Talk:Barha Tegin

Proposed merge of Barha Tegin into Turk Shahis

Should Barha Tegin be merged into Turk Shahis? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support Every bit of information is already covered at the target in a far better context. WP:DUP#2 applies, even if the most conservative reading is applied. We know nothing significant about these rulers apart from two or three factoids (at best or nil, at worst) to flesh out standalone articles. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Friendly Oppose It is a normal process on Wikipedia to create pages on significant rulers. Often they will be expanded and become quite interesting over time. If not, they at least respond to the curiosity of the Wikipedia reader who wants information about this specific ruler. The information is also much easier to find when linking from another page (your xxxxxxx#yyyyyyyyyy types of links get broken over time with the slightest editorial change, they just don't work in the long run, and if you link to the whole master page it's a pain to find the relevant information). The main criteria for existence of a page is Wikipedia:Notability, not the fact that information is limited or could be found or inserted somewhere else. The master page usually is better off summarizing content, while the sub-page can have all the details. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  My reply remains same: onlookers can consult this thread :) TrangaBellam (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose different personalities. Should we merge bunch of stubs with other stuff? These articles are ok. Beshogur (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Noting the close with no merge following this edit. Klbrain (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Kuwayama

You forgot to copy the source from Turk Shahis. Citations to Kuwayama do not work :) TrangaBellam (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ziad (2022)

Overall, this narrative is suspect, and al-Bīrūnī himself casts doubt on its authenticity. After relating the story, he adds that the people of Hind “do not pay much attention to the historical order of things, they are very careless in relating the chronological succession of their kings, and when they are pressed for information they are at a loss, not knowing what to say, they invariably take to tale-telling.” The popular dynastic history related by al-Bīrūnī is clearly a conflation of three unrelated histories. The cave story bears a striking resemblance to the etiological legend concerning the founding of the great Turk Empire, while Kanik can most certainly be identified as the Kuṣāṇa king Kaṇiṣka, in the first century CE.

Despite these weaknesses, the account relayed by al-Bīrūnī suggests that the Turk Shahi dynasty was founded in Kabul by Barhategin, a Turk of Tibetan (or at least non-Central Asian Turkish) origin. Harmatta suggested that Barhategin could be a Sanscritization of two Turkic titles, ba(gh)o, meaning lord, and tegin. Given that the name Barhategin is not confirmed by any other sources, there is no reason to assume as many have in the past that Barhategin is necessarily the name of the first of the Turk Shahis. However, for the purposes of this study, I will use the name Barhategin to denote the dynastic founder.

But how do I convince well-meaning folks to stop creating articles for every single name they come across in scholarship? Kautilya3, fyi. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, many sources have many things to say about Barhategin, and Ziad is one of them. I think his opinion definitely has its place in the article. But it does not in itself suggest that the article should not exist, quite the contrary actually, since he does discuss the matter extensively. It is fine to have some level of doubt about the existence of Barhategin, or about the indentity of the first Turk Shahi ruler. पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Gyselen (2010) states the same but please keep on creating articles. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)