain here due to Indian members wanting to push this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.175.178.17 (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The IP editor is correct that Citation [62] does not support the statement.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Question.

Why are you removing the Hindko as a dialect of Prakrit when the language Hindko literally came from Prakrit? And is spoken by the Descendants of Gandhara who are Hindkowans? @LearnIndology Insha22 (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Learnindology Insha22 (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You have been asked multiple times to provide a reliable source for your claim. See WP:RS LearnIndology (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, for modern Hindko to be a direct descendant of the ancient Gandhari language – that's a very strong claim, and it will need a really good source. The fact that the two languages were spoken in the same area two millennia apart does not mean anything – Pashto, for example, is spoken in the same region, but we all know it's not a descendant of Gandhari. – Uanfala (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Mauryan Gandhara cognate peoples

The paragraph of Mauryan Gandhara containing the phrase "It is also contended that the Kurus, Kambojas, Gandharas and Bahlikas were cognate people..." is difficult to comprehend. It mentions "one school of scholars" with a viewpoint, and then mentions other viewpoints, some potentially compatible, others seemingly at odds with the first viewpoint, and all having unclear attribution or association with any particular schools of thought, individual authors, or published books/articles for further investigation. -- Sushanti (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

What's the point?

What is the point of distinguishing between Gandhara, Gandhara Kingdom and Gandhāra (kingdom)? Compare the (dis)infoboxes. The reader will be lost. Srnec (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Edits

@Uzek Recent edits were made to declutter and organise the page. In the recent edit all the history sections wihc were in different categories were merged, and language and religion was merged also to declutter and reduce the amount of sections. Also muc of the stuff was Wikipedia:Too much detail and Wikipedia:Relevance Trigarta (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I might also merge the Art section with language and religion it falls under the umbrella of the general gandharan culture. Over the next few days going to be rewriting a few sections especially on history as it isn't simple to read, isn't relevant or isn't specific Trigarta (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Any para in your opinion, which is "too much detail" would also need proper explanations about how and why. Either here or in edit summaries (if the editing is done in small steps and removes no more than hundreds of bytes of info). No one is going to follow up thousands of bytes Uzek (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

not my opinion, im simply following Wikipedias ruling. No rule says anything no more than hundreds of bytes and in small steps thats your own opinion. I will explain my reasonings and and what parts I'm not going to do it in small steps since Wikipedia guidelines do not state that Trigarta (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's my suggestion. But based on Wikipedia guidelines. If you aren't able to convince others for the large amounts of changes you want to make to this article with vague reasons (see WP:REHASH), then it would be better to WP:PRESERVE Uzek (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

No problem since you've kindly suggested I'll do it small parts then Trigarta (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

This version was stable for quite a time in which you've deleted huge sections on flimsy grounds. Also, you should wait for some days so that all editors can have proper time to discuss such a huge removal. Most of your edits as of now are causing disruption instead of improving the article. Here [8] you've deleted half of the lead while calling it shortening the lead, even though lead should summarize all main ideas. Here[9] You've deleted vital terminology section. Here [10] you've deleted sections on Gandharan Buddhism, and also removed section on Gandharans.[11]

You also didn't ping editors, which means they may not even have received notification for this. That's why I'm pinging editors which I think know about this.

@Fowler&fowler@Kautilya3@TrangaBellam@HistoryofIran@पाटलिपुत्र

Sutyarashi (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not obliged to discuss edits with editors before making an edit. All my reasonings were described as requested by two editors and they had no issues With my reasonings hence no one removed them. It was not made in one big chunk but rather sections, if you have issues with some parts add backs the sections you think should be added back, not the full thing. Like I've said, read the WP's that I've tagged and read them, it is not based on flimsy ground. Trigarta (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Trigarta No, you're effectively removing contributions of alot of editors. Tell here which specific sections you want to remove and why. Wait for few days till all editors are engaged, then move ahead for removal.

Sutyarashi (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

like I've said, my reasonings have all been stated and in sections. Just because they've added content doesn't mean its good. If you have an issue with any sections you're free to add the ones back and we can dicuss, otherwise read WP:Revert only when necessary, and leave the edit as it is. And read WP:please discuss on talk page first. I do not need to discuss edits before making them Trigarta (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You're already removing content and getting reverted back for two days. You can't say that it's discussion before edits.

Sutyarashi (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes because they requested that I do it in sections rather than making the edit all in one go. Which I have done. Trigarta (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you only describe here which sections you think should be removed?

Sutyarashi (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

As WP:Please discuss on talk page states, I do not have to dicuss my edits before making them. My reasonings have already been stated in my previous edits and for your further information on certain parts of my edits I have already replied to them with my reasonings. Trigarta (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

'Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.' History is significantly mentioned in lead when it isn't necessary. Read WP:Manual of style/lead.

