Talk:Bactria/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Daxia = *Togara?

I have had a reminder from a correspondent recently that in the article: "The Yüeh-chih and their migrations." by K. Enoki, G. A. Koshelenko and Z. Haidary. HCCA Vol. II, (1994) p. 173, the claim is made that: "As 'Ta-hsia' is an exact transcription of 'Tochara' (which was the central part of the Bactrian kingdom), if the Yüeh-chih were the Tocharians, the conquest of Ta-hsia by the Yüeh-chih means the conquest of the country of Tochara by the Tocharians, which seems rather strange. The evidence of Szŭ-ma Ch'ien shows that Ta-hsia cannot be the Bactrian kingdom, but was the country of Tochara divided into small political units at the time of the Yüeh-chih invasion. In other words the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom had already been destroyed or divided when the Yüeh-chih arrived. Therefore,there is no need to accept the identification of the Tocharas with the Yüeh-chih . .. ."

Although I am inclined to dismiss this argument and accept the prevailing view that the Yuezhi = the Tochari - I would be very interested if anyone here would like to comment on it. Many thanks, John Hill 11:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Only Tajiks can claim Bactrian descent?

To the self-proclaimed guardian of all things Bactrian, Behnam jaan:

I think not. Tajiks are as mixed as every other modern ethnicity. I have seen people claim in many articles that Tajiks are just Persians outside of Iran. If that is the case, how can they be descendants of Bactrians who were in fact Eastern Iranians. How can Tajiks speak a Western Iranian language, claim Western Iranian descent, AND make an exclusive claim to everything Bactrian? Your theory and your sources are shaky at best. Here's a suggestion...how about coming up with a hypothesis such as "Tajiks, and only Tajiks, are descendants of the Bactrians". Then find independent, unbiased sources that support your hypothesis before insisting that your theory is fact.

This is how arguments usually work, in case you did not already know.

You present a series of premises and your conclusion. You actually have to show that your premises are TRUE and that your conclusion, based on the proven premises, is true as well. I know that may be hard to believe, but that's how it is.

I don't see you cleansing other articles of the Tajik = Persian material, so it seems like you really are contradicting your own claims. Nice job. Keep it real homey.

There is no room for "claims" and arguments in Wikipedia, only sourced facts. It is sourced that Tajiks have one of their main ancestral lines as the Bactrians. This should be obvious since all you need to do is look at a map of Bactria. Regardless, there is no room for speculation here. Only material that is sourced stays. --Behnam 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sourced facts? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. I'm sorry to tell you that there are very few historical FACTS. All historical data has been to one degree or another tainted. Providing unverifiable sources will not make fact out of theory. Go to hell with your sources. I'm not wasting any more time on you or that other delusional half wit. I can see how much peddling this propaganda means to you. Get a life, or better yet get an education.

Good. There is no place in Wikipedia for people who make up facts and try to forge a history and heritage for themselves. Either provide sources or don't write it. Also, even today Pashtuns are no where near Balkh. Prior to Abdur Rahman Khan's displacements there were no Pashtuns in northern Afghanistan what so ever. So how could Pashtuns exist in Balkh in classical times? Your speculation doesn't make sense in the first place, nevermind sources that you can't provide. If education means simply writing history the way you want it without a single source to back up your claim, then you can keep your education to yourself. Goodbye. --Behnam 02:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pashtuns have nothing to do with Bactria. They are even immigrants in Southern Afghanistan.

--Anoshirawan 02:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha sure. Whatever you guys say. No matter what you do, Khorasan isn't coming back. Not in your lifetime, not ever. You will go to the grave with these wetdreams of Khorasan. How does it feel to not have a country? Hmmm? You both seem very very bitter. Peace out.

I am 100% sure this is Nisarkand.

--Anoshirawan 02:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm 100% sure you are wrong. Care to guess again you little twat? Does writing bullshit online make you feel smart or accomplished in any way? If so, you are a SAD accuse for a man. Khorasan is dead. If you don't like Afghanistan, there's plenty of room in Tajikistan. On top of that, maybe you can leave articles on Afghanistan to Afghans while you go and fuck up Tajikistan related articles. How does that sound sunshine?

And no matter what you write here, the reality on the ground in Afghanistan will be what it is, not what you wish it to be. Latif Pedram and his followers will never have his way. They might as well commit mass suicide or just move to Tajikistan.

Yes, this is most likely another (among dozens) sockpuppet of banned user: NisarKand. That's ok, he has been banned dozens of times and he will be banned again. Even if he is not NisarKand he will still be banned for using fake sources, writing psuedo science, throwing around accusations and insults, edit warring on no grounds, foul language, expressing hatred and racism toward others, supporting ethno fascism, and other reasons. We'll just ignore him for now until he gets banned. --Behnam 03:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

this proves how low and uneducated you are. After failing to provide us sources and proof to your un scholarly claims you start cursing and insulting us and calling mass genocide and ethnic cleansing in Afghanistan.

Crap and misleading information is info without any sources or reference. Afghanistan is part of Greater Khorasan and if we go, everything goes with us. --Anoshirawan 03:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha now that's just your imagination. You guys make me laugh. You might as well be describing your own activities here. Who called for ethnic cleansing? I said those who aren't happy should get up and leave. Latif Pedram and his followers I said she kill themselves.

Did I mention Greater Khorasan doesn't exist?

I have a proposition. If Khorasan is reborn in five years time, I will eat my foot. I will literally chop it off, grill it, and eat it. And if Khorasan doesn't come back, you can hang yourselves.

we arent against any ethnicities or groups and we have never called for ethnic cleansing but as you mentioned in your earlier post that non-pashtuns who wont accept Afghan should go and leave this region or commit suicide which is 100% inhuman. Afghanistan has failed in the past and will fail in the next 10 years and the only solution for this war-torn country will be to partition it.

--Anoshirawan 03:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your reading and comprehension skills haven't gotten any better.

How about you partition your legs like you do for Latif Pedram?

User:Khampalak, this is not a discussion forum. If you have nothing to contribute than stop wasting space on the discussion page. --Behnam 03:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You are wasting your breath. I would be contributing accurate information and deleting your misinformation. But we both know that is a lost cause. The behavior you are seeing is the only thing that can get your attention apparently. I have a serious question for you. If you have no attachment to Afghanistan, if you want to see it divided, then why have you hijacked articles pertaining to Afghanistan. It it is not your country, then let people who know what they are talking about improve the damn articles.

