Talk:Sakastan (Sasanian province)

A defense line in Sistan
This source says one of the Sassanian defense lines was in Sistan, but I couldn't find further information. Another source mentions a defense line "west of what is yoday Afganistan", I don't know if the two refer to the same thing. --Z 15:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Moved. See general agreement below to add the qualifier and to redirect the old title to Sistan. So this title is moved to Sakastan (Sasanian province) (in this case "province" is not part of a proper name and so is not capitalized). Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sakastan → Sakastan (Sasanian Province) – Sakastan was also another name for Sistan, and had existed as a region/province (since its invasion by the Saka in the 2nd-century BC, thus the name Saka(stan)) before the Sasanians, hence I want this moved to avoid confusion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Reasons given above are legit. Don’t even understand how this move needs a WP:RM. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CONCISE, the current name is suitable. Also, the proposed name goes against WP:PRECISE - the region "Sakastan" existed both before and after the Sasanian conquest, including in Parthian, Kushan, and Hephthalite eras. Do you want to create separate articles for Sakastan in those eras? Khestwol (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom and WP:RS. Different era's, different entities, with different govenors/vassal rulers;
 * "It was Mithridates II who attended the problem of Sakastan by commissioning a Parthian notable or general, who did not belong to the Arsacid royal house, to recapture the province. It is the recapture of the province that, for the first time, puts the Parthian family name Suren on the map of Iranian history and invariably links it to Sistan." -- Gazerani, Saghi (2016). The Sistani Cycle of Epics and Iran's National History. BRILL. p. 14
 * "In the early Sasanian inscriptions the local semi-independent dynasts of Parthian days are mentioned: the kings of Abrenag, Marv, Carmania, Sakastan (they were at the court of Ardashir I), Adiabene, Iberia (at the court of Shapur I) (...) Already under Shapur I the independence of Abrenag and Marv was abolished, Sakastan became a province (shahr) (...) and was given as an appanage to Shapur I's son Narseh (...)" Lukonin, V.G. (1983). Yarshate, Ehsan, ed. The Cambridge History of Iran (Vol. 3 (2)). Cambridge University Press. p. 729
 * - LouisAragon (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Sistan is the historical Sakastan while this one is a Sasanian Province. There are many other similar cases, e.g. Turan (Sasanian Province) vs. Turan, Iranian Khorasan Province vs. Greater Khorasan. So actually moving this article is necessary. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose (!vote to be updated pending outcome of discussion below). --В²C ☎ 01:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC) . And what's to happen with Sakastan? After the proposed move, it will redirect to this (retitled/disambiguated) article. So what's the point? If that's how it is to remain, I oppose per WP:CONCISE and unnecessary disambiguation. That said, I do see an article for Sistan. It's conceivable to create a WP:TWODABS page at Sakastan with links to this (retitled) article and to Sistan. But how likely is someone to be searching with "Sakastan" for Sistan? If the relative likelihood hood is low compared to the likelihood of searching for this article with Sakastan, as I suspect is this case (no evidence to the contrary), then this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Sakastan and so Sakastan should be the title of this article or a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to it; but I've already covered that latter case... unnecessary disambiguation. I'm willing to change my mind if someone can show that Sistan is sufficiently likely to be sought by people searching with "Sakastan" that this article is not the primary topic. --В²C ☎ 05:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your points are correct. Khestwol (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure I get what you're saying, but the plan is that Sakastan will get redirected to Sistan. Also Sakastan was the name of a region/province c. three centuries before the Sasanians arrived, imagine clicking Sakastan in a Indo-Scythian/Indo-Parthian/Saka/Parthian/early House of Suren-related article and then get sent to a Sasanian article. Think its safe to say that it would more appropriate to be sent to the Sistan article instead. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the likelihood that someone searching with “Sakastan” is looking for the article at Sistan as opposed to this article? In other words, is the primary topic for “Sakastan” the subject of Sistan? Or the Sasanian Sakastan?  —-В²C ☎ 01:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is very unlikely that they will be thinking of the Sasanian Sakastan when searching for "Sakastan". Instead, they will simply be looking for the geographic land. Khestwol (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Think he was asking me, Khestwol (the user who created this article and actually has knowledge about this region). To answer your question, В²C, the primary topic for “Sakastan” is definitely without any doubt the subject of Sistan. These two sources, for example  has a lot of information the events of Sakastan and its appearance as a region before the Sasanians. Sakastan is the ancient name for Sistan, and is often mentioned as so. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * His question was general, that is why I answered. I think you are enforcing a PRO-PERSIAN POV, attempting to make it appear as if Sakastan did not exist outside of the Sasanian occupation. Khestwol (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ehh...what..? I've literally said the opposite all this time, it was literally the first statement I made. Besides you accusing me of 'pro-Persian pov', this just goes to prove that you aren't eligible to participate in such discussion due to actually not understanding what has been going on all this time, not to mention you don't have any knowledge about this topic which isn't helping either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Give it a rest... that is precisely the agenda you are trying to push, and evidently not only on this article. Sakastan as a term was used before the Sassanid. Why should the only article on Sakastan be exclusively on the Sassanid period? Sakastan is referenced in different articles e.g. in the Indo-Scythian period - using the term 'Sakastan' - yet if they click on the word, they will be linked to this article which focuses exclusively on Sassanids! 217.35.82.33 (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, I've said the opposite of that. Instead of attacking me you should go take some English courses, because you actually share the same opinion as me, so drop it already. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not following. If "It is very unlikely that they will be thinking of the Sasanian Sakastan when searching for 'Sakastan'", then why are you opposed to this proposal? Do you not agree that this article, currently at Sakastan, is about the Sasanian Sakastan (from the lead: "Sakastan (also known as Sagestān, Sagistan, Seyanish, Segistan, Sistan, and Sijistan) was a Sasanian province...")? If it's very unlikely that people searching with "Sakastan" would be searching for this article, why should it remain at Sakastan? And if they are more likely to be looking for the geographic land, isn't that the article at Sistan? So doesn't it make sense to redirect Sakastan to Sistan? --В²C ☎ 01:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, some more content must be added to the article for example also before and after the Sasanian occupation of Sakastan to make it balanced. Moving is not the solution. The solution I think is to focus this article on the pre-Islamic era and the "Sistan" article on the medieval and modern era. We have done similar setups in other Wikipedia articles e.g. in Constantinople vs Istanbul. Khestwol (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigh..thats supposed to be in the Sistan article. This article is about Sakastan under the Sasanians. You're more than welcome to do some expanding in the Sistan article yourself. HistoryofIran (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this article is about pre-Islamic Sakastan which existed before the Sassanid occupation too. Khestwol (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not though, its about Sasanian Sakastan, it literally says so. Also your comparison with Constantinople and Istanbul makes no sense. There's a reason we several Khorasan articles etc. Perhaps start doing something constructive and do some expanding yourself instead of trying to make others do it for you like u also did in the Hepthalite talk page? HistoryofIran (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You want to direct readers clicking on "Sakastan" on a related article to 'Sistan' -- but the 'Sistan' article's section on late antiquity (i.e. "Sakastan") links to 'Sakastan-Sassanian province' -- so indirectly the word "Sakastan" on Wikipedia will always be linked in future to 'Sakastan-Sassanian province' as it's the only article on Sakastan. Gives inaccurate impression that Sakastan = Sassanid. Also, when this page was first made, it was intended as an article on 'Sakastan', not 'Sassanid Sakastan'. It was you (HistoryofIran) who reworked the face of the entire article to make it exclusively about Sassanids... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.82.33 (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling. This is how the Sakastan "article" was before I expanded it (simply a redirection to Sistan), but nice try. Also, the Sistan article has more than just Sakastan under the Sasanians, such as its 'Early History' section, again, nice try. Sad attempt to manipulate the crowd here. You suddenly turning up here and bending the truth whilst making false accusations towards me is clearly an act of revenge because I reverted your disruptive edits some time ago. Grow up and stop derailling this thread further, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Your rant accusing me of "trolling", "manipulating the crowd", "turning up here", "bending the truth", "false accusations", "disruptive edits", "derailing the thread" and claiming Khestwol isn't "eligible" to participate is just an attempt to silence contrary opinion and I ignore it. The problem remains: 'Sistan' article's section on late antiquity (i.e. "Sakastan") links to 'Sakastan-Sassanian province' -- so indirectly the word "Sakastan" on Wikipedia will always be linked in future to 'Sakastan-Sassanian province' as it's the only article on Sakastan. If this is addressed then personally I have no issue with renaming. 217.35.82.33 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just gonna ignore you from now on, you're not coming up with anything constructive. You're just here for retaliation. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Weak Support. I admit I don't fully understand this topic/topics as well as I normally do when I weigh in on an RM, hence I'm asking my support !vote to be weighted weakly accordingly. However, from what I can tell, one of the uses of the term "Sakastan" is the Sassanian Sakastan, which appears to be the topic of this article, and as near as I can tell it is not the primary topic of this term (though again, I'm not 100% sure of that). In the mean time it appears that the more likely use of Sakastan today is to refer to the topic covered at Sistan, so it makes sense for Sakastan to be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Sistan. I think. I remain open to be persuaded otherwise, but that's where I am right now. --В²C ☎ 18:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.