Talk:Kandahar

Etymology

NOT from Alexandria!: In the book "Histories" by Herodotus, Gandhara is named as a source of tax collections for King Darius. Böri (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, could the name be connected to an arabic "bridge" like with the many Al Qantaras? --BjKa (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Gandhara does not correspond to Kandahar

>Though this is unlikely given the fact that the geography of modern day Kandahar does not equate with that of Gandhara.

I added that statement and it's a fact, you can check the article on Gandhara and see that it corresponds to the geography of modern day Jalalabad, the Kabulistan valley in Afghanistan and Peshawar/Swat in pakistan.

I've also attached a picture of the achaemenid satrapies at the time to show the distinction between the geography of kandahar in the arachosia satrap vs. the gandhara satrap all the way in eastern/northeastern afghanistan.

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/files/achaemenid_satrapies.jpg

Hope this clears your misunderstanding.

I agree with what you said. Gandhara was located on the eastern side of the Hindu Kush around the Kabul-Swat river valleys while Arachosia was on the southern side in the Helmand and Arghandab valleys. Kandahar was located in Arachosia. Khestwol (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the other guy wants, this is common sense and a source (aside from looking at a map) is not needed.

I want to not include synthesis. To note that Gandhara is nowhere near Kandahar (as I have just done) is documenting a fact. To conclude that the etymology is therefore incorrect is synthesis; to write that, we need a scholarly source which concludes it.

There is hardly any shortage of city names derived from places a great distance away. New York springs to mind. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it to " Although it is important to note the fact that the geography of modern day Kandahar does not equate with that of Gandhara." It is important we keep it like this as kandahar (arachosia) and gandhara (jalalabad/peshawar/swat) are not synonymous and it helps those who are confused and often equate the two.

That's still synthesis. It is your own conclusion that that is important, or pertinent to the etymology. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

What don't you understand about the fact where kandahar lies as it is today is nowhere near the historic gandhara? My edit is not disruptive, it just helps clear misunderstanding of those who may equate gandhara with kandahar as the names sound similar

Nothing. I agree that that is a fact. It is entirely reasonable to put it into the article, which is why I did so.

However, to draw conclusions from that fact which are not supported by cites is your own analysis.

"the geography of modern day Kandahar does not equate with that of Gandhara" is a fact, albeit clumsily worded. "it is important to note the fact" is your personal opinion. One belongs in the article; one does not. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

m8 you can't just keep changing things like this >The geography of modern day Kandahar does not equate with that of Gandhara however.[12]

I've changed it to that, it's a lot better than saying gandhara is "hundreds of kilometers to the north east" which is vague.

In fact it is both clearer and does not insert your own opinion into the text. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

To be clear: "however" is your opinion again. It's casting doubt on the etymology, your own analysis. It should be removed.

"Does not equate" is hopelessly vague. The geography of London doesn't "equate to" the geography of 19th-century London, but nevertheless, they are really quite similar. It is surely better to point out explicitly the considerable distance between Kandahar and Gandhara that to use an expression which could be read as "almost the same, but not quite". Pinkbeast (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

To you however is my opinion? Also, stating "hundreds of kilometres" to the northeast is incorrect as 1. it's not 'hundreds' and 2. it's very confusing, a novice reader will not know that in fact, kandahar and gandhara are on opposite sides of the country. I am fine for removing 'though' but it helps with sentence structure and flow and in my opinion does not cast doubt on etymology but rather makes it clear for people (and I've encountered MANY of them) who like kandahar and gandhara to be one and the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 15:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"However" is your opinion. It's in there, not because of any cite, but to support your own opinion that the etymology is untrustworthy.

It looks like hundreds to me. Feel free to produce a more accurate figure; but ditch this "Does not equate to" wording. As I've pointed out above, two places that "do not equate" to each other could be right on top of each other. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Aside from 'however' the sentence is completely fine, but since you're so insistent I am forced to change it. Is "Modern day Kandahar is not located in the same satrap as the ancient Gandhara" or "Modern day Kandahar is not located in the same region as ancient Gandhara", something to this extent because it's astonishing the number of people (indians mainly) who think gandhara = kandahar.