I forgot to say kiss my ass.

I quit. By the way, I'm not Tajik or Pashtun. Hell, I'm not even Afghan. But I still know more than you.

Yes, that explains why you can't provide a single source for your claims. Goodbye. --Behnam 03:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghorbanat shavam.

Is there nobody authorized to delete this kind of despicable bickering?193.136.189.1 (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Image

Godesses, Bactria, Afghanistan, 2000-1800 BCE

When this article becomes unprotected I would like to insert the following image: PHG 05:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

better map

The map is good, except you can't zoom in and it's too small to see (I can't read the names of the countries other than Afghanistan). Can we get a larger map? RJFJR (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's one from Commons:

-- Behnam (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Another one from Commons. This is the Kingdom at it's greatest extent.

Map of the Greco-Bactrian at its maximum extent, circa 180 BCE

Kingdom of Balhara

There is an article with such a name, which duplicate this one. I think, it have to be merged here! Jingby (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't Bactria be a part of greater India also?

I don't understand how so many times their are articles about how a certain cultural group of people, or a certain religious group of people, or a certain ethnic group is related to the Iranian people or the Afghan people but not the Indian people. I mean its' a joke. Iranians, Afghans, and Indians are pretty much the same people from Aryan ancestory. I mean how can Bactria be considered part of Greater Iran? Why not Greater India? And vice versa.....I mean in those days Iran and INdia was one land seperated by kingdoms or tribes maybe. BUt the people were still similar so. Contributions/71.105.87.54 (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bactrians being ancestors of Pashtuns

For the sentence "The Bactrians are among the ancestors of modern-day Pashtuns", it has a source called Cambridge Encyclopedia Vol. 8, pg. 2246, "Bactria - Geography, History, Tokharistan, Archaeological sites", with this quote "The Bactrians are one of the ancestral lines of the modern-day Pashtuns, Tajiks, of Central Asia.". People keep removing this sentence for some reason.

Can someone provide WP:RS reliable sources discussing is this sentence is correct or not? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge Encyclopedia is not a explicite source for it. The Pashtuns who are known beeing descandants of Ashvakas and possibly of Pakhtas can´t be Bactrians. Neither the claim is supported by a serious source nor it is mentioned. The Pashtuns are even today known as immigrants in northern Afghanistan. Balkh or Mazar were till the mid 20th century poulated by 95% by Tajiks. Culturally and historical, Pashtuns are descandants of Nomads of various origines, Turks, Mongols, Sindhis, Huns etc mixed with the original population of Pakistan and south-Eastern Iranian people, like Pactyans. Unlike Pashtuns, the Bactrians were known for 2500 years ago of beeing urbane and agricultural people, while Pashtuns are still nomads. In no scientific source it is ever claimed that Pashtuns have a Bactrian origine. Pashtu speak an eastern Iranian language, a southern one, as ancient Bactrians spoke an eastern Iranian dialect but of the norther branch, unlike their descandants who speak a standarized dialect that is known today as Farsi or Dari and Tajiki and belong morely to the south-western dialect of ancient Iranian idioms, but they have no connections to them. Phonetically, Bactrian language had no the gh sound, nor tz and others and were free of ergotives.

^^^^ whoever wrote this is uneducated non-sense garbage, the acadameic community widley accepts that pashtuns are decendants of bactrians. Actually my friend the pashtuns were in the north of afghanistan before tajiks were even given the name, kuchis who are KNOWN TO BE NATIVES of northern afghanistan today they will tell you they were in the north before gengis khan invaded that is why they went to the south. To say that pashtuns came in the late 20th century only tells readers how much you know and especially the fact that alot of people of balkh will claim descent from pashtuns like your General atta the current governor of balkh which proves your claim wrong. Please do some real research before erasing pashtuns from history because a pashtuns can be your father. Balkh is the original homeland of the pashtuns not the tajiks who are descendants of the pashtuns. Sorry for bursting your bubble. 192.235.4.132 (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)pashtun786

Modern Pashtu is even unrelated with Bactrian language, despite the fact that Pashtu was prevented in the Middle-age by various languages, mostly by Persian.

Schmitt, Rüdiger: Sprachzeugnisse alt- und mittel iranischer Sprachen aus Afghanistan, in: Indogermanica et Caucasica. Festschrift für Karl Horst Schmidt, Berlin/New York 1994, 168-196. --188.97.8.140 (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong you are making that up. In Bactrian c and j (ts and dz) did exist in the same way as Pashto. c and j were written σ and ζ in Greek Bactrian script.

In Bactrian, as in certain related languages, e.g. Pashto and Khwarezmian, the ancient palatal affricates probably became dental affricates (c, j): in Greek script these could well be represented by σ and ζ; they might even have developed further to s and z (as happened in some Pashto dialects). (from this source)

There were also other similarities - in Bactrian, *d developed to l is as in Pashto and Yidgha-Munji. Pashto and Yidgha-Munji are closest to Bactrian according to linguists including Henning and Sims-Williams. -119.152.246.35 (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You should read clearly what it is written there. According to your logic we can claim Persians as Bactrians too because of their very close lingual relationship to them. According to Strabo, Persian and some other Iranian languages were all the same language, just with own small local elements. Concerned to Pashtu and Khoresmian, there was a sound-changing on both language (read clearly the file you posted), similar to it´s vocals in both idioms. Williams have never claimed Pashtu as related with Bactrian. He, among many other great linguists like N. Richard Frye do not believe and they have proven it that Pashtu was not existing before the advent of the 16th/17th century. An issue, that most people in all Persian-speaking countries know over 500 years ago. Of course, there is a relation to it since Pashtu is considered as an Iranian and Indo-Aryan language, caused by Persian as an Aryan language and the Indo-Aryan languages but that would be everything. Persian language and Kurdish and many other languages from the same stock are also related with Indian idoms and even Sanscrit but they are not Indians, not Punjabis and not Arabs--Bahrudin Bahis (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid you are just racist troll removing the word "Pashtun" from wikipedia articles, have no liguisted knowlege about Pashto nor Bactrian as you can't back yourself with sources, and when several users revert you, you repeat your edit. All your edits are unsourced.

