Talk:Hindu Kush/Archive 1

Centre of population
How is it possible to define a centre of population of the world when longitude is measured from an arbitrary zero? On a map which had the Pacific in the middle instead of the Atlantic, the centre of population (or any other kind of centroid) would come in a completely different place. HairyDan (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not enough of a statistician or demographer to be sure, but the cited reference seems fairly clear. I think I'm summarizing it right when I say the following: take a point, measure the distance from that point to each person on the world (shortest distance along the surface, that is great circle distance), and add them up.  The center of population is the point for which this measurement is the smallest.  The article center of population doesn't really seem to clarify matters (in particular, whether the notion being discussed in that article deserves the term "center of population"). Kingdon (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Hindu Kush
Hi, I wonder how "Hindu Kush" should be pronounced. In English at least the letter "u" is ambiguous. In particular I wonder if the u in Kush should be pronounced like the vowel in crucial, cushion, or crush. Thanks for your help. 206.168.224.66 16:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The "u" in "cushion", if I'm not mistaken.WikiMarshall (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hindu Kush means Killer of Hindus
Hindu Kush means Killer of Hindus. This is an undisputable fact. The only people who dispute this are inferiority complex ridden Indians and Pakistanis who cannot accept how humiliated and subjugated their ancestors were at the hands of Muslim armies from the Middle East and from Central Asia. You can try to edit out the truth from this article on wikipedia, but all credible sources available elsewhere online and on print identify the meaning of Hindu Kush as Killer of Hindus. And indeed, this mountain range is and was.

One more explanation is that, muslims never respected other religions and always faught against them. One cannot win a war without killing peace loving people. Hence, the name hindu kush came from the 'real time situation of that time'. It is resonable to say that, muslims had killed hindus and are killing hindus, in the name of jihad. Muslims simply deny the truth because the want to show 'how good they are or how genuine they are! ' by hiding truth and cricizing truth (or possibly killing those who speak the truth). Why? So that, there is no truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.12.107.88 (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Wow, here is a slavery supporter blowing his ancestors trumpet. Note-Wikipedia is not the place to 'blabber' about your ancestors.

Read this from 'The Travels of Ibn Battuta' Mongloid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.73.249 (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Social indicators in the Islamic kingdoms
The Travels of Ibn Battuta provides vital informations on various issues relating to society in his time.

Are you trying to shock and awe us? This is no worse then medieval Europe in the same time frame. Stop trying to frame something from the 1300s in terms of today's morality in order to support your racist arguments. Widespread prevalence of Slavery especially the usage of women as Sex Slaves


 * "The inhabitants of this city make no effort to stamp out immorality -indeed, the same applies to the whole population of these regions. They buy beautiful Greek slave girls and put them out to prostitution and each girl has to pay a regular due to her master ........I was told that the qadi in this city himself owns slave girls employed in this way.


 * "I bought in this city a Greek slave girl, a virgin, for forty gold dinars ".


 * "I left it behind and set out with three of my companions, and a slave girl and two slave boys ".


 * " and I had in my wagon three slave girls "


 * "I had with me a slave girl, who was close to the time of her delivery, and I had intended to transp[ort her to Samarqand, so that she might have the child there."


 * "Another reason for our halt was fear of the snow. For upon this road there is a mountain called Hindukush, which means 'the slayer of the Indians 'because the slave boys and girls who are brought from the land of India die there in large numbers as a result of the extreme cold and the great quantity of snow ".


 * "On reaching Sind I followed this practice and bought horses, camels, white slaves and other goods.."".

Forced Conversions to Islam


 * "And as for military commands, you know that the non Arabs were converted to Islam only at the point of the sword of the Arabs ".

Destruction of the places of Worship of non Muslims


 * "He also fights with the infidels continually and keeps them under siege. It was his father who captured the city of Bursa from the hands of the Greeks and his tomb is in its mosque, which was formerly a church of the Christians."


 * "The site was formely occupied by a budhkhanah, that is an idol temple, and was converted into a mosque on the conquest of the city." (referring to Delhi).

Status of Indian Muslims as compared to Arab and Turkish Muslims


 * "The king of India, the Sultan Abu l Mujahid Muhammad Shah, makes a practice of honouring strangers and showing affection to them and singling them out for goverships or high dignities of state. The majority of his courtiers, palace officials, ministers of state, judges and relatives by marriage are foreigners, and he has issued a decree that foreigners are to be called in his country by the title of Aziz [honourable], so that this has become a proper name for them ".

Jaziyah


 * "Most of the artisans there are Greek women, for in it there are many Greeks who are subject to the muslims and who pay dues to the sultan, including the Jaziyah ".

Jihad


 * "He had war galleys with which he used to make raids on the environs of Constantinople the great and to seize prisoners and booty, then after spending it all in gifts and largesse he would go out again to the Jihad ".

Infidels


 * "We lodged in the house of an old women, an infidel.".

Sexuality


 * "He related also that the vagina of this Khatun has a conformation like a ring, and likewise all of those who are descendents of the woman mentioned. I never met, whether in the desert of Qifjaq or elsewhere, any person who said that he had seen a woman formed in this way, or heard tell of one other than this khatun -except, however that one of the inhabitants of China told me that in China there is a class of women with this conformation. But nothing like that ever came into my hands nor have I learned what truth there is in it."

Conduct of war and prisoners
 * "We carried the heads of the slain (infidels ) to the castle of Abu Bak har, which we reached about midnight, and suspended them from the wall ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowledgeHegemony (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowledgeHegemony (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of the word kusha in Sanskrit

 * The article mentions that the meaning of 'kusha' in Sanskrit is seat.
 * I looked it up on the Monier-Williams online Sanskrit dictionary, and out of the many meanings for 'kusha', seat is not one of them.
 * The most commonly used meaning is grass, the darbha used in Hindu religious ceremonies is made from kusha.
 * While one cannot rule out the possibility of grass mats also being referred to as kusha, 'The seat of the Hindus' refers to something like a throne or pedestal, which would surely not be made from grass. Secondly, considering the extreme climate in this region, I believe that the word kusha is not a reference to grass.
 * Ibn Battuta is a well-known traveller and historian, and I think that his version of the meaning of the range is the most plausible.
 * Would it be possible for someone to furnish a reference that defines kusha as seat in Sanskrit, failing which, could this be marked as requiring a citation?
 * Belavkard (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Kushal in Sanskrit means prosperous - which is what lured all outsiders to India. 00:31, 17 May 2010 User:86.154.73.249

The map needs to actually state what the countries are. Badagnani (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem with map
[Khuram]

Article includes Ghizar Valley in Hindu Kush. Should it mean that Gilgit Town also situated in Hindu Kush? In other words, Gilgit lies in which Mountain Range? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.27.109 (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
AN APPEAL TO GOOD SENSE AND GENUINE SCHOLARSHIP The word Hindu does not mean Indus or Sindhu but 'black'. Dictionaries of all the languages commonly used by historical peoples in the area are freely available to all to check this out for yourselves. I concede that the term was probably derogatory - meant to refer to the generally darker indigenous peoples of the Indus valley as compared to either invaders of mixed-Macedonian blood or Arab/Afghan/Mughals. There is no malice in this term now in any case. The word 'kush' does not mean to kill or slaughter but simply 'side' as in left or right. Kush is also referred to in Jewish texts. Moreover THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS AREA WERE NOT OF THE SANATHANA-DHARMA TRADITION. The word Hindu did not and actually still should not refer to a religion. So Hindu Kush has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH KILLING HINDUS. It simply means 'Hindu side' (if referring to a people) or even just 'black side' (perhaps the colour of the mountains?). I would appeal to all to stop inventing history based on pseudo-research / intellectualism in order to support various nationalism/race/religious hate agendas and lead others astray. ''We should all work together without malice or hatred to further our knowledge and live together in peace. Especially important in these troubled times.'' Thank you all.

