Talk:Gandhara

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lead discussion

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Kattunen

First hit with DuckDuckGo. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhara and the Hindko-language

Hindko

@Stoorijan3 Gain consensus for your proposed paragraph diff here. Post quotes from your sources and show how it correlates with what has been written. Ixudi (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "The language reflects deep historical continuity in the northwest, preserving the linguistic character of a region long associated with learning and cross-cultural exchange." Source: Violatti, Cristian. "Kharosthi Script Timeline". www.worldhistory.org. Retrieved 2025-06-28.
  • What does this sentence actually trying to say?
  • World History Encyclopedia is utterly unrelable
  • It does not mention Hindko
  • Even less 'reflects etc.', 'preserving etc.', or 'region long associated' etc.
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 02:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The statement about linguistic continuity in the Gandhāra region remains accurate within the broader historical and linguistic context. The Kharosthī script discussed in the article is a direct link to the Middle Indo-Aryan languages spoken in that area, from which modern Northwestern Indo-Aryan languages like Hindko descend. So, even without naming Hindko specifically, the source reliably situates the linguistic heritage that informs it. Importantly, World History Encyclopedia is a peer reviewed platform, with articles written and reviewed by qualified scholars and experts in their fields. This makes it a credible and authoritative resource for historical and linguistic topics. It offers well-researched and accessible content that balances academic rigor with clarity, making it an excellent source for supporting claims about the region’s linguistic past. Stoorijan3 (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One suspicious aspect of your account is that you recently joined Wikipedia however you're reinstating content word-for-word that was added before you joined the website: [1]
Have you had a previous account on here? Ixudi (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I did undo a revision because I believe the removed content was well-sourced and relevant. I understand the concern about it being similar to a previous version, but I acted independently and based my decision on the sources cited, not any prior editing history. Stoorijan3 (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not support what you wrote, and no, WHE is not reliable. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The World History Encyclopedia is a reliable source because it is written and reviewed by professional historians, scholars, and educators with expertise in their fields. Each article undergoes an editorial review process to ensure historical accuracy and clarity, and includes citations to credible primary and secondary sources. The organization is a registered nonprofit with partnerships from respected institutions like UNESCO and Oxford University Press, which further supports its credibility. Can you explain what makes it unreliable? Stoorijan3 (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please check my replies to lxudi. Hindko’s linguistic roots can be traced back to the ancient Gandhāra region, as confirmed by a peer-reviewed article in the Al-Mahdi Research Journal. The journal states that “Hindko is an ancient language with roots that trace back to the old Gandhara civilization and belongs to the Indo-Aryan language group.” It is a scholarly, peer-reviewed assertion that directly supports the linguistic continuity between Hindko and the Middle Indo-Aryan traditions of Gandhāra, reinforcing its historical and cultural depth. Stoorijan3 (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia’s policy of WP:RELIABILITY , i am allowed to use sources such as “Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.”. And this is a direct quote from WP:RELIABILITY page. User:Ixudi Stoorijan3 (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Gandhari prakrit is a middle Indo Aryan language influenced by early Prakrits, such as Gandhārī, which were written in the Kharosthī script. As Salomon notes, “3.1.2.3 The northwestern Aśokan dialect. The language of the rock edicts at Shahbazgarhi and Mansehra is essentially an early form of the MIA dialect which is nowadays known as Gandhārī... [and] these inscriptions are written in the Kharosthī script” (1998, p. 74). This classification provides a direct linguistic link between the Indo-Aryan language stages and the historical inscriptions of the Gandhāra region, establishing a firm scholarly basis for viewing Gandhārī as part of the Middle Indo-Aryan period and it being a northwestern language. Another academic source is Al Mahdi Research Journal where it is stated, " Hindko is an ancient language with roots that trace back to the old Gandhara civilization