The point of my previous post was to falsify "Modern Pashtu is even unrelated with Bactrian language" which you claimed.

Sims-Williams wrote "In particular I have chosen forms which show the connection between Bactrian and the languages of the surrounding area: medieval Sogdian and Choresmian; modern Pashto, Yidgha-Munji, and Ishkashmi." (from this source) In modern languages, out of three languages most related to Bactrian, Pashto is first. Pashtuns are also descendants of Bactrians, among other Indo-Iranians. -119.152.247.120 (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I restored Pashtuns, as it was restored before by other users Slgcat (talk · contribs) and Enric Naval (talk · contribs), it was sourced. Please don't remove again unless you can explain a good reason with reference. -119.152.247.120 (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Guys, could you look at these sources and add them to the article yourselves to sort this out?

• Students' Britannica India, p.159
• History of civilizations of Central Asia, p. 316
• A Grammar of the Pukhto, Pushto, Or Language of the Afghans, page 18, also 17-21
• The foundations of Latin, p. 25

I gather that the the Sakas and the Kushans conquered and assimilated the Bactrians, and that's why they spoke also Pashto, and that's why there were Bactrians among the ancestors of Pashtuns? Also this other source says that Pashto belongs to the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family of languages: The Indo-Aryans of ancient South Asia, page 98 ("Indo-Iranian" is probably in wikipedia as Eastern Iranian languages). Is that significant to this dispute? --Enric Naval (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A lingual relationship does not make an ethnical relationship. W. just showed some similarities of modern eastern-Iranian languages with Bactrian language and that´s it as western Iranian languages have also still similarities to Bactrian (Bactrian: Putra (son), Persian: Pessar/Pedar (son), Bactrian: os (now), Pashtu: ös, Persian: ole (lute moving) last but not least Bactrian: emalo (now), Persian: amyale and English: Immediately. So, Persian is also related with French, Spanish, Russian, English etc and according to your logic Persians are descandants of Russians, English people, Frenc people etc. but it´s speaker are not Russians, French or Spanish people. Noone say Pashtu is not an Indo-European language, noone. The sources I´ve put here yesterday for Hillman explain that exactly. Like Pashtu have also some relation to Punjabi, Sindhi, Bengali, Tamil language etc. it does not make them to one of the Speaker or descandants of those. Jaghnobi is also related with Bactrian language but they are not descandants of Bactrians but of Soghdians. Why Pashtuns are not Bactrians and why they have no connections to Bactrians. The adding of Pashtun was made on 16th July, before that noone mentioned it, except that fact that Pashtu is a very backward language and preserved some archaic features and some words, e.g. Lmar for sun, in Bactrian and Choresmian Mihir, Parthian Mher etc.

• Schmitt, Rüdiger: Sprachzeugnisse alt- und mittel iranischer Sprachen aus Afghanistan, in: Indogermanica et Caucasica. Festschrift für Karl Horst Schmidt, Berlin/New York 1994, 168-196.

And an explanation of a non-historical connection was given by me above--94.219.218.20 (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Enric Naval, first of all the name omh which is used in Pashtu exists in the same way in Persian as omâ. The Kushans who settled all along the Oxus and Bactria were consisted of settled (Soghdians, Scythians, Sarmats) and semi-nomading groups. Once established themself in CA, it is clear and proven they settled down in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turfan, northern Afghanistan, Gorgon (Iran) and reached even Armenia. The Kushans did not spoke an Iranian toung but an Indo-European language. They adoptet the Bactrian language and developed it. Your claim they spoke Pashtu, a language that have not even any trace older than 500 years can´t be acceptet and backed by linguists and historians. What is according to your logic Old Pashtu? Can one of your Sources give me a picture of it? And can you explain me how it works to claim Pashtuns, people who live 500miles - 1000 miles away from them in the east and today in the south can be descandants of Bactrians? Recognize the location of Pashtuns in modern Afghanistan and Pakistan. In ancient they were called as Apokien by Chinese, by Kushans, Bactrians and Greecs as Assakiens, by Indians as part of Ashvakan people etc. They were even brought by Abdurrahaman Khan from India and Pakistan to settle them in Afghanistan. How can that work? Btw, Elphinston´s work on the languages of Central Asia and south-east Asia is not backed by modern linguists, as his theories are called as BIAS—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.218.20 (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you are troll trying to remove the name Pashtun from wikipedia articles. As for your recent comment "Pashtuns, people who live 500miles - 1000 miles away from them in the east and today in the south",
here is a quote by Morgenstierne in Iranica
"the original home of Paṧtō may have been in Badaḵšān, somewhere between Munǰī and Sangl. and Shugh., with some contact with a Saka dialect akin to Khotanese". (from this source)
So Pashtuns and Pamiris had a same homeland (Badakhshan) which was in eastern Bactria.
I request you to stop removing the word "Pashtun" from wikipedia articles and removing reference. -119.152.246.111 (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The User:119.152.246.111 is a sockpupett of Nisarkand. Nice try my friend giving back a wrong content from the Encyclopedia Iranica. The actuall sentence is An Iranian language of the east, perhaps a Saka dialect, Paṧtō originated in the northern part of the eastern Iranian area and borrowed a great deal from Indo-Aryan....

Don´t worry, Morgenstierne had correct this mistake in Encyclopedia Islamica. He and W. Smith proved that Pashtu consists of different languages, mostly of Indo-Aryan and Persian language, mixed with Turkic, Mongolian, Arabian and words from an unknown language. The grammatic is similar to that of the Finno-Uyguric and Inuite language and the ergotives resemble also a Non-Iranian origine, tough Pashtu is an Iranian language. The origine of Pashtu is indeed somewhere in the north of the ancient eastern Iranian region, somehwere north in the region of the Sulaiman Mountains

Only for certain can be said that from the north coming Afghans settled first in the northern regions of the Sulaiman Mountains, the western Pakistani mountain-massif(Afghanistan, p. 76, George Redard, Roland and Sabine Michaud, 1974 Zürich Verlag.)

...their language came originally and historically from the south-west of Pakistan, the region of the Sulaiman Mountain and expanded to Kabul(Afghanistan, p. , George Redard, Roland and Sabine Michaud, 1974 Zürich Verlag.)