--x---

Source Please ??

Yeah know Hinduism comes during Indus valley civilization. And the original Indians were following this religion called Jainism ? which has its roots in central India as opposed to Indus.Also Hinduism is a post Vedic Religion most likely influenced by Jainism .The other reference Arabs are more negroid than Mediterranean ?? Persians Southern Caucasians (Turks Northern Syrians) are not Arab and even feel insulted when called Arab ? or Pashto are more Eurasian than South East Asian. PURELY RACIALLYS

As you decided to bring Race Religion Country here digest some facts.Apart from Balochis Punjabis Sindhis or Shia Most Pakistanis/Afghanis are South East Asian not Caucasians (mountains) not Mediterranean. Sadly same race as Darkies too =/

I am a saraswat my ancestors hail from Sarswati River. If you know what Saraswat is and you too happen to be one don't indulge in such BS.

Back to Hindu Kush from what I know and heard Hindu Kush was the border of India at some point in time .Also no has even bothered with Kushan (Foreign Invaders who formed the Kushan Dynasty or Kush Dynasty)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan

Kushan Empire Borders somewhat tally with Hindu Kush

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.31.86 (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This means the biggest genocide of Hindu by the evil muslims and we are now seeing what the muslims are doing now. The sooner the afgan people convert back to any other non muslim religion will we have a safer place to live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.122.192 (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

First learn some english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.197.26 (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC) ---X---

STOP Being A Radical to each one his own. Man one Indi-Paki page I visit all I see is Religion Hatred NOT HISTORY/Origins

And continue with hatred but at least whilst discussing history DONT bring this shiit int the discussion =/

i found something interesting today:

there was a 'kushan' people who invaded afghanistan, pakistan, and NW india.

kushan

X---

Kushan borders somewhat tally with Hindu Kush Mountains also Kushan were called Kush

Kushan (Foreign Invaders who formed the Kushan Dynasty or Kush Dynasty)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan

the conflict over the meaning of the name 'hindu kush' is a conflict because of the modern conflicts between muslims and hindus in india and pakistan and within india.

the 'slave markets' in 'central asia' were thought to be muslim slave markets, and some people even say the Roma (gypsies) were the people removed from the area by the muslim slavers.

68.20.17.88 I think that the section claiming that Hindu Kush means Hindu-killer is riddled with errors, speculations, and fabrications. The Brittanica quote turned out to be fabricated, which casts doubt on the rest of it, so I tried to check the facts as stated but couldn't confirm any of it.


 * I noticed quite a few edits have been made on that section. I couldn't find the Brittanica quote either on the online E.B., but another source for the same quotation, http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/hindu_kush.html, does provide a reference (Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Ed, Vol.14, pp.238-240, 1987). Could anyone with access to this copy care to check? Ambarish | Talk 16:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Our local library had this older print version of the Encyclopedia Britannica still on the shelves, and yes, I can confirm this reference is, indeed, quoted as printed. As to where or how E.B. came upon this information themselves, I cannot comment. - fallout11

The supposed Americana quote has a subtle grammatical mistake: The name means literally "Kills the Hindu, should be The name literally means "Kills the Hindu, since the adverb "literally" is modifying the verb "means." Would a professional editor make a mistake like that?

For the only decent reference from googling that I can find (there are some cites at the bottom of the page): http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/hindu_kush.html The Brittanica version seems to have been pretty late, 1987, I think. As to what THEY based their research on, I do not know. I also do not have a copy of Brittanica, so I can not verify that those cites are actually correct. -Vina 20:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) PS the Americana quote may have been "The name means, literally, "Kills the Hindu,". That is also grammatically correct.  The original writer may have missed the commas.


 * OK, I think I'll wait until someone actually refers the EB 15th Ed.; if the quote *is* really there, I'd want to add it back. Ambarish | Talk 02:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know about Brittanica, but the reference to Hindu Kush = Indian Killer appears to be attributed to Ibn Battutah. There's lots of passages quoting him on this on the internet, but I can find no original translation to confirm it. As for Brittanica, it is quite possible for it to have articles in early editions that have been edited out later, sometimes for assumed lack of interest; does not mean it is fabricated. Imc 22:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Encyclopaedia Americana does not support it as claimed. Encyclopaedia Americana appears to be defunct now, but I found the reference in Google cache. The reference was in an article about communalism. Contrary to the claim, it cites the "Hindu Kush" myth as a example of anti-Muslim communal polemic. Stanwatch 19:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

One theory that I have heard is this: The natives of Afghanistan resisted the coming of Islam for four centuries and defeated many invading Muslim armies, but in the end after 1000AD a big Muslim army overran the area and slaughtered so many Afghans to enforce Muslim rule and make the survivors convert to Islam, that these mountains were renamed "Hindu Kush" = "Slaughter of Hindus".
 * But "kush" is not a noun. And the history books have no record of this supposed slaughter of Hindus. Studies of gravestones show a very gradual transition to Muslim names over a period of many centuries. There was a slaughter of the population later, but that was a slaughter of Muslims by the (then non-Muslim) Mongols. But there is some evidence the name precedes even that slaughter.
 * This region was called "Caucasus Indicus" in ancient times. Just before the Muslim era, it was called "Kush" in a sixth-century Talmudic tractate. To distinguish this "Kush" from the more well-known Biblical Cush, it may have been named "Hindu Kush" (Indian Kush.)

Don't know if it's worth noting, but the Biblical Cush's descendants include Raamah and Sheva. [Genesis 10] Could it be that there is some link between India and Cush ? [ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.226.21 (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

KUS or KUSH means 'a side' in Parshian language (mostly used in conjenction with Right or Lift side). This mountain range is broadly on left side of Indian (Hindu) subcontinent unlike Vidhya, Sahinyadri and Himalaya mountain range. Hence 'a range which is on one side of Hindu land' is named as 'HINDUKUSH' by travelars from percian side towerds cental India. -- The medieval inhabvitants of Afghanistan's Hindu Kush regions wern't hindu. Hindu wasn't even recognized as a religious designation until much later. The inhabitants around he indu Kush region were animists, zoroastarian, or buddhists mostly, except for the eastern region which was ruled by a Hindu Shahi dynasty (which again does not mean it was of Indian origin if the word "indian" is used in the modern sense). The word hindu itself in its proper usage demarcating ethnicity would in ancient times mean 1) inhabitants of the Indus Valley only 2) in medeival times as those from the subcontinent who were neither muslim nor buddhist. Hence any polythiest regardless of racial composition and regardless of whether they subscribed to the vedic sanata dharma or not.