and belongs to the Indo-Aryan language group". Hindko is classified as a member of lahnda group, a northwestern Indo Aryan family which descended from Middle Indo Aryan. Another quote states, "several different dialects. The worst of the latter is "Hindko", a term (basically meaning the language of the Indians as contrasted with Pathans) applied not only to several forms of "Northern Lahnda" but also to the Siraiki dialects of Dera Ghazi Khan and Mianwali Districts" (Masica, 1991, pp. 18–19). Together, these linguistic and historical insights reinforce the view that Hindko, as a Northern Lahnda dialect, is a linguistic descendant of Middle Indo-Aryan languages like Gandhārī. Its deep-rooted connection to the Gandhāra region, both geographically and linguistically, positions it as a modern continuation of an ancient Indo-Aryan tradition. This continuity highlights Hindko’s importance in understanding the evolution of Northwestern Indo-Aryan languages and the enduring legacy of the Gandhāran cultural-linguistic sphere.
Sources:
Masica, C. P. (1991). The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Salomon, R. (1998). Indian epigraphy: A guide to the study of inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the other Indo-Aryan languages. New York: Oxford University Press.
Al-Mahdi Research Journal. (n.d.). Hindko Language: A Historical and Linguistic Study Stoorijan3 (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no, its very clear that you're attempting to synthesise (WP:SYNTH) various unrelated texts to get Hindko mentioned in the article. None of the sources you have provided (many of which are unreliable) outright mention a connection between Gandhari and Hindko. So far the only languages linked to Gandhari by reliable sources are those of the Dardic language family. You have not achieved consensus here I am afraid. Ixudi (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My second source from Al Mehdi research journal straight up mentions the the link between hindko and Gandhari. These sources are reliable due to their scholarly credibility and the expertise of their authors or publishers. Masica’s The Indo-Aryan Languages (1991), published by Cambridge University Press, is a comprehensive linguistic study written by Colin P. Masica, a respected linguist specializing in South Asian languages. Similarly, Richard Salomon’s Indian Epigraphy (1998), published by Oxford University Press, is a well-regarded academic resource that provides in-depth analysis of inscriptions in Sanskrit and other Indo-Aryan languages, reflecting the author’s authority as a leading scholar in South Asian epigraphy and philology. Lastly, the Al-Mahdi Research Journal article on the Hindko language contributes valuable historical and linguistic insights and, though it may not be as widely known as the previous two, it appears in a dedicated academic publication, indicating a level of peer-reviewed scholarship and regional expertise. Together, these sources offer a robust foundation for linguistic and historical research on Indo-Aryan languages. If not, can you explain how these sources are not reliable? Stoorijan3 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my interpretation or a combination of ideas from unrelated sources,it's a direct claim by the cited source. Therefore, per WP:SYNTH, this cannot be considered original synthesis, because no new conclusion is being drawn beyond what the source already states.
Second, the purpose of citing Masica (1991) and Salomon (1998) is to provide reliable, scholarly context for the linguistic classification of Hindko and Gandhārī within the broader Indo-Aryan family, especially the northwestern group which is modern day Hindko language of that region. Stoorijan3 (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you're basically stating is that modern Hindko developed from Gandharian, based on "Hindko is an ancient language with roots that trace back to the old Gandhara civilization and belongs to the Indo-Aryan language group." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hindko is one of the modern Indo-Aryan languages spoken in the former region of Gandhāra, reflecting the area’s enduring linguistic heritage. According to the Al-Mahdi Research Journal, “Hindko is an ancient language with roots that trace back to the old Gandhara civilization and belongs to the Indo-Aryan language group.” Hindko developed within the same northwestern Indo-Aryan linguistic sphere, making it a contemporary representative of Gandhāra’s historical language continuum and one of the modern languages that emerged from Gandhara. Stoorijan3 (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Hindko developed within the same northwestern Indo-Aryan linguistic sphere, making it a contemporary representative of Gandhāra’s historical language continuum and one of the modern languages that emerged from Gandhara."
That is your own original research. This is where the problem lies. Ixudi (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious account