The Assekens of the Greecs or the slaves of Aurelius who served the Bactrians in their colonies are the same people as the Indian´s Ashvakas or Ashvakans from which Afghan seems to have been driven, although modern Pashtun are not really the direct descandants of them just because they have taken an ancient name modefied by Persians.

"belonging to a network of old isolated Tājīk settlements in southern Afghanistan that are remnants of a time when Pashto had not yet reached the area." (see: C.E. Bosworth, "Notes on the Pre-Ghaznavid History of Eastern Afghanistan", in The Islamic Quarterly IX, 1965)' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.218.20 (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not "a sockpupett of Nisarkand" - please stop personal attacks if you can't find a source. I was quoting from this source, section vi - name of section is Pashto. Again here it is "the original home of Paṧtō may have been in Badaḵšān, somewhere between Munǰī and Sangl. and Shugh., with some contact with a Saka dialect akin to Khotanese"
Pashto and Pamiri and Khotanese all do have retroflex consonants (as in Indo-Aryan) which is another common feature they share.
I am falsifying your comments by sources, but it's too kind on you, since it seems to imply your contribution to the article is in good standing, although you are racist troll adding nonsense to the talk page, edit warring with me and few other users and constantly removing a reference. Please stop removing the word "Pashtun" from wikipedia articles and removing reference. -119.152.246.67 (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You just don´t change correct sentences to your own version but also it seems you have no clue about the topic. And now you come up with retroflex consonant. Such a features have also Dravidian, Mongolian, Turkic, Chinese, Tibetan, Persian (f.e. garm (warm)) etc. and in some European languages, including in some German- and English dialects. According to your logic, they are all Bactrians. Is that your intention? Actually, the retroflex is a Non-Iranic features, caused by Non-Iranian languages with their influence on their neighbouring languages. As for Sacaes, they were next to Chinese, Tibetans and Indo-Aryans, for eastern-Tajiks it was caused by Buddhism and it´s roots to India and Tibet. What is now your claim? The reference you have used on 16th July 2009 is not correct as other more reliable sources can prove it. And again, Pashtuns are foreigners in Balkh, Mazar, Kabul etc. They are originally descandants of Indo-Aryans, Dravidians, Turks, Arabs, Mongols etc. who adoptet the term Afghan (Ashvakas and possibly Pactyans) of the Persians and who speak a language modern-day called as Pashtu of the original Pashtuns who did not differ greatly in literature, culture and identity as modern Pashtuns. The Bactrians and Tocharians, as Persians, Indians etc. have always used Afghan distantly from Bactrians. The Persians used Avagan, the Kushans Abgan, the Indians Ashvakan and Avagana, the Chinese as Apokien, the Tocharians, Greecs and Bactrians Assaken, the Arabs used Avaghn etc. Ta-Hia, Bakhdi or Bakhtar or Zariaspa or Tocharistan can´t be identical with nomad Pashtuns, neither from the etmythological view nor from the location, from the culture, from the mytholgy, identity or language and not to forget that those people who are today ancestors of modern Tajiks and Persians were urban people with a culture, known for art, architecture, science etc. There is not even a single name of a Pashtun that goes even 100years back to modern Balkh--94.219.218.20 (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged the IP as a sock of NisarKand, see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/NisarKand. Also, it's possible that 94.219.218.20 is a sock of Ben-ham. And I still don't have clear which one is actually right in the content issue. I hope I'm wrong and no one is a sock. What a mess.... --Enric Naval (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC) checkuser says that the IP is not NisarKand. Now that this is clear let's continue discussing the sources without sock accusations. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn´t look for my IP but for 119.152.246.111 which belong to Nisarkand, Afghan4Ever etc. And me personally, I am not Benam who ever he is.--188.97.2.232 (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

On when Pashto appeared, the Student's Britannica says that the earliest Pashto work is from poet Amir Karor from 752 AD, which would be 1350 years ago[1], although a language project from the UCLA says that "The first written records of Pashto are believed to date from the sixteenth century and consist of an account of Shekh Mali's conquest of Swat. "

About Pashto being talked in Afghanistan and this region being too far from Bactria, see this book about how Afghans inmigrated into Kabul from the West (probably before 900 AD). And I just read Pashtun_people#Anthropology_and_linguistics, which has sources about the Iranian origin of Pashtun people and their Mediterranean features, so stop saying that they can't be related because they are too far.

On relationship to Bactrian, this book says that Pashto is descendant of the Iranian subgroup, and a language project by the UCLA says:

Traces of the history of Pashto are present in its vocabulary. While the majority of words can be traced to Pashto's roots as member of the Eastern Iranian language branch, it has also borrowed words from adjacent languages for over two thousand years. While the majority of words can be traced to Pashto's roots as member of the Eastern Iranian language branch, it has also borrowed words from adjacent languages for over two thousand years. The oldest borrowed words are from Greek, and date from the Greek occupation of Bactria in third century BC. The oldest borrowed words are from Greek, and date from the Greek occupation of Bactria in third century BC.[2].

We can say in the article that Pashto borrowed some Greek words thorugh Bactrian. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support I moved this language project that mentions loanwords words to the article.
• Consensus seems to also add the reference from Cambridge Encyclopedia. See edits of 17 and 23 July by Slgcat etc. -119.152.248.49 (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pashtuns are definitely descendants of bactrians, there are farsiwaan propagandists on wikipedia trying to "Cleanse" the pashtun name from history and should be reported as vandilism. All the sources here for the tajiks are all biased and are not accepted by the general academic community. 192.235.4.132 (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Pashtun786

the region became known as Tokharistan

I would like to see a RS source indicating the precise date that the name "Tokharistan" was used. The article states from Turkic migration. It happened in middle ages, right? So for the moment I changes the date to Early middle ages and "the region" to "northern part of the region".--Xashaiar (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole article need to be rewritten again. Tocharistan became used by Sassanians and by the last Parthian kings (neighbours of Tocharians/Kushans), exactly on the same decade when the Kushanians could cover much of Central Asia´s famous and most important countries, particularely the region Bactria, the capital and homeland of Kushans were they could flee from dangers (revolts or anti-kushanian movements etc). The claim about a Turkic migration is a false information, possibly added by Turkists or Pakistanis and Indians who have not much knowledge about Central Asia´s history. The first Turks came possibly with the union of the Hephtalithes, not before that periode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.222.64 (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

history of Afghanistan template

History of Afghanistan template is the most relevant template and should not be replaced with Greater Iran template. Based on a previous "consensus of neutral editors and administrators that the articles under the various countries listed on the Template:History of Greater Iran should receive templates specific to those countries, and NOT the History of Greater Iran template.". (Ketabtoon (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC))