 * Uh..have your ever heard of the Shahi dynasty of afghanistan? The one of the last Hindu dynasties before the islamic invasion.  Don't that Ghandhari from the Mahabharata ruled was a Hindu. --Dangerous-Boy 08:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * India as it is commonly thought of today is an outgrowth of English colonialism, when what now comprises the "Indian subcontinent" was largely ruled by the British Crown, and was called "British India". "Back in the day", including when the references to Kush appear in the Talmud, the Indus river was the line that demarcated "the world", or as we think of it now, the "middle east" (although in those days, it was the east), from the terrifying and fascinating realms beyond...all of which was called India, hence the name "the indies" whence the name of the country "Indonesia", literally, Indian Islands.  Why Talmudists may have chosen to refer to "the Indian Caucasus" as Kush, or Kush Hodu, rather than Qavqaz Hodu, is beyond me.  Tomer TALK  22:59, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

How could it be 'killer of hindus' when Hindu Shahis ruled Afgahnistan and northern indian sub continent and these areas were hindu dominated until about 1000 A.D, the name hindu-kush has been mentioned hundereds of years before that in middle-eastern texts. So it definitely doesn't mean 'kills hindus' even though some muslim zealots have claimed it in the past. As if it is something to brag about. Also, hindutva forces in India have carried this myth forward for their own selfish interest. wikipedialovesignorance, March 19, 2007

Now I don't know where to start correcting you guys. . okay hindu here refers to the people of hindustan. . it has always reffered to the people of sucbcontinent ( obviously pakistan included ). Since Hindu was not a dogmatic or a religion born out of a saint/prophet it never had a name, "Sanatan Dharm" can still be used, but on an honest scale it wasn't a religion instead more of a culture and thats why when somebody calls India Hindustan nobody refers to the religion and similarly for hindu kush. The name means Hindu Mountains from koh meaning mountain reffering to Indian Mountains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldmonk7 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 12 April 2012

interesting link!
--Dangerous-Boy 00:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Kush

 * maybe in the persian section it should be mentioned that the word Kush is derived from the verb Kushtar - to slaughter or carnage. A Practical Dictionary of the Persian Language, by J.A.Boyle, Luzac & Co., p.129, 1949 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.148.233 (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Kush also derives from Kushti - wrestling which was common in greco-indian domains. 00:25, 17 May 2010 User:86.154.73.249

US occupied hindu kush?
Isnt it the German Bundeswehr that operates in the hindu kush? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.88.110 (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed it to be more generic by using the ISAF instead of US. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Folk etymology section
Any objections to just removing it? It's been uncited for a long time (2 years or so) and now there are references for other material on the origin of the term. I think the article would be better off without this much speculative material that no one seems to be able to find a source for. We can copy it to the talk page so that if anyone wants to research it in the future they have something to go on. With that out I think the clean up tag can be removed. - Taxman Talk 23:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

link no 5 is a link to a highly emotional page on hindu.net, thats contains numerous factual errors. here is one, arrians book on alexander is called 'the anabasis of alexander' and categorically not 'the invasion of india by alexander. this is not a serious sober impartial article to link to, and you shouldnt have done so. but most of the rest of the article is pretty good i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleobolus (talk • contribs) 22:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The use of "theory" is an outright error in this context. A theory is a proven conjecture. There are too many mutually exclusive items in this section, so suggest it be replaced with another word, such as "opinion" or "conjecture" or "speculation" ... Netherlorn (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no argument with the use of words like "opinion" or "conjecture" or "speculation", unless there is some evidence to back them up. You are wrong, I believe, in stating that a "theory" is a "proven conjecture". A theory is, rather, a conjecture or hypothesis for which some substantive evidence has been found which seems to support the conjecture or hypothesis. A "theory" is not a proven fact. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of Kush
I don't know whether this is cognate or coincidence, but the Kurdish language article mentions the words "chiya" and "kash" as meaning mountain. As some dialects of Kurdish are more archaic than modern Persian, I thought perhaps it had preserved an old form of the Persian cognate kuh, thus Hindu Kush may be a gramatically archaic or merely corrupted form of Kash/Kush-e Hind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.59.230 (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

HIND UR KÛRS
HIND UR KÛRS literally means HINTER WATER STONES, that is, "mountains (kûrs) around (hind) the river (ur)" Centuries well before than the travels of Ibn Batutah, were already so named these lands, when the Greek army of Alexander III (The Great) of Macedon crossed them travelling to India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.239.109 (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hindu Kush name argument in document by Anders Behring Breivik
The document called "2083 – A European Declaration of Independence" by Anders Behring Breivik, writing as Andrew Berwick before the 2011 Norway attacks, contains a section by Shrinadan Vyas (Section 1.9, pp. 131–5) arguing, whether truthfully or not I am unqualified to say, that "Hindu Kush" is Persian for "Hindu slaughter". — O'Dea (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm reading the manifest myself and just came to that part. Naturally I turned to Wikipedia to check the facts. From what I can tell, Breivik is mistaken and his reference proves his bias and sloppy scholarship. I think to close speculation of the name meaning "slaughter of hindus" it would be appropriate to mention the first documented mentioning of this region as "Hindu Kush". I don't have the knowledge to make that addition, but judging from other comments the name precedes Islam as a significant factor in the region. If the name is mentioned before the region became islamic, that fact would close the case. Otherwise hate-groups will claim that "the political correct are negating the truth" (which as far as I can judge is the core of Breivik's ideology). Benzocaine (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In the same boat here - came upon this article trying to verify the substance in Breivik's "manifesto". I agree that, in light of the discussion on the talk page, it's clear that the benign etymology is far more obviously derived, and early (pre-Islamic) references would cement this. On the other hand, I can't help but note that the real etymology of the name is not, in fact, particularly relevant to the argument in the "manifesto". What matters more is that Ibn Battuta, in "Rihla", did in fact present "Slayer of Hindus" as the translation of the name, explaining that "because the slave boys and girls who are brought from India die there in large numbers as a result of the extreme cold and the quantity of snow’". Clearly this was the folk etymology of his time (note, I assume that the Battuta quote itself is verifiable; quick googling around has not found any controversy related to it). Since the "manifesto" uses the etymology to illustrate treatment of Hindus under Islam, that etymology, contemporary to the Muslim conquest of India - incorrect and "folk" as it may be linguistically - is of utmost interest. Whether it is relevant to the article itself, I don't know; it would probably have place in the article on the conquest, though.
 * By the way, so far as I can tell, none of the first part of the "manifesto" is authored by Breivik himself - it is a collection of assorted articles and essays on topics he deemed relevant. This particular one is taken verbatim from http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/hindu_kush.html. -- int19h (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant and hate speech
It does NOT mean 'killer of hindus" . . are you guys insane, In general it means "Mountains of India". And Kush is also derived from the Kushan dynasty that ruled that part . . and again it does NOT mean "killer". Oldmonk7 (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The material you are objecting to is attributed to a reliable source, so you should not continue to delete it over the objections of multiple editors -- that is edit warring, which is not allowed under Wikipedia's policies, and which can get you blocked if you continue. Instead, you need to provide reliable sources which back up your interpretation of what is correct -- without that, what you've got is strictly your opinion, and not verifiable fact.  So, please do some research, and stop edit warring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For your information, http://www.famousdiamonds.com is not a reliable source, while the Encyclopedia Americana is. Nyttend (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of content
Kaisar78 has deleted a lot of content from this article without giving a satisfactory explanation; just now he reverted me for the third time. He does not seem to agree with what it says as evidenced by the edit summary, but has not backed up what he says in accordance with sources, etc. Since this seems to have become a full-blown edit war, and I know nothing about the subject, I thought I'd try to have a discussion on the talk page. Can another editor review this? Cathfolant (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears Kaisar78 has been reverted by a second editor: . Cathfolant (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since Kaisar78 has now made 4 reverts I suppose he should be blocked but I don't know where to report it. I wonder if I should be too. I don't think so though. Cathfolant (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&user=&page=User:Kaisar78 The block has been made] by now. Cathfolant (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible edit war
AcidSnow, Darkness Shines, did you guys read the edit I made at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_kush#Origin_of_name? What is wrong with it? The term Hindu Kush comes from the words Hindu and Kush, so we have to either replace Indians with Hindu or put the few words that I added at the end of that particular sentence. If one reads the next sentence, it clearly mentions Hindu Kush='Killer of Hindus', so why is what I add unacceptable?—Khabboos (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The sentence in question that you added states: the Indians were referred to as Hindus by their muslim enslavers and hence the name. This sounds to me like a reasonable explanation, but can you clarify if you are trying to explain that the Indians were referred to as "Hindus" regardless of whether they were Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Jain, or other? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The very next sentence by the National Geographic article says that, that's why I want the term Hindu there.—Khabboos (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * From an outside perspective here (the 74 IP drew attention to this at User talk:Drmies) - I find the "killer of Hindus/Indians" etymology in another reliable source here (Adrian Room, Placenames of the World, 2nd ed. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2006, ISBN 9780786422487, p. 157, deriving it from Persian, with hendu meaning either Hindu or Indian. I don't think the disputed sentence is strictly necessary, and it could be replaced by "Hindus, i.e., Indians" if the connection is felt not to be clear; referring to "Muslim enslavers" is non-neutral. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The modern Iranian name for India is still Hind (my Iranian friends tell me so), so obviously the Persian Hindu meant Indian (whatever their religion) in those days.&mdash;Khabboos (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

