Talk:Bactrian language

Examples?
Can anyone supply vocabulary, grammar or short pieces of text? Koro Neil (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted an edit by User:Inuit18. History of Afghanistan template is the most relevant template Talk:History_of_Afghanistan. (Ketabtoon (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC))

your revert is unexplained. The Bactrian language was not only spoken by people who lived in modern-day afghanistan but other regions in Central Asia. The Great Iran tag has a section for Afghanistan plus other countries in the region.--Inuit18 (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bactrian language. 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/20070610192252/http://www.gengo.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~hkum/bactrian.html to http://www.gengo.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~hkum/bactrian.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) 14:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this definitely Bactrian native name for their language or someone just made up the name?
Explain this: --> Αριαο (aryao) Right now i don't see any reliable source for the name what the Bactrians called their language. Either: It's is accurate, or: It's nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newroderick895 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It was added by an IP-user, claimed "the native name in lede (from Rabatak inscription)". --Wario-Man (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

hoax
In Unicode, Sho is after Omega and Sampi, not after Sigma. Placing of Sho after Sigma as in File:Bactrian_alphabet.jpg is w:en:WP:OR, see this: https://unicode.org/Public/UCA/latest/allkeys.txt

Reply: More exactly: In the Bactrian alphabet, Sho was presumably placed at the end (as has been one in Unicode, https://unicode.org/Public/UCA/latest/allkeys.txt). Placing of Sho after Sigma as in File:Bactrian_alphabet.jpg is ill-inspired guesswork. --Virda (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

WHat is worse. this same table File:Bactrian_alphabet.jpg, which is used as top picture (that which turns up as preview each time you link to the page on Facebook), is NOT the Bactrian alphabet. This is the MODERN Greek alphabet plus the MODERN Icelandic thorn. It is just a convenient way of transcribing Bactrian words or texts in publications. The Bactrian alphabet had no upper and lower case letters. This table is thus quite misleading. --Virda (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

satem language
Current wording: ... Bactrian was a satemised Iranian language.[citation needed]

Issue: "satemised" is nonsense since Iranian was satem in the first place.

Changed to: ... Bactrian was an Iranian, thus satem language.

(no more citation needed, the link is enough). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virda (talk • contribs) 05:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources
This article contained a reference to the so-called "Silk Road Foundation", also known as "Silk Road". It's an online publisher. The website can be found here:

https://www.silkroadfoundation.org

This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with Silk Road Journal Online, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

The Silk Road Journal in question is based primarily around Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by researchers who appear to mostly hail from Russia and China. The sole editor of the publication, an American man named Daniel Waugh, has candidly stated that it has no formal peer review:

http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf

From the outset, there has been no formal process of peer review, such as one expects in the standard academic journals. We still solicit articles (a task which largely has devolved on me over the years), though we also receive (but have not been overwhelmed by) unsolicited submissions.

Decisions on what to publish (as with any journal) ultimately rest with the editor, who in this case, for better or worse, has acted as the peer reviewer. I often see what I think is gold in material that could never find its way into a standard academic publication. But the perils of rarely seeking outside opinions may mean things slip through without acknowledgement that a subject has been thoroughly treated elsewhere.

The lack of formal peer review does have the unfortunate consequence that junior scholars hoping to advance in their profession may avoid us, since their promotion will depend in the first instance on peer reviewed publication, however excellent (and widely cited) a piece might be which we would publish. Yet in some cases where there is a premium for academics in other countries to publish in a respected journal in English, we have been able to provide just such an opportunity. Many of the senior scholars we have solicited for contributions have politely refused to write for us, since they are already over-committed [...]

So, the Silk Road Foundation is a speedy publishing mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "'gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication'". A lot of researchers don't want to be published by Silk Road Foundation, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals.

To my mind, this is very near to the definition of predatory publishing, with the exception that the Silk Road Foundation does not even provide the benefits of high-end predatory puboishers, like DOI. It's really more like an internet blog.

The Silk Road Foundation is cited on various ethnical and archaeological articles on Wikipedia, often advancing pet theories, which is out of touch with WP:RS, which says that Wikipedia should prioritize high-quality, peer reviewed secondary research over this kind of stuff.

Although I'm not aware of any controversial material in this particular Wiki article related to its Silk Road Foundation reference, and I have no enmity for the Silk Road Foundation or its publisher, or its authors, this source does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and should not be cited. Hunan201p (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)