Can you please present us your explanation why it is the most relevant template. Afghanistan did not exist back then and Bactria was not a small region. Bactria covered not only parts of modern Afghanistan but other countries like Tajikistan, Southern Uzbekistan, and parts of Turkmenistan. Before I revert this article I will wait for your explanation.--Inuit18 (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of today's countries with their current borders did not exist back then. There is a reason why I have quoted and referred you to User:Bejnar's post several times, it covers your answer. Let me quote him once again,

"It is not relevant when the use of the word Afghanistan started, that is not how the history articles of current countries are done. Editors shorting the Template:History of Afghanistan do not do so in accordance with the way that country history articles are written in the Wikipedia. We have already covered this extensively, the History of Iran is not just about the time periods where Persia was called Iran; it is not just since the invasion of the Aryans. It is about the land area that now is covered by Persia. The History of India is not just since the British arrived, it is the history of the land area that now is covered by India. Similarly, the History of Afghanistan has little to do with the use of the name, it is the history of the land area that now is covered by Afghanistan. Why is that so hard to grasp? Why do you think that so many of the history articles start out with Pre-historic sections? That is before writing, and in most cases the people who gave the land its current English name had not yet invaded. Look at the History of Iran article, and accept that the same general principles apply here."

I do understand the part where you say that "other countries like Tajikistan, Southern Uzbekistan, and parts of Turkmenistan" were covered under Bactria. However, the kingdom was based in Balkh, which is part of current Afghanistan and it covered other countries.

Just because Persia once upon a time covered those regions doesn't necessarily mean that they were always part of Persia. It is like adding a template of "History of Greater Britain" to Canadian, Indian, Australian, Pakistani etc related articles. (Ketabtoon (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC))

It is not only about Afghanistan, but the same concept applies to other countries and history related topics as well. For example lets look at History of Canada. The first line of the article says "The history of Canada begins with the arrival of human beings thousands of years ago." While in reality, the word Canada did not existed before 1867.

So, I hope you understand what "the most relevant history template" means in here. If you still think that the "History of Greater Iran" tag should be added instead of "History of Afghanistan", than you should Requests for mediation or ask for Dispute resolution instead of reverting it. (Ketabtoon (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC))

The name Bactria was a term used for the land in the Persian Empire. What the article tells me by reading it is that the usage of the term had stopped by the years in 600-700 CE. Why does Rupert's Land, Upper Canada, Lower Canada, History of New Brunswick include a {{British overseas territories}} template when the land in that article is in current day Canada? warrior4321 01:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

At the same time they have added "Former Colonies and Territories in Canada" tag. Because no matter what, one way or another it is related to current day Canada and now it is part of Canadian history. There might have been no problem if the user had added "History of Greater Iran" tag along with "History of Afghanistan", but removing the Afghanistan tag and adding the Iran tag is problematic. (Ketabtoon (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

Your logic doesn't make sense to me. Bactria is an ancient term used to describe the land that was part of the Persian Empire. That land may be in Afghanistan today, but the first line of this article tells me that this was an ancient term. The usage of this term ended in 600-700 CE. The term for a land that was in the Persian Empire which is not used anymore. How is this related to Afghanistan? warrior4321 01:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Very simple. The same way as Rupert's Land is related to Canada and is now part of Canadian history. Read the following article, History of Afghanistan, and tell us why have they added information prior to 1747 (Start of Durrani Empire)? If they are not part of "History of Afghanistan" than why have they included all that information? If we go by your logic, then the article shouldn't mention anything that happened before 1747. (Ketabtoon (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

How has it developed into Canadian history? The template which is included is {{Canadian colonies}} which states colonies which were created by other colonizing countries. The template {{History of Canada}} exists. Notice that it is not included on any of the pages that I had provided to you earlier as examples. Pages that the {{History of Canada}} template is included on are Military history of Canada, Canada in the World Wars and Interwar Years and Post-Confederation Canada (1867–1914).

I hope you realize that the History of Afghanistan has nothing to do with Bactria. Bactria was an ancient term used to describe an area of land which was a satrapie in the Persian Empire. It does not relate to the History of Afghanistan simply because the modern day Afghanistan is the land that was Bactria. Bactria was a province in the Persian Empire and thus has its history in Iran. warrior4321 03:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Again you are ignoring the fact that {{History of Canada}} includes Canada under British Imperial control, New France and Aboriginal_peoples_in_Canada#History. New France was a colony of France from 1534-1763, the same way Bactria was a province in the Persian Empire, and now the article has a {{History of Canada}} template. Canada was part of the British Empire from 1764 to 1867(when Canada was officially created), but the article has a {{History of Canada}} template. Tell me, what has New France got to do with current day Canada? (Ketabtoon (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

The template is put in the See also section along with even a link for History of Canada in the See also section. It is a recommended link to view, it is not put in the beginning core of the article. warrior4321 04:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wherever you add the template, it means the same thing "See Also" or "Related History" and so on. Maybe they put it all the way down there because it is pretty crowded at the top and most likely it will ruin the page - and there already is an Infobox Template at the top. In Canada under British Imperial control article it is put at the top of the page. (Ketabtoon (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

The history of Afghanistan explicitly starts with the Durrani Empire in the 18th century. Bactria, however, is a historical name for a region comprising the northern parts of modern Afghanistan as well as parts of modern Uzbekistan and modern Tajikistan. The "History of Greater Iran" template is by far the most relevant, because it includes all of these regions. It is also stated on top of the template that it is about the region's history until the rise of modern nation-states. Regarding the pre-modern history of Afghanistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, etc, there is still a debate about it. For example, there is also an article named "Islamic conquest of Afghanistan" which is simply ridiculous and has no support in any scholarly publication, simply because Afghanistan did not exist at that time. We should stick to the facts and keep modern nations out of the equation. Tajik (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that the history of Afghanistan started with the Durrani Empire. History of modern states don't go back too far. Most of these current states have been created about 50 - 150 years ago, but their history articles cover history beyond the creation of these states. For example History of Bangladesh starts from 1971, because there was no Bangladesh before that. However, two third of the article covers history of the region before even Bangladesh was created.