hindu as hind
many words history is more complicated than superficially can be interpreted, hind and Hindu are easily to connected to each other in a listeners ear. Hind as hinterland or hind like female goat, doe or other hunters treasure. but reality is unfortunately that vasudevedas are named Hindu gods later on, as example, and therefor many words especially in arabic and indian countries has this racist sub-meanings,internal text, what conquerors had hear and translated from original Persia or India tells us more english or greece way to speak about other cultures than their own. It would be nice if here would be also first possible name for place, in a first sentence at article, to show respect to natives and their culture. And etyhimology for that. Now it is, how to say, celebration of European power in that area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.150.81.119 (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone associates Hind with the word "hind" meaning female deer (not goat) - because it is pronounced completely differently, like /haɪnd/... There is no connection whatsoever... Do you have any specific suggested changes to the article or sourced information to explain how it is "more complicated"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by Til Eulenspiegel
The editor using IP addresses starting with 71.246 is indefinitely blocked Til Eulenspiegel. Dougweller (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

BCE or CE
Recently one of the IP had changed the era, and I agree with the change as we have used BCE for most of the South Asian articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This is precisely why the arbs decided neutrally to allow BC in articles that already had it first and revert editors who just go changing from one to the other. 71.246.155.153 (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, prior use here has been BC/AD. But, that can be changed with "local consensus". My preference is to use BCE/CE as it avoids the religious baggage associated with BC/AD. In a science/geography article we don't need that "baggage". Currently, I see a 3 to 1 consensus developing: Bladesmulti, the 1st ip and me for change and one ip opposed. Vsmith (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your characterization of the perfectly acceptable and widespread BC / AD as "baggage" is inflammatory and offensive. It is shameful that nobody can make a point these days without trying to be ugly and bigoted about it. And in case you hadn't noticed, this is a history article as much as a "science" article, I think your outlook on editing here is one-sided. 71.246.155.153 (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also User:Gob Lofa had reverted your change. We use BCE/CE on South Asian articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see now 4 to 1, please cease edit warring against the growing consensus - and stop the personal attacks (implicit and explicit). Vsmith (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Striking through Til Eulenspiegel's edits - they should be ignored for obvious reasons.  Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for a link to the cannabis meaning
I happened upon this page looking for more information on the Hindu Kush cannabis. Nothing here. Rather, I found sources elsewhere, such as http://www.wikileaf.com/strain/hindu-kush/. Could someone please do us a favor and add a "See also" link for the cannabis one? Thank you! 68.118.175.12 (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean like a disclaimer? Do we have such an article anyways? AcidSnow (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Like what we see at top of articles. This one has one, i.e.,
 * "Hindukush" redirects here. For the village in Iran, see Hindukush, Iran.
 * If there is no such an article for the cannabis one, it should be created. 216.115.1.67 (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hindū Kūh and Kūh-e Hind
I have not been able to find a source to support the (slightly ungrammatical) claim in the Origin of name section: "Hindū Kūh (ھندوکوه) and Kūh-e Hind (کوهِ ھند) usually applied to the entire range separating the basins of the Kabul and Helmand Rivers from that of the Amu Darya, or, more specifically, to that part of the range lying northwest of Kabul." Can someone show sources that use those names in the way indicated in the sentence? Apuldram (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Apuldram: I removed it, the tag has been pending for a long while. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I also added many more scholarly sources to the section. James Wynbrandt, for example, is a professor of Middle East Studies and Politics. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit in Section Origin of the Name
My edit was undone again. I wonder why does the editor not argue out on the points raised rather than surreptitiously undoing edits? Even on this talk page, enough on Ibn Battuta has been said, which supports my contention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puruvara (talk • contribs) 08:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This entire para: However, such a derivation is strongly challenged by historical documents, such as the one found in the writings of 14th century explorer Ibn Battutah, who explains that the words "Hindu Kush" refer to the harsh meteorological conditions and frost that was responsible for the death of many local travellers in that region. At the time, the word Hindu was a secular term which was used to describe all inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent – or Hindustan – irrespective of their religious affiliation. It was only towards the end of the 18th century that European merchants and colonists referred collectively to the followers of some Indian religions as Hindus.

..is a generic conclusion / set of observations, not supported by any documentary evidence and moreover, is just wrong

Hindu Kush" refer to the harsh meteorological conditions and frost - this is grossly incorrect. An analogy would be 'Cape of Good hope' refers to harsh sea conditions and sea monsters

What Ibn Batuta actually speaks is what Encylcopedia Americana has said. Further, the only voluntary movement through Hindukush in India was of the Turkic invaders and any outward movement of Indians was mostly forced. In anycase, if only travellers were getting killed, that would have included the Turks and in fact more of them. The mountains would have been called something else then.

At the time, the word Hindu was a secular term which was used to describe all inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent – or Hindustan – irrespective of their religious affiliation. It was only towards the end of the 18th century that European merchants and colonists referred collectively to the followers of some Indian religions as Hindus.

The above is simply not related to the topic and carries even more infirmities.

Secularism, as a concept, was introduced in India through the British rule. To imagine that medieval invaders or even Indians themselves would use the word in a 'secular' sense is simply not logical. But more importantly, as the line itself says, while all the Indians may not have called themselves Hindus, the external world, Arabia, Persia and Central Asia identified all Indians as Hindus. So, the mountain, crossing of which resulted in killing of slaves captured from the Hind, was naturally called Slayer of the Hindus.

Lastly, the sentence regarding European Merchants etc defining Hindus is again incorrect as at least by the early Mughal times, Hindus had adopted the foreign terminology to identify themselves. E.g. Guru Nanak and Kabir's dohas, Rana Pratap's letter, Shivaji's edicts and even before that decrees of the later Vijayanagar kings.