Hi, I’m concerned about the closure of this discussion on the talk page. I’d like a review to ensure that the consensus was accurately assessed. Thank you! Stoorijan3 (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which closure? This is bordering on WP:DISRUPTIVE. And how does a newbie know this kind of template? I agree with Ixudi that this account is suspicious. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m researching and using credible sources on how Wikipedia works and have been reading through the guidelines and help pages to better understand appropriate processes. Stoorijan3 (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan (Non-administrator comment) It's not impossible for a newbie to know of some templates on Wikipedia. They could've previously edited under an IP address, doing a fresh start, or simply reading up the guidelines before beginning to edit. They could've read the linked guidelines on the welcome message posted that was posted on their talk page on June 27. the documentation page for {{Help me}} links this template. If you browse through my archives (especially Archive 1), When I joined Wikipedia, I've made use of the {{Help me}} template before asking loads of questions at the Teahouse (the Teahouse was semi-protected at the time). Before I edited, I liked to read a bunch of Wikipedia guidelines/policies/projectspace essays (interesting essays), and overall explore the non-reader side of Wikipedia. Of course I still had a lot of questions (as you can see in my talk page archives). I still do agree that the actions by @Stoorijan3 are a tiny bit questionable. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 04:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World History Encyclopedia

Regarding The World History Encyclopedia is a reliable source because it is written and reviewed by professional historians, scholars, and educators with expertise in their fields. Each article undergoes an editorial review process to ensure historical accuracy and clarity, and includes citations to credible primary and secondary sources. The organization is a registered nonprofit with partnerships from respected institutions like UNESCO and Oxford University Press, which further supports its credibility. Can you explain what makes it unreliable?, take a look at Hinduism:

  • Written by Joshua J. Mark (what's in a a name?...), MA English - Uh, need I to continue?...
  • First sentence: "Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world, originating in Central Asia and the Indus Valley" - augh!
  • "The purpose of life is to recognize the essential oneness of existence [...] the Atman joins with Brahman and one has returned home to the primordial oneness." - that's pop-Advaita Vedanta.

Anyway, the WHE-article on the Kharosthi Script does not mention Hindko [...] Even less 'reflects etc.', 'preserving etc.', or 'region long associated' etc. - I'm repeating myself here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism that my sentence about Kharosthi goes beyond the source is unfounded. The source clearly states that the Kharosthi script developed in present-day northern Pakistan and was used to represent a regional form of Prakrit, an Indo-Aryan language. It also notes the script’s spread across northern Pakistan, eastern Afghanistan, northwest India, and Central Asian regions historically known for their linguistic diversity and cultural interactions. My statement that “the language reflects deep historical continuity in the northwest, preserving the linguistic character of a region long associated with learning and cross-cultural exchange” is a reasonable and accurate summary of these facts. The development and use of a distinct script for a regional language over several centuries inherently reflects historical and linguistic continuity. Moreover, the northwest region—including ancient Gandhara has long been recognized as a center of learning and cross-cultural contact, particularly through its role in Buddhist transmission and Indo-Greek exchange. Therefore, my sentence does not misrepresent the source but rather contextualizes its content in line with broader historical understanding. Stoorijan3 (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the World History Encyclopedia is unreliable based on an unrelated article is misleading and does not address the specific concerns I raised. Joshua J. Mark, also has a degree in philosophy which you left out and Philosophy provides essential analytical tools and conceptual frameworks that enable authors to critically examine, interpret, and explain complex religious ideas and doctrines with clarity and rigor, making it a valuable foundation for writing about religious philosophy and belief systems. The article’s assertion that Hinduism originated in “Central Asia and the Indus Valley” oversimplifies the nuanced scholarly consensus that the Aryans migrated from Central Asia into South Asia, bringing Vedic religion that later evolved into Hinduism. Furthermore, the geographic designation of Afghanistan as part of the Indus Valley region aligns with historical and cultural scholarship that links this area to Central Asia through ancient trade and cultural exchanges. Therefore, dismissing these points undermines a well-supported understanding of the historical and cultural context. Lastly, it’s important to evaluate each article on its own merit, rather than conflating issues from different pieces, to ensure a fair and accurate discussion. Moreover, my sources align with Wikipedia’s policy WP:RELIABILITY, please take a look at what is considered a reliable source based on this. Stoorijan3 (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this response was written by an LLM...
Anyone is able to contribute to World History Encylopaedia. A philosopher is not a historian, thats ultimately the problem but even then its all pointless discussing this in the first place because the article doesn't even mention a link between Hindko and Gandhari! Ixudi (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same impression, with regard to LLM. I also note that the response is eloquent, yet completely misses the point. Which illustrates neatly that 'intelligence', or writing a text, entails much more than stringing together mere words. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ixudi, 100% of the text above ("The claim that the World History Encyclopedia ... what is considered a reliable source based on this.") is likely AI generated per [2]. JimRenge (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gandhara