There are other articles in Wikipedia very similar to "Islamic conquest of Afghanistan" - for example Canada under British Imperial control. The first line states "Canada was under British Empire control from 1764 to 1867", but there was no Canada before 1867. We have to follow the same format for all histories. (Ketabtoon (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

Only because a certain article is messed up, it doesn't mean that it justifies other messes. For example, Mohenjo Daro is a part of the common cultural and historical heritage of India and Pakistan, yet it does not take much to understand that Mojenjo Daro and the Indus Valley Civilization are not the property of India or Pakistan. The same goes to Bactria: as part of the larger Iranian ethno-linguistic history, it is part of the common heritage of the modern nation-states Iran, Afghanistan, as well as Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It does not make any sense to include 3 or 4 different templates in the articles. That's the reason why the template "History of Greater Iran" was created, in order to unify the pre-modern history of the region and block any nationalist claims. Bactria is neither a property of Afghanistan, nor of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Pakistan or whoever. Tajik (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Demetrius I must have been huge!

The caption on for the picture of the coin showing Demetrius I says "The founder of the Indo-Greek Kingdom Demetrius I (205–171 BC), wearing the scalp of an elephant, symbol of his conquest of India." Either Demetrius was a giant, or that scalp belonged to the smallest elephant ever. Or, more likely, it's not a scalp at all, but a hat or headress in the shape of an elephant's head. I'll change it myself shortly, unless anyone else can come up with a better way to describe it. Wardog (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

bactria

is a region which Alexander the great the Macedonian gave to his generals and the same place of origin of the first bulgars who might be macedonians as well. the perception of greek civilisation is a modern, german romantic view and a history theft of the macedonians, the only aryans in the old continent.79.125.226.138 (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So much bias

Britannia states that only Tajiks are descendants of the Bactrians which i find completely absurd and offensive. First of, Tajiks didn't even exist that long ago and the modern Tajiks are a mixture and collaboration of different people such as invaders. Secondly, the Pashto language shows close relation to Bactrian in terms of phonetics and that they were both part of the north-western group of eastern Iranian languages. If anything, the Pashtuns are their notable descendants and not the Tajiks who in reality are just Sodighan remnants with turkic admixture. I'm open to opinions but not lies which are propagated on this site by Tajiks and Persians who want to link anything "Iranian" to them only. Sorry if this sounded like a rant, just wanted to clear something. Akmal94 (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You didn't clear anything, it is basically a rant, like all the others things you say in other talk pages. According to you the Pashtuns ruled the world. At least come up with a academic reliable source(s) that supports what you are saying. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I have never said that Pashtuns ruled the world, i don't even know how you got that idea so please distrain from using slander. And what are you doing following me around on other talk pages unrelated to history or Afghanistan? If you have a problem with my suggestions, please address them but the problem here is that many articles on here related to Afghanistan or anything Iranian related always has a Persian undertone to it, from the Ghorids to the Ghaznavids. And since you did politely ask for a source here is one that connects Pashtuns to Bactrians.

After the Aryan migration from the center in Bakhdi, some of the clans remained in Bakhdi or Bakhtar and the foothills of the Hindu Kush. They called themselves Bakhdi, (Bakht, Pakhat, Pashto and Pashtoon) after the name of their homeland. The same people took part in the fighting between 10 clans of the Aryans on the banks of the river Parushni (Ravi) and have been described as Pakhta.[7] Similarly, in the oldest Aryan text, Veda, the names of Pakhta (the Pashtun people), their kings, princes and prominent figures have been mentioned repeatedly.[8] This shows that about 1400 B.C. the Pashtun tribes had penetrated into the area bordering the Ravi river and it also establishes their way of living, culture and movements. Even now many of the names of the ancient Aryan personalities and tribes are used by Pashtun clans, such as Turvayana, the name of the king of Pakhat,[9] which in present day Pashto also means Tura (sword) and wahuni (wielder) or wielder of the sword. Similarly, the names of tribes, such as Dasa, Brisaya, Pani and Paravata, that lived on the banks of the river Sarasvati or Haravati (the rivers Dehrawaut and Arghandab in Kandahar), survive even today, and according to Nillebrandt belonged to Arachosia (present day Kandahar).[10] Even now such tribes as Dasu, Parvat and Baraich exist among the Pashtuns of Zabul and Zhob.[11]

Neyat-e Afghani, pages 118, 156, 241, 258. Cambridge History of India, Vol. 1, page 82. Veda, Vol. 2, page 18, hymn 17 (part 7); Vol. 2, page 15, hymn 22 (part 8), Vol 2, page 260, hymn 1 (part 8); Vol. 2, page 465, hymn 61 (part 10), published in London

These are just a few sources that connect Pashtuns with Bactrians and the people of Balkh, NOT Tajiks. Akmal94 (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I know that you didn't say that 'the Pashtuns ruled the world', don't you get what I am trying to say? Anyway, what is that for a source? Lol Pasthuns lived around 1400 BC? Can you link me that 'source'? Would really like to check it, since I am 100% sure that it is unreliable, heavily outdated, or some kind of legend from some weird source. Always has a Persian tone? Maybe because the dynasties/regions themselves had a Persian tone? And no, I am not following you, but since I have these articles on my watchlist, your rants appears every time in my watchlist. I am not slandering you either, but seeing you make a battleground on these articles, is truly annoying and not something that Wikipedia supports, hence why an admin warned you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Which article? Please explain, i've only addressed my distrain with a few articles that are very badly sourced or with no citations at all. And speaking of Persian undertones, many articles on here about pre-islamic empires in the iranian pleateu always try to relate them back to Iran or Persia. Even you are laughing and doubting that Pashtuns lived around 1400 BC is exactly what i am saying, you people try to think Pashtuns or other Iranic people back then didn't exist yet somehow Persians did. And why do you doubt my sources? are you really saying University of Cambridge is an unreliable source? If you are interested in my sources the on here was compiled by Abdul Hai Habibi who was an Afghan historian with tons of Verifiability in the field of Afghan history.