In any case, this is a topic on Hindukush, not the origin of the term Hindu. And if it were, it is all the more important to remove suppositions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Puruvara (talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I find hard to believe that nobody mentions that the most obvious etymology for 'Hindu Kush' is its ancient (and modern) Greek name "Ινδικός Καύκασος", which simply means "Indian Caucasus". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.64.172.4 (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @195.64.172.4: Welcome to wikipedia. Please see no original research and reliable sources content guidelines. All sorts of fringe theories can be proposed, such as anachronistically writing the phrase in Inuktikut or Incan script, but it would be undue for this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hindu Kush. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre67g1cn-us-afghanistan-buddhist-relics/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100830031416/http://www.aisk.org/aisk/NHDAHGTK05.php to http://www.aisk.org/aisk/NHDAHGTK05.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced content / copying from some Hindu website
please see WP:RS guidelines. Please explain your concerns and do not edit war with unsourced content, nor delete reliable sources and sourced content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced changes
Matunga-mumbai: I have reverted your changes. Please see WP:RS guidelines. Two questions about your edits: [1] why are you deleting sourced content and sources? [2] why are you substituting it with unsourced content such as "The name means Mountains of India or Mountains of the Indus in some of the Iranian languages that are still spoken in the region; furthermore, many peaks, mountains, and related places in the region have "Kosh" or "Kush" in their names. (...) In another interpretation, Kush is a Sanskrit word related to a notion of "protection". The word “Kush” is very old and it is still being used in “Marathi” language, a dialect of Devanagari." Etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I clarified the section by listing all known interpretations, I didn't withdraw material, I added references (you deleted some of them) and I listed all the common interpretations. There is no reason to overquote one interpretation w.r.t. others, specially when the subject has been used in a contentious manner. I added a paragraph on the recent use. Lastly, please refrain from writing what you wrote in my TP. Matunga-mumbai (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You keep adding back unsourced bulleted paragraphs and OR, that do not cite any sources! You are also removing sourced content and sources. Please explain what is your concern behind removing them? I have actually merged in a source you brought in, but unsourced content and deletion of sources are not acceptable per wikipedia content guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You have removed 1) The Encyclopaedia Britanica entry ref. 2) Caucasus Indicus which is sourced by http://www.encyclopedia.com. 3) Nigel Allan derivation. I don't understand why you removed a list, which makes the paragraph easier to read. You are edit-warring by removing sources. Please just add your sources to the list, it's simpler. mcColl does not list all derivations. Some arefound in other sources. I've added all the refs you added, sorry for the mistake. But please dont break the list, it's much more useful. Matunga-mumbai (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Your account is now already blocked. FWIW, Britannica / McColl / Allan / etc were already added by previous editors and they are correctly summarized. I checked. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The World Book Encyclopedia
The World Book Encyclopedia Volume 19 here has been used a source. However the publisher hasn't been detailed. I've found many and it hasn't been detailed whether it's the same well-known World Book Encyclopedia. While scouring the well-known World Book Encyclopedia published by World Book Inc., I have come across an anomaly. Volume 19 is about enteries beginning with T. It is Volume 9 which is for entries beginning with H. It does mention Hindu Kush. But as the source is not openly available, I haven't been able to read and verify what is said about it. I don't oppose sources that are not available to access, but the source used here does seem to be wrong. And for adding a new source it's content needs to be verified by someone. It seems someone copied it from the Internet without checking the source itself. I will be thankful to whoever can manage to access it. Thank you. 117.199.94.181 (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No matter, I found it on Internet Archive by. You'll need to borrow it under a free account (https://archive.org/details/worldbookencyclo09). I was correct, that the source used here is incorrect. It's Volume 9 page 235, not Volume 19 page 237. It states "The name kush, which means death, was probably given to the mountains because of their dangerous passes." 117.199.94.181 (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Minor Items
I'm not certain but i think it is fairly unlikely that the area was referred to "in the time of Alexander The Great" as Caucasus Indicus - which is clearly a Latin term, while Alex and his fellows were among other things Greek, not Latin (no Rome yet) and the Latin of the time being very different. I would presume that it was referred to by an Attic Greek term. 108.240.139.64 (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hindu Kush. 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/20140712133729/http://www.afghan-network.net/Culture/khyber.html to http://www.afghan-network.net/Culture/khyber.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

this seems doubtful, i dont think sanskrit referred india as Hind, it was persian corruption of sindh, regards. 202.188.53.130 (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be removed as well because its not a reliable source and the writer is not an expert on the region. Besides,the link is dead too. Akmal94 (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Xerxes931 revert
, why did you revert? I explained you can not give priority to one theory in the lede. Look at WP:Lede, you cannot give priority to just one theory and stick that in the beginning. Here is a source that states there are "multiple possibilities", as Hindu Kush in Sanskrit is also known as "Parayatra Parvata", derived from "Hindu Kuh" meaning "mountain of Hind". Zakaria1978 (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hindu Kush has both Persian and Sanskrit meanings. In Persian Kush comes from Kushtan, meaning slay or defeat. While in Sanskrit, Kush comes from Kuh, meaning mountain. We shouldn't give WP:UNDUE weight to a single theory, especially when it's just that--a theory. Wareon (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The "single theory" is the one that has been widely used for centuries, and has the backing of plurality of sources. In fact, we should not be removing the most common understanding of the word's name simply because there are alternative proposed theories. The theories you mentioned should not be given WP:UNDUE weight to the point that we remove what the most common understanding of the name is. Alishernavoi (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't find "Kuh" meaning "mountain" in Sanskrit. The word for mountain appears to be Parvata or Giri. []Alishernavoi (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * " Hindu Kush in Sanskrit is also known as "Parayatra Parvata", derived from "Hindu Kuh" meaning "mountain of Hind"". Parayatra Parvata is maybe the name of the mountain chain in      the Mahabharata. I can't find anything saying the name Hindu Kush is derived from that Sanskrit name, or vice versa. There is no lexical similarity between the two names. "Hindu Kuh" is very unlikely the origin of the Sanskrit name, since the word Hind and Hindu are Persian words that are not native to India or Sanskrit. Also, if you look at the UNDUE page, it says "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The plurality of sources stick with the Hindu Killers definition.   Alishernavoi (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, it’s not a theory, it’s a linguistic( per the Persian language, the official language of Afghanistan) and a historic( per Ibn Batuta) fact, unauthentic Indian sources looking for other meanings as a cope to the name don’t weigh anything, there is nothing to discuss, a medieval Moroccan geographer doesn’t have any bias or emotional feelings towards this topic, Indian authors surely have. --Xerxes931 (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I request you to not reinstate it until the discussion is done. has also stated their reasoning as well. Also, it is WP:UNDUE, since there are other linguistic roots. As Wareon stated: "In Persian Kush comes from Kushtan, meaning slay or defeat. While in Sanskrit, Kush comes from Kuh, meaning mountain." Zakaria1978 (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Hindu Kush commonly is understood to mean killer of Hindus. Even several Indian sources say this. Whether you find this offensive or distasteful is not relevant. Several sources cite this meaning. This is the common understanding of the name, not claiming it is the only explanation, but it is the most common and therefore bears most weight.Alishernavoi (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , what you are failing to prove is my main point. Is "Hindu killer" the only claim? Both Wareon and I have demonstrated other claims. Per WP:Lede, you can't put one claim over others. Hindu killer is already mentioned several times in the body of the article. There is no need on the lede. Zakaria1978 (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are not getting the point, Hindu-Slayer isn’t a “theory” or “claim” as you try to display it here, it’s a historical fact recorded by Ibn Batuta in the 14th century as well as being supported by the vast majority of major scholars today(All the sources are provided in the article). Your POV by feeling offended by the name doesn’t really matter, even less when unauthentic or Indian sources support it. As I said there isn’t anything to discuss on this topic, unless you are going to put your Indian blogs and other unauthentic sources over Ibn Batuta, Henry Yule or Erwin Grötzbach.--Xerxes931 (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Zakaria1978, the common understanding of the name is that it means Hindu Killer. Even the Allan source says this. It deserves to be in the lead, despite being politically incorrect, because this is the most common understanding of the name. The proposal of some alternate theories does not mean now that the meaning understood for 700 years is now void. I think the lead should include the Hindu Killers definition, and maintain in the etymology section a discussion of alternative theories.Alishernavoi (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the logic here - because there is an alternative, we should dismiss the common understanding in which the plurality of sources agree that the meaning is "Hindu Killer"? Existence of alternative theories does not mean they should be given equal treatment. I think its sufficient to include alternative theories in the body, and keep the "common understanding" meaning in the lede.
 * Also Zakaria, its poor form to make a change, then demand that someone else form consensus to revert back to the version before you changed it. Alishernavoi (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * has stated that the claim is not the only one and in my view, this potentially violates WP:ATTACK. explained that adding only one theory is WP:UNDUE. I'm joining both of them in saying that there's no consensus for the disputed material in the lede of the article. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ^ I think its a major stretch to claim that the name Hindu Kush meaning Hindu Killers violates Attack page. There's a town in France called La Mort aux Juifs, which means "Death to Jews." That isn't an attack because these are historic names, not threats. The understanding that Hindu Kush means "hindu killers" dates back to the 1300s, and isn't an attack. Alishernavoi (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, I explained earlier. Zakaria also made it clear. You are clearly WP:IDHT. There is a Sanskrit and Persian component. You can’t put one of those theories on the lead. That violates WP:LEAD as mentioned by me and Zakaria. Wareon (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree that there's a Persian and Sanskrit component. There is a widely accepted common understanding based on Persian, and there are alternative theories, some of which are based on Sanskrit. The two do not get equal weight since one is the common accepted definition dating back hundreds of years, and the other is not. Alishernavoi (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Saying it’s an potential WP:ATTACK PAGE basically proves that all the comments about this are lead by emotions and personal feelings, those who comment here against the meaning should re-read my last statement instead of ignoring it, there isn’t any major authentic scholar supporting the alternative meanings. The Hindu-slayer meaning is not a theory, Ibn Batuta never theorized anything, he visited the region and was one of the greatest if not the greatest medieval geographer in the Islamic world, he stated it as fact and his views are shared by major scholars today, a few Indian blogs and unauthentic sources do not outweigh Henry Yule, Erwin Grötzbach and all the other countless respected scholars supporting this meaning, let alone Ibn Batuta.--Xerxes931 (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Idk about y all but Xerxes931 has a very good point. I support him Chad Paktiawal (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It is laughable that some draw fairy-tale-like etymologies like the theory about Sanskrit being the origin of the name, while nothing has been more clear. Every third party scholar outside Persian speaking countries and South Asia agrees what the etymology is, and what it means. Not only linguistically, but also historically and commonly the name is to mean "Hindu-Slayer". It's a very understandable Persian construction that any 4 year old Persian speaker could understand. Maybe those who are doubtful should learn some basic grammar from the languages that they argue about. And this is all ignoring the fact that the historical records are showing no compromise. Ibn Battutah is a clear example and a primary source. He lived around the same time when "Hindu-Kush" (Hindu Slayer) began to appear on Islamic maps. End of story. شاه عباس (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Requesting comments
Should only one etymology theory be mentioned in the lede or should all of the etymological theories be discussed in their own section? Zakaria1978 (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on about the origins of the name "Hindu Kush" for which it appears there is no consensus reached.

