Talk:Bactria/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Tokharistan article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge Tokharistan and Bactria, given that the topic are sufficiently different (in space and time) to warrant separate discussion. Klbrain (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

---

The newly created Tokharistan article appears to be a content fork of this article, focussed on discussing another name for the place. Per WP:NOTDIC, we should have articles about topics, not names. I suggest that it should be merged here. Kanguole 19:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It covers historical details not covered in the Bactria article. I would not oppose a merger, but outright deletion of the material should be avoided. Dimadick (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support The two names are used interchangeably when referring to the region in the Late antiquity. In the Islamic era though historians prefer to use the then more relevant name of Tokharistan, while in the Achaemenid and Hellenistic era Bactria is used. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose (friendly). From a cultural, political, and to a certain extent ethnological standpoint, Bactria and Tokharistan are two vastly different environments, separated by close to a thousand years, even though they may roughly coincide geographically. Each of these namings also defines a particular period of history, and one does not replace the other: there is a lot to say about Tokharistan that doesn't really fit in an article on Bactria. There are many instance of separate articles for various cultural regions at various times of history, even though they may geographically overlap: there is an article on Greater Khorasan but also on Margiana, and Gaul is separate from Roman Gaul, itself separate from France. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

But Margiana is a province centered around Merv and its surroundings, only like a third of the size of Greater Khorasan. Not to mention Margiana existed since the Achaemenid period, compared to Khorasan, which first came to use in the late Sasanian era; they're too completely different things. Some examples of Tokharistan and Bactria being synonyms;

"the Tibetan term for the Hellenistic areas of "Tokharistan-Bactria"

"against Tokharistan, the former Bactria"

"In the oasis states of Central Asia, these would include "Tokharistan (Bactria)"

"It certainly surpassed its former rival, "Tokharistan/Bactria"

One of the most problematic things with having two articles is that some scholars prefer to use Bactria for the area during the Late Antiquity, while others prefer Tokharistan. It's only when referring to the region in the Islamic era that Tokharistan/Tukharistan is used in all cases. Having two different articles will make this confusing.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Support per HistoryofIran Luisa Koala (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Firstly, I will note that 10 other languages have a separate article on Tokharistan. Secondly, I do think that they refer to 2 distinct different things. Nobody associates the geographic term of Bactria with the Islamic Era; nobody associates the term Tokharistan with the hellenistic period. There is certainly a slight overlap; however, I do not think that the overlap is significant enough to discount the fact that they refer to two distinct subjects, albeit in the same geographic region. Zoozaz1 talk 01:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I respect your choice obviously, but I just want to point out that the overlap is not that slight (imo) - around 400 years, basically during the Sasanian era. This source for example, uses Bactria [1], while this one uses Tokharistan [2] --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You're not wrong, I just feel that the periods and usage are just distinct enough to justify 2 seperate articles. It's certainly a close call. Zoozaz1 talk 02:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per पाटलिपुत्र, even if there are some overlaps, both of the terms are famous and relevant in history and deserve an own article.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

• Comment Sticking to this discussion rather than starting a new one, a couple of observations:

• Tokharistan article in its current form was created in November 2020.
• Tokhara Yabghus article was created in October 2020 by the same user.
  • A Mandarin Chinese version of aforementioned article was created in October 2020 as well. Not sure if it's the same user, or our user copied/translated the Mandarin version to import it to English WP. I would like him to respond.
• Oghuz Yabgu State article was created in January 2008.
• Karluk Yabgu State article was created in November 2014
  • The aforementioned article was moved in February 2015 by a user to Karluk yabghu.
    • The aforementioned "Karluk yabghu" was moved in November 2019 by another user to Karluk Yabghu.

Regarding "Tokhara Yabghus" my opinion is that the title is imprecise or incorrect. Yabghu is a title of a singular leader/ruler and the article for the state should not be a plural. The precedent of the Karluk and Oghuz examples highlight that it should be singular. Furthermore, in lieu of an equivalent to khan-ate and khagan-ate, the article should be titled "Yabghu State" both for the Karluk Yabghu State (as it was in the past) and for the Tokhara Yabghu State. DA1 (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.