Afghanistan's Importance From the Perspective of the History and Archaeology of Central Asia Abdul Hai Habibi http://www.alamahabibi.com/English Articles/Afghanistan_Importance_from_the_Perspective_of_the_History.htm#_ftn11

I can assure you is 100% reliable. Akmal94 (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, did someone really say that the Persians lived around 1400 BC? If you had said that the Persians had lived during that period I would have laughed too (perhaps even more), doesn't make a difference - it's just historically wrong, like it makes no sense. It's not reliable, show this to an admin and you will get told that is outdated/unreliable, . And isn't it a bit funny that this article was written by Abdul Hai Habibi, a Pasthun nationalist, who was the same person who forged the Pata Khazana, an "old" Pashto language manuscript that he claimed to have "discovered" in 1944, which the academic community does not acknowledge the manuscript as genuine. Sounds like a reliable "historian" we should listen to, I mean who needs all those modern non-nationalistic reliable sources, f*ck it! Let's agree what Abdul Hai Habibi says! Btw I did not mean to mock you by writing like that, but I couldn't find a better way to say it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm impartial, but it seems if you go all the way to the earliest history there was no one else in the entire area apart from Bactrians. As different entities shifted , broke up, or came into existence or merged with newcomers, it would be little surprise if multiple groups 100s of years later lay claim to Bactrian descent. 172.56.23.25 (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering that Akmal94 has done POV editing, see Ghurids, assuming good faith from said editor is difficult.

• "Britannia states that only Tajiks are descendants of the Bactrians.." --Akmal94

This is not what the article states. Such outright duplicity from Akmal reinforces the opinion this is a nationalistic editor. What the article actually says is:
"The Bactrian people, as with the Soghdians, are primarily the ancestors of modern-day Tajiks.", which is not referenced by Britannica but by Cambridge Encyclopedia Vol. 8, pg. 2246 and Library of Congress source
AND if anyone, Akmal in particular, had wasted their time to read the quote from Cambridge Encyclopedia Vol. 8, pg. 2246, it states, "The Bactrians are one of the ancestral lines of the modern-day Pashtuns, Tajiks, of Central Asia.".
Assuming this quote is actually taken from the Cambridge Encyclopedia then this "discussion" is moot.
However, since the Cambridge Encyclopedia source is unverifiable and I have concerns about this Library of Congress source, it would be prudent to find new verifiable sources for that section concerning Tajiks, Pashtuns, etc.
AND, judging from Abdul Hai Habibi rather questionable writings, which do not appear to have been accepted by the academic community, Akmal should look for other sources for his claim(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

On the section about Tokharistan

Are there any sources that back up this claim?

"From the 1st century AD to the 3rd century AD, Tokharistan was under the rule of the Kushans. They were followed by the Sassanids (Indo-Sassanids). Later, in the 5th century, it was controlled by the Xionites and the Hephthalites but was reconquered by the Sassanids; it was later conquered by the Arabs and then the Mongols."

I do not see any citations!Kirby (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Keeby101: Try Bactria, Sasanian, Kushan at Encyclopedia Iranica, for example this is from Bactria article:

• By the end of the Kushan period, Bactria had come to be known as Ṭoḵārestān. After the conquest of the region by the Sasanians, Ṭoḵārestān formed the core of their province of Kūšānšahr. In the Chinese sources Tu Kho Lo, undoubtedly a transcription of the new name, replaces the older Ta Hsia. --Zyma (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, Kansas Bear and HistoryofIran are experienced editors in this topic. You may ask them too. --Zyma (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, so I am going to try to invite HistoryofIran to this discussion now. Reason being cause I would like to know what he has to say given that he knows more about this stuff than the both of us. Kirby (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Kirby: Well, what do you exactly want to know? Is there a specific thing? Sometimes Tokharistan was under Sasanian rule and sometimes it was not, so what period are we talking about here? If it's still about the empire during the reign of Khosrow II, the eastern border of the Sasanian Empire most likely extended as far as the Amu Darya, either that, or it looked like this [3]. One thing I know for sure, is that during the reign of Yazdegerd III, the eastern border looked more or less like the map of the link. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

There is, just like with the Samarkand article that states "The Turks ruled over Samarkand until they were defeated by the Sassanids during the Göktürk–Persian Wars.", I need to know if this content is true or historical revisionism. The part that I do not see sourced, unless you count [4] as reliable as Zyma did is this: "From the 1st century AD to the 3rd century AD, Tokharistan was under the rule of the Kushans. They were followed by the Sassanids (Indo-Sassanids). Later, in the 5th century, it was controlled by the Xionites and the Hephthalites but was reconquered by the Sassanids; it was later conquered by the Arabs and then the Mongols."

As I am re-adjusting the borders and fixing province and city names of the map of the Sasanian Empire, I need to know if the part of Bactria being reconquered by the Hepthalites is true or not. Kirby (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Look what I just wrote up above (just finished writing it after you posted this message), is that good enough? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that information HistoryofIran Much appreciated. Kirby (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bactria. 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/20110526205215/http://ximebenj.club.fr/index.htm to http://ximebenj.club.fr/index.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

bactrian people

Please tell me how "A concise history of Afghanistan in 25 volumes" and "Encyclopedia Iranica" are unreliable sources, Wario-Man. It clearly states that Pashtuns and Tajiks are descendants of Bactrians: Cambridge Encyclopedia Vol. 8, pg. 2246, "Bactria - Geography, History, Tokharistan, Archaeological sites", with this quote "The Bactrians are one of the ancestral lines of the modern-day Pashtuns, Tajiks, of Central Asia."

this is only one of among the other sources I used. I never once misquoted or wrongly stated the facts of each source, and there was a mistake when it says "modern scholarship agrees" as there was no source provided that explicitly showed this, as per wikipedia's policy on academic consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayras123 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Hey,

I'm removing unsourced content as the claim "most closely related to Khwarezmian, Ossetian etc" is unsourced. 