Alishernavoi's view
The understanding of the name is still commonly used: An issue has arisen because some users object to this name being used because some authors have put forth alternative explanations for the name's origins: My opinion is that the common understanding remain in the lead since that is the understanding most widely used, with the status-quo wording "commonly understood to mean 'Hindu Killers.'" This is in keeping with the spirit of the WP:UNDUE page. Selecting the "Hindu Killers" definition is not cherry picking since the plurality of sources refer to this definition, and this definition has been reported since the 1300s. The other theories aren't of equal weight, and it gives them undue weight by using their existence to overshadow the long-held historic view. This appears to be the same logic used by Xerxes931, who also contends that the status-quo remain in place.
 * The "common understanding" is that it mean Hindu killers or killer of the Hindus in Persian. This has been an interpretation of the name which has been mentioned as far back as the 1300s when Ibn Battura wrote:"After this I proceeded to the city of Barwan, in the road to which is a high mountain, covered with snow and exceedingly cold; they call it the Hindu Kush, that is Hindu-slayer, because most of the slaves brought thither from India die on account of the intenseness of the cold."
 * The "common understanding" is that it mean Hindu killers or killer of the Hindus in Persian. This has been an interpretation of the name which has been mentioned as far back as the 1300s when Ibn Battura wrote:"After this I proceeded to the city of Barwan, in the road to which is a high mountain, covered with snow and exceedingly cold; they call it the Hindu Kush, that is Hindu-slayer, because most of the slaves brought thither from India die on account of the intenseness of the cold."
 * National Geographic Society. 1958. Such bitter journeys gave the range its name, Hindu Kush — "Killer of Hindus
 * Ewans, Sir Martin; Ewans, Martin; Weber, Patrick; Carr, Robyn (14 November 2002). Afghanistan - A New History. Routledge. p. 1"lies the Hindu Kush, the  'killer of the Indians,' possibly so called in recognition of the Indian slaves who met their deaths as they were taken across its passes"
 * Wink, Andew Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam 7th-11th Centuries "to the Great Desert and up to the Hindu Kush ("Hindu Killers")"
 * Amy Romano (2003). A Historical Atlas of Afghanistan. Rosen Publishing Group. pp. 13–14. ISBN 978-0-8239-3863-6 . "Afghanistan's Hindu Kush mountains - a name that literally means "Hindu Killers" - were most likely given their name because of the region's harsh lifestyle and the difficulty the mountains represented for outside travelers"
 * Metha, Arun (2004). History of medieval India. ABD Publishers. of the Shahis from Kabul to behind the Hindu Kush mountains (Hindu Kush is literally "killer of Hindus"
 * Runion, Meredith L. (24 April 2017). The History of Afghanistan, 2nd Edition. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-61069-778-1 . The literal translation of the name “Hindu Kush” is a true reflection of its forbidding topography, as this difficult and jagged section of Afghanistan translates to “Killer of Hindus.”
 * James Wynbrandt (2009). A Brief History of Pakistan. Infobase Publishing. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-8160-6184-6 ."In Pakistan's northwest are the Hindu Kush ("Hindu Killers")"
 * Weston, Christine (1962). Afghanistan. Scribner. To the north and northeast, magnificent and frightening, stretched the mountains of the Hindu Kush, or Hindu Killers, a name derived from the fact that in ancient times slaves brought from India perished here like flies from exposure and cold.
 * Knox, Barbara (2004). Afghanistan. Capstone. ISBN 978-0-7368-2448-4 . Hindu Kush means "killer of Hindus." Many people have died trying to cross these mountains.
 * There are more such citations, but the point is that this is the common understanding of the name in the plurality of sources as used across decades over a wide variety of publications, including from India.
 * From the article:
 * According to Allan, the term Hindu Kush has been commonly seen to mean "Hindu killer", but two other meanings of the term include "sparkling snows of India" and "mountains of India" with "Kush" possibly a soft variant of Kuh which means "mountain"
 * Another theory suggests the word "Hindu" in Hindu Kush is derived from the same root as "sindhu," meaning river, while Kush is a variant of the Persian word for mountain. 
 * Another possibility is that the name may be from the ancient Avestan language, with the meaning "water mountain." 
 * A possible Sanskrit origin: from comments of Zakaria1978 who initially removed the "Hindu Killer" meaning from the lead: "Here[1] is a source that states there are "multiple possibilities", as Hindu Kush in Sanskrit is also known as "Parayatra Parvata", derived from "Hindu Kuh" meaning "mountain of Hind"."
 * -I can't access this source since it is on Google Books, but the title is "Mining in the Himalayas: An Integrated Strategy" by AK Soni if you can access it. However, Pariyatra Parvata seems to be the name of the mountains in the Mahabharata, and is not the root of the word "Hindu Kush", and it doesnt look like the two are lexically related.
 * Because these alternate theories exists, the users believe that the common understanding of "Hindu Killers" should  NOT  be listed in the lead. They think it is WP:UNDUE  to give prominence to this theory. The WP:UNDUE  says we should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
 * Zakaria1978 thinks that including the Hindu Killer theory in the lead is basically cherry-picking ("You cannot give priority to just one theory and stick that in the beginning" ) since other theories exist. Wareon agrees that selecting the Hindu Killer theory is biased since there are other theories too . 1990&#39;sguy chimed in to say there was no consensus for change, but he seems to be referring to reverting back to the status quo, without considering that the change from status quo was removing the definition from the lede, not including it.