No I didn't remove vital terminology section, I merged it with etymology and kept the important information. There was also WP:Too much info (Excessive detail and irrelevant content)

For the removal of texts on Gandharan Buddhism I have explained my reasoning and what I deleted. Should be no issue there. Same for the edit after, it was the same as the previous edit reasonings except i forgot to finish the edit Trigarta (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait till editors which I've pinged can discuss. Otherwise you're free to move ahead.

Sutyarashi (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Trigarta was already told by two other users to explain himself properly, yet he is still here edit warring and name dropping random guidelines he doesn’t even understand. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I have explained my edits in sections which was requested and they have had no issue after I did so. Trigarta (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran I have been observing this. It was pretty difficult to clean mess created by his edits on History of Punjab too.

Sutyarashi (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I was new to Wikipedia when I made some of those edits to History of Punjab so didn't understand all procedures and necessities Trigarta (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran can you please ask for more protection of the page, keeping in view these recent edits?

Sutyarashi (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, you should first describe the sections you want to get removed here, so that everyone can discuss.Sutyarashi (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm repeating for third time, which changing you want to make. Also, I'm warning you if you continued your disruptive behaviour which is also noted by some other users, you may well get reported.Sutyarashi (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging more users@Johnbod@Uzek

Sutyarashi (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry ill be taking it there for your constant neglect of Wikipedia guidelines. Consensus? You are not asking for consensus you are asking for discussion before edits which is not required. This behaviour has also been seen by other users from you Trigarta (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Trigarta: your edits have been reverted multiple times now by multiple editors; so yes, you should discuss your intended edits here before proceeding further. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Geography

Why did you restore last edit @Chariotrider555: for everything you want source, you cant get source for everything but you have to use your brains for geography sometimes. After seeing you restore this back "Historically, it bordered ancient regions of Bactria and Ariana to the north and Arachosia and Sattagydia to the south " It seems like your trying to make a connection between Arachosia and Gandhara as thats what I feel like when I clearly stated that Arachosia and Bactria bordered to the West of Gandhara bordering it from the South and north directions on its entire Western borders. Arachosia centered on the Helmand river or along with its tributary rivers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Helmandrivermap.png which is the longest river in Afghanistan completely different completely of a different river source, from to the Indus river in the Punjab Plains the Hindu Kush does not even extend further from the Kyber pass. Which makes Gandhara close to the Indus even extending towards Taxila. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:E280:3D48:133:C81F:610A:D406:E760 (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

This line does not even make any sense just read it yourself, "Historically, it bordered ancient regions of Bactria and Ariana to the north and Arachosia and Sattagydia to the south" Ariana is just a Geographic term for a region of people between Central Asia and the Indus river used by the Romans or Greeks who ever added this does not have source for what he added and your keeping to that clearly Hindu Nationalist are trying to rewrite history and your keeping that, but ask source from others.

Save the Wikipedia from Hindutvaism. 2402:E280:3D48:133:C81F:610A:D406:E760 (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead should be shortened down majorly to avoid clutter

I think the lead should be shortened down majorly to avoid clutter, as as per wikis guidelines the lead should be short and give a brief intro into Gandhara and I think it should leave the history aspects for the history section and have it trasnferred Zenithxxx (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead discussion

Talk topic to discuss lead section. @Sutyarashi Zenithxxx (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The current lead summarises all of the key historical points of Gandhara perfectly in not massive detail and is organised as a general summary -> Summary of Culture -> Summary of history paragraphs and after checking the difference in length between the original and the new lead, the original is only around 30+ words more than the new so I personally do not see the new lead which was reverted as a better version Zenithxxx (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No, your version is not better at all. It is full of unnecessary details, verbosity ("The historical narrative of Gandhara commences", "garnered recognition", "renown for triumphing", "expansionary endeavors"), factoids of little historical value or even revisionism/ failing verification, like labelling Apracharajas as a Gandharan kingdom or ascribing Chanakya a Gandharan origin, all while citing poor quality sources. So you need to explain how it is better than the previous lede. I haven't gone through rest of article, but I don't expect it to be any better. WP:ONUS, WP:LEDE and WP:RS would be relevant policies in this regard for you. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, the uneccesary details can be changed to more simple vocabulary which isn't a call for reverting the whole lead. Secondly the sources I have cited are all from credible historians from credible education departments for instance 'Ascribing Chankya as Gandharan origin all while citing poor quality sources' is untrue and a simple view of the author and the text would prove it. Thomas Trautman is not an unreliable author and has graduated from the University of Michigan and University of London in history all whilst also specialising in Indic history. Secondly the Aprcharajas were a Gandharan dynasty because that was where the dynasty was established and was centered.

Therefore Im going to revert it back but Ill take your points of unnecessary detail into consideration and apply them when I revert. Zenithxxx (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Also my revert is 3rd revert now, so if you want to revert now lets discuss it on here what we can improve and what you disagree with, if not we can get a 3rd opinion and also go to the Dispute resoluation noticeboard Zenithxxx (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)