Also, the source Cambridge Encyclopedia Vol. 8, pg. 2246, "Bactria - Geography, History, Tokharistan, Archaeological sites", with this quote "The Bactrians are one of the ancestral lines of the modern-day Pashtuns, Tajiks, of Central Asia." clearly states that Pashtuns are a descendant of Bactrians. The source:

The Modern Eastern Iranian languages are even more numerous and varied. Most of them are classified as North-Eastern: Ossetic; Yaghnobi (which derives from a dialect closely related to Sogdian); the Shughni group (Shughni, Roshani, Khufi, Bartangi, Roshorvi, Sarikoli), with which Yaz-1ghulami (Sokolova 1967) and the now extinct Wanji (J. Payne in Schmitt, p. 420) are closely linked; Ishkashmi, Sanglichi, and Zebaki; Wakhi; Munji and Yidgha; and Pashto. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/eastern-iranian-languages

clearly states that Pashto, as well as the other languages, are North-Eastern Rather than claiming it as edit warring and 'unsourced material', warning me of 'personal attacks' when I tell you about these issues, why don't you actually try to have a discussion about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayras123 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The main article Pashtuns does not support Bactrian origin. It's just your WP:OR and personal analysis. Could you show me a modern academic source which has a section about Bactrain origin of Pashtuns? Even zero mention of Pashtuns on Britannica[5] or zero mention of Bactrian on here[6]. I searched google books and the only connection is similarity between some Eastern Iranian languages. Provide your verifiable sources and not just some random websites or outdated stuff. And yes, you did personal attacks on my talk page non-stop edit warring on several articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

This is about your edits. I ping two other experienced editors in history topics. @Kansas Bear and LouisAragon: Would you please comment here? --Wario-Man (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Some of the edits maybe controversial. However, with regards to one edit (mentioning Pashtuns as one of the descendants of Bactrians) I am convinced that there is no reason not to put it in the article, especially when one source which was already cited in the article since years, mentions them. Therefore, I have restored their mention in the section about Bactrian people. The article should be neutral of course. Khestwol (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Your whole comment does not make any sense. Read my comment summary. Short summary: Provide some modern scholary sources which support Bactrian origin of Pashtuns. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wario-Man:When all else fails, report for edit warring.

"Bactria - Geography, History, Tokharistan, Archaeological sites", with this quote "The Bactrians are one of the ancestral lines of the modern-day Pashtuns, Tajiks, of Central Asia." There's the evidence that Pashtuns are descendants of Bactrians. Also, you keep on reverting my one edit that Pashto, Yidgha and Munji are all North-Eastern Iranian languages. If even Iranica mentions this, in all its anti-Pashtun bias, then it is definitely true.

The Modern Eastern Iranian languages are even more numerous and varied. Most of them are classified as North-Eastern: Ossetic; Yaghnobi (which derives from a dialect closely related to Sogdian); the Shughni group (Shughni, Roshani, Khufi, Bartangi, Roshorvi, Sarikoli), with which Yaz-1ghulami (Sokolova 1967) and the now extinct Wanji (J. Payne in Schmitt, p. 420) are closely linked; Ishkashmi, Sanglichi, and Zebaki; Wakhi; Munji and Yidgha; and Pashto. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/eastern-iranian-languages

Also, you cannot use other wikipedia articles as sources.

Just read WP:CIVIL. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This, this and this may help you in your efforts. The article is as of now locked, but you still have not addressed any of the above points mentioned. -- Hayras123 (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Wario-Man, I think the sources you are looking for has already been provided. Iranica, and Cambridge Encyclopedia. I don't know what else you are looking for. Khestwol (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

My main concern is not Iranica and we talk about it later. The problem is that Cambridge Encyclopedia and the concerns which I mentioned in my above comment. Could you give me a link or screenshot to that page? And other info such as ISBN and publication year? I google this quote ""The Bactrians are one of the ancestral lines of the modern-day Pashtuns, Tajiks, of Central Asia." and results just link to this article and its recent changes. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability I can remove it, so you and the other editor who added it, should prove its verifiability. If you manage to do it, then tell me how many other scholary sources support it? Plus the new editor turned the whole discussion into a WP:FORUM, personal attacks and harassment. Not to mention his spams on my talk page. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Cambridge Encyclopedia Vol. 8, pg. 2246 - doesn't seem to be such an encyclopedia

I'm not getting involved in the editing dispute, but I need to point out that this "source" was added as a one-off edit by an IP July 16th 2009.[7] There doesn't seem to be such a multi-volume encyclopedia. There is this but it is only one volume, and the reference is very specific that this comes from volume 8.[8] You can check at WP:RSN but it doesn't appear that this is a valid reference. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for your contribution. This is my point too. The cited source is not valid and even the one you have mentioned its name is not suitable for this article because its author is not a historian:

• David Crystal is one of the world's foremost authorities on language --Wario-Man (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Generalist encyclopedias rarely are reliable sources and should be avoided. They shouldn't be needed anyway for articles where there are good academic sources. His encyclopedia of language however would be a good source on language as it's specialist. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Plus, I didn't find any mention of Bactria and Bactrians via google books search. Should we keep Britannica's text or remove it too? --Wario-Man (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It is good that we have a consensus now. Even though linguistically Eastern Iranian, no reliable and verifiable ref has been provided yet to support the claim that Pashtuns are descended from Bactrians yet. So we can delete that claim, and leave only Tajiks (Western Iranian Dari language speakers, i.e. a different branch from that of Bactrian language) as a descendant ethnic group for now. Until a ref is added that is acceptable to all, we can't add Pashtuns as descendants of Bactrians. Khestwol (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, if anyone wants to remove also Britannica's text, I have no objection. Khestwol (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

"Cambridge Encyclopedia Vol. 8, pg. 2246" does not exist. That's all. Same IP user added similar stuff to Tajiks which I removed it too. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Random clothing pictures in this article?

I am confused why this is here? And it has nothing to with the section talking about the BMAC let alone know how the Bactrians dressed.If no one objects, i can remove it Akmal94 (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Name section, a problem...

The name section of the article seems to be diverted and actually wrong, intentionally or unintentionally.

The English name Bactria is derived from the Ancient Greek: Βακτριανή (Baktriani), a Hellenized version of the Bactrian endonym Bakhlo (βαχλο)...

Baktriani is neither hellenic nor was it ever have been used. It seems that this version is a modern creation from the 19th and early 20th century. I could find only two authors using this term. Bakhlo also seems to be created, maybe by some Wikipedian authors, falsefying the historical coherence. I just checked Encyclopedia Iranica and it backs my assumptation. The whole article should be re-edited and at least one time monitored for the correctness of the information. Some senior and trusted editors, please. Asya'dan Kurt Pençe (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)