What do you think?

Alishernavoi (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978's view
I explained earlier, this claim can not give priority, as it is one of several claims. As mentioned in WP:Lede, you cannot give priority to just one theory and stick that in the beginning. Here is a source that states there are "multiple possibilities", as Hindu Kush in Sanskrit is also known as "Parayatra Parvata", derived from "Hindu Kuh" meaning "mountain of Hind".

Also, explained: "Hindu Kush has both Persian and Sanskrit meanings. In Persian Kush comes from Kushtan, meaning slay or defeat. While in Sanskrit, Kush comes from Kuh, meaning mountain. We shouldn't give WP:UNDUE weight to a single theory, especially when it's just that--a theory." Zakaria1978 (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Xerxes931´s view
Alishernavoi already perfectly explained this with mountains of sources and I already elaborated on that in the previous talk above, the other users opposing it clearly have a bias towards this topic due to their Indian heritage, furthermore the Sanskrit meaning is simply just their own POV and hasn't even been sourced by them. Major scholars state the meaning in the lead, people dont really seem to understand that Hindu-Slayer isn’t a “theory” or “claim” as some users are trying to display it here, it’s a historical fact recorded by Ibn Batuta in the 14th century as well as being supported by the vast majority of major scholars today(All the sources are provided in the article). The POV by feeling offended by the name doesn’t really matter. As I said there isn’t anything to discuss on this topic, unless you are going to put a few unauthentic and meaningless sources over Ibn Batuta, Henry Yule or Erwin Grötzbach and countless other major scholars on this subject --Xerxes931 (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by editors

