Talk:Kandahar

Website dead

The kandahar website -- http://www.kandahar.gov.af/ -- didn't come up today. HasanDiwan (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not agree with words used Taliban, what they did before like Mujaheedn? What before they are not mentioned? Everyone directly jumped to the last fews years? What about only 60 or 80 years before?

about the trade, education, powers, political and cultural side? They have to research for that add to site. The most famous 100 years at least? 2600:4040:2A63:3600:7CB4:E7E8:3902:7FD6 (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.250.20 (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"Modern day Kandahar is not located in the same region as ancient Gandhara" seems OK, but why "modern day"? Surely Kandahar has always been where it is now.

I admit I also don't understand your aversion to quoting a distance. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

By saying hundreds of meters, it's much more confusing since people may not know if it's still located in the kandahar province when gandhara is in a complete other province, saying 'though' or 'however' is not an opinion, it's a reference to a fact, as it is now it seems fine and I don't understand your insistence on changing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 00:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hundreds of kilometres, not hundreds of metres. And no. If I say London is hundreds of kilometres from Yorkshire, I do not see that can possibly be read as saying that London is _in_ Yorkshire. (Conversely, if I say the geography of London "does not equate" to that of the City of London, that is true even though the latter _is_ inside the former.)

"However" is your own analysis of the plausibility of the etymology. Write the facts and let the readers fill in the "howevers". Pinkbeast (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

We've settled this, at this point you're just trolling me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

On the already exhausted topic of revising the etymology of kandahar in reference to gandhara once again: No, I will not accept "hundreds of kilometeres to the northeast of kandahar city/province" as this is not specific at all and is a very, very ambiguous statement, hundreds of kilometers to the northeast could imply it is still within kandahar province, it could imply it's in kabul or badakhshan, as such it is very improper form and terminology. "Does not equate" is a more than ample statement, I'm sorry that your english is not advanced enough to interpret this correctly but this is more than sufficient on top of being correct in terms of syntax, grammar and general diction. I will agree to do something about "however" since I understand your viewpoint (well, not really but I'm willing to compromise on your stubbornness here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 01:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. (The second part is somewhat ironic since I am a native English speaker and, unless I am very much mistaken, you are not).

The issue is not whether it's grammatical - although it is rather clumsy - but it doesn't actually say what you want it to. It is easy to construct examples using your wording where the two places are essentially the same. Here's another:

"The geography of Victorian London does not equate to that of modern London."

That is a true statement. However, they overlap enormously; one is inside the other. Therefore, the statement "The geography of modern day Kandahar does not equate with that of Gandhara" also does not preclude them overlapping or one being inside the other.

Conversely, you cannot construct a true statement of the form "X is hundreds of kilometres from Y" when X and Y are in the same place. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Photos not taken inside the city of Kandahar

An Afghan girl poses for a photo before receiving school supplies from Afghan national policemen and coalition service members at an elementary school near Kandahar Air Field. During the visit, both Afghan and coalition leaders spoke to the children on the importance of education and good behavior before handing out school supplies.

I'm removing the photo. What does this photo of a girl has to do with the city of Kandahar? What is the point in having the photo? News report say 50% of Afghan girls do not attend schools. An elementary school near Kandahar Air Field includes a school located outside the city limits. The airport is located in Kandahar province which is like say the state of Texas, can you put photo of a girl from Forth Worth in Dallas article?Pashtoon989 (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mosque in Kandahar.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)