Talk:Bactrian language

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is this definitely Bactrian native name for their language or someone just made up the name? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  hoax 

message: 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)
thread_title:  satem language 

message: 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
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)
thread_title:  Reliable sources