 * I say include "commonly understood to mean 'Hindu Killer's" in the lead and don't mention the other theories in the lead. It seems that the other theories are not commonly believed by people; even their proponents tend just to say "maybe the common understanding is wrong and the name really means this".  Good information, but not lead-worthy.  "Commonly understood" signals the reader that it's not universally accepted fact.
 * FWIW the status quo is irrelevant.
 * Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion of any etymological theories in the lead. Zakaria1978 (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion of any etymological theories in the lead', Alishernavoi has cherry picked sources that support the "Hindu killer" POV without accounting for other explanations such as those provided by Zakaria, which seem to be more reasonable - Hindu Kush meaning "India's Mountains" since Hindu means the historical "India/Indians" and "Kush/Koh" means "Mountain". It's problematic to use "Hindu killer" anyways because "Hindu" in Persian referred to the historical "India" (including modern day Pakistan, Bangladesh and India), not to the religious faith of Hinduism or Hindus. Wareon (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't cherry pick, the plurality of sources mention the Hindu Killer theory as far back as the 13th century.Alishernavoi (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion of any etymological theories in the intro: Adding only one of the theories in regards to etymology doesn't seem fair -- there's an entire section on the different views and the theories can be discussed there. I think anti-Indian POV might be a motivating factor in having the words "Hindu slayer" inserted in the article intro. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The plurality of sources say Hindu Killer, the existence of alternative theories does not discount this fact. Those other theories are actually marginal, and can be discussed in the body. As for anti-India POV, its hard to know where to begin with that accusation - this has been the understanding of the name for centuries before India was a country. That logic of POV can be used to also say that a pro-India POV is encouraging users to undo the politically-incorrect Hindu Killer name.Alishernavoi (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion of "Hindu killers" in the lede. Khestwol (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But I suggest to add the other common spelling Hindukush (without space), as well as the historical ancient name Caucasus Indicus into the lede. Khestwol (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No problems with that Khestwol. I think those would be good too so go ahead and add them. Zakaria1978 (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, also added Sanskrit Pāriyātra Parvata. I don't know why this word was not in the article lede? Khestwol (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no need to spam every single name for the mountain range in the lead, Paropamisadae is another name for it too, you can add those however in the section of “other Names” ''--Xerxes931 (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Pāriyātra Parvata has no lexical similarity to the name Hindu Kush, and should be in the "Other names" section.Alishernavoi (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, as far as I can tell, Pāriyātra Parvata is the name used in the Mahabharata. No indication of its widespread usage otherwise.Alishernavoi (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I like the fact that none of the users voting for oppose is responding towards the fact that all major modern scholars and secondary sources, as well as primary sources are in consensus about the etymology being translated as "Hindu-Slayer". --Xerxes931 (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * None are responding to this "fact" because it's irrelevant to this RFC. This RFC is about what to put in the lede about etymology, not about the debate of etymology itself.  Those in favor of including "killer" in the lede aren't addressing why it's necessary for this to go in the lede (in some terse and unbalanced manner with seeming POV problems), rather than much more accurately covered in the full and balanced etymology section that immediately follows the lede.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  15:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:A D Monroe Read the talk before the RFC ( “Xerxes931 revert) and you will quickly understand that the users involved in creating this RFC, are doubting the etymology having this certain meaning, both are of Indian origin and have a clear bias towards this topic. They are trying to nitpick on alternative meanings and even came up with their own random unsourced opinion of Hindu Kush being possibly rather Sanskrit than Persian, since when was Hind historically even a native/Sanskrit name???And Koh is also a Persian term and not a Sanskrit one, Unironically this was rather an attempt of corrupting Sanskrit. Their intentions aren’t simply not having the most commonly accepted meaning of the term in the lead, they are feeling offended by the term and want to give weight to other meaningless theories which are not accepted by any major scholar. —Xerxes931 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of previous discussions, this RFC is Should only one etymology theory be mentioned in the lede, nothing else. Arguing about comments outside of this RFC is disruptive to this RFC.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  04:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hindu Killer, status quo I don't think a marginal alternative theory needs to be in the lede. Hindu killer has always been the understood translation, even if it later proves to be wrong. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support despite the etymology appearing to be quite morbid. However, this is a popular view and had been held by people such as Ibn Battuta as well the article having having had quite a large number of references which support the etymology as being that, and as such should not be removed or undermined. Wikipedia is not censored, and will remain so in this article whether the editors feel that mentioning and including "Hindu slayer" is objectionable or not. Foxhound03 (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose etymology in lede. The etymology is debated at length, and hard to summarize for the lede, especially given possible accusations of POV entangled in the etymology.  Because of this, it's not helpful for it to be in the lede at all, as the origin of the name isn't reflective of what it is now anyway, no more than "Thursday" is somehow dependent on being originally derived from "Thor's Day".  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  22:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is written as the "commonly understood to mean 'Hindu Killers'" which accounts for the possible different theories. However, the plurality of sources mention Hindu Killers as the meaning as far back as the 1300s.Alishernavoi (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The above response is off-topic and mindlessly repetitive. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  03:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - inclusion for reasons listed above. Alishernavoi (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - The language of Afghanistan is Persian, the comparison with Tuesday/Thors day isn’t valid because afghans speak the modern Persian language, the word Hindu kush comes from modern Persian, Thors day is old English which is distinct from modern English and modern speakers of Persian in Afghanistan would still understand hindu kush as hindu killer. No one speaks old English anymore, it also seems like most of the sources tend to agree with this persian meaning of the term. - Wikinoob2939 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinoob2939 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)  — Wikinoob2939 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Does the etymology of Thor's Day determine the nature of Thursday? Of course not.  Does the etymology "Hindu Killer" determine the nature of Hindu Kush today?  Of course not.  Readers aren't helped, but only distracted, by this etymology in the lede.  It takes paragraphs to explain it properly, which we do just fine in the next section.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  03:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:A D Monroe III. Similarly, we don't include "Sun's day" in the lede at Sunday because it will distract the readers. Khestwol (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion of any etymological theories in the lead. The origin has little bearing on the place, or its history. The generally held theory should be stated in the relevant section.Pincrete (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - the overwhelming majority of sources and the common understanding of the term both indicate the etymology to be the Persian construction of Hindu-Kush as meaning "Hindu-Slayer". The evidence is clear, and nationalistic pseudo Linguistics shouldn't allow historical and cultural meanings and heritage to be discarded. شاه عباس (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC) — شاه عباس (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I don't think anyone doubts that the 'Hindu killer' theory is the most widely held one about the root of the name. What is doubted is whether this is worthy of the lead - or of the first sentence, as now. We don't start this article by discussing whether the biggest city in "the land of the Angles" really is "Lud's town", or whether there is some other root. It isn't the quality of the sourcing, it's the relevance and WEIGHT of the information that is at issue.Pincrete (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * the cultural reasons mentioned above make the case have sufficient weight for the information which has been confirmed by most (according to you, however there is clearly a bunch who would say otherwise) to be affirmative to be included in the lead of the article. The case has been presented by many others and I don't want to repeat them. I don't see why one would present a name and deliberately exclude the meaning, even when it continues to mean something and not just exist as a name with no meaning underneath. شاه عباس (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * the cultural reasons mentioned above make the case have sufficient weight for the information which has been confirmed by most (according to you, however there is clearly a bunch who would say otherwise) to be affirmative to be included in the lead of the article. The case has been presented by many others and I don't want to repeat them. I don't see why one would present a name and deliberately exclude the meaning, even when it continues to mean something and not just exist as a name with no meaning underneath. شاه عباس (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * the cultural reasons mentioned above make the case have sufficient weight for the information which has been confirmed by most (according to you, however there is clearly a bunch who would say otherwise) to be affirmative to be included in the lead of the article. The case has been presented by many others and I don't want to repeat them. I don't see why one would present a name and deliberately exclude the meaning, even when it continues to mean something and not just exist as a name with no meaning underneath. شاه عباس (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - per reasons raised by multiple users already, it’s commonly understood to mean that( literally 15 reliable sources including secondary as well as primary supporting the meaning have already been posted on this RFC only and over 20 on the main articles page, so I don’t really get what’s up to debate here)  Xerxes931 (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral. As I see it, there are a majority of sources that say "Hindu Killer", but a somewhat significant minority of sources disagree (see the section on "Alternative Theories"). However, I can't make up my mind on whether etymology belongs in the lead or not, or whether etymology aids or distracts the reader. Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 21:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with Khestwol here: All support !voters missing the point. No one is suggesting that adding "killer" in the lede is offensive. It's only about balance (the meaning has some disputes), and whether it's helpful to readers to include a discussion of the etymology in the lede, because it will distract readers reading the lede. Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 01:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose etymology in the lede but do mention it in the article.VR talk 15:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Ytpks896 (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - since when is Wikipedia censored? Facts should not be removed just because some people feel offended by it for personal reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.162.162 (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that having "killer" in the lede is offensive. It's about balance (the meaning has some disputes) and whether it's helpful to the reader to include a discussion of the etymology in the lede.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  22:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree with the "oppose votes" above, regarding the inclusion of any etymological theories in the lede. Idealigic (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion, as it appears to be a notable aspect covered in sources.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * per WP:NOT, just because a concept or part of an article is notable does not mean it should be included in an encyclopedia or lead . -- Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 11:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose to etymological theories in the lead. Put these theories in the etymology section (even the most notable etymological theory quoted by a million sources is still just an etymological theory). Besides, all of the theories are anyways speculations (a speculation by the top theorist in the world is still a speculation). Why do you want "Hindu killer" in the lead? Not to make Hindus or Indians feel small, I hope. Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely *no* speculation in regards to the etymology done by scholars or people present here. The name continues to have a meaning in both colloquial and formal Persian. Hendu/Hindu means Indian/Hindu, and Kush is the present stem of the verb kushtan meaning "to slay, to kill". There is no speculation present here in regards to what the name means. The sources are there to confirm that this meaning has been recognised throughout history by numerous people, from Englishmen to Berber explorers. As I said above, any 5 year could discern "Hindu killer" from the construction. The reason the section should be included is that this meaning has a significant cultural meaning integral to Afghan and Khorasani society, because the Hindu Kush separates their lands from those of Hindus, it is a cultural barrier and its name has immense importance in its function as such. شاه عباس (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are multiple competing theories, as such we should really avoid adding theories on lead per WP:UNDUE. TheodoreIndiana (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support etymology in lede. Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED, so just because it is coming against someone's nationalistic sentiments, it should not be censored. USaamo (t@lk) 14:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Restoring my comment which was deleted by Xerxes931: All support !voters missing the point that no one is suggesting that adding "killer" in the lede is offensive. It's only about balance (the meaning has some disputes), and whether it's helpful to readers to include a discussion of the etymology in the lede, because it will distract readers reading the lede. Khestwol (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . The unbalanced WP:CITEKILL in the article clearly shows that this is a POV certain users are trying to push.Eliko007 (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:UNDUE due to the plethora of theories out there on how the name "Hindu Kush" had come about. The etymology makes some sense to me, but so do many other proposed etymologies. Ambrosiawater (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2020
Reoccurring vandalism by IP and autoconfirmed users Xerxes931 (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I have submitted a request for you at WP:RFPP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Casually describing Jains/Buddhists and other Shraman and Hindu people as 'polytheistic'
This article is quite casually describing Jains/Buddhists and other Shraman as 'Polytheistic'. This is a very sly gutter level hateful way creeping into wikipedia. This also shows utter ignorance of Shraman and other ideologies. Use a language that is respectful and correct, and not siding with bandits, pillagers and rapists. 173.71.122.243 (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Etymology
Kushan Empire was shrinking / expanding over a period of time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan_Empire

Hindu Kush mountains ranges may have been used as a political border for HINDUstan & KUSHan Empires  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.216.212.146 (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

What a royal mess. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have any issues with these edits, please raise them. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * HKH-Glacier-Mass-Change.png