Talk:Apracharajas

Wow you gotta be kidding me

Is this what wikipedia has come to? Making up fake articles? Reading through this i have never heard of this "Apraca empire" or that they were Schytians. The name afghan doesn't come from this Apraca either, it has connections to the Avaskha and the Sassanian word "Abgan" but not this. This article is just really bad, it has no citations at all and seems to be someone's own POV and work of mind connected to possible nationalism. I did some aditional research but could not find nothing on this empire, if it is ok, can we try to nominate this for deletion? Akmal94 (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think anyone is kidding you. The Apracas certainly existed - and there is now quite a substantial literature on the inscriptions which mention the kings of this early kingdom. I have just read the article and added a couple of references and a blockquote to provide more information. I don't know where you got the idea that it was referred to as an "empire" - I don't see any such reference in the article. Apraca could not be called an "empire" - it was never large or important enough for such a claim - but there is no doubt there was such a "kingdom." Like you, I also found the claim that the name "Afghan" derives from "Apraca" far-fetched, and I couldn't find any references to it in the literature I have available to me - so I have added a "citation necessary" tag to that claim. I hope this helps clear up some of the worries you have expressed. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Akhmal, are you trying to get yourself banned or something? You have already been warned by an admin; This is NOT a internet forum, take your rants somewhere else. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That which goes without saying

@पाटलिपुत्र, I suppose that you object to any effort at merging back Aspavarma and others into an improved and comprehensive page on Apracharajas? If not, I will be spending the next few days to rewrite Apracharajas in an approach similar to the one adopted at Paratarajas. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do object to merging. These are important rulers with fairly good levels of information: they deserve their own page. Merging would not add any value, and would only bring confusion. Of course, I am all for having an "improved and comprehensive page on Apracharajas", and will be looking forward to your improvements. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Sigh - I won't get into a debate since it will be a stalemate with nobody interested enough. But, there is little point in improving content duplicated at multiple places.

Fwiw, last I checked, there were about fifteen or sixteen inscriptions covering our subject. None of which has got to say anything on anything other than genealogical details. Increasingly, it is evident that multiple rulers had the same name contrary to the impression obtained from our pages - so, even the genealogical information is convoluted. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Chronology: 63 years from 48/7 BC ?

Can someone explain to me how the Bajaur reliquary inscription's 73 years from 48/7 BC makes it 15 and not 25 AD? And how the Bajaur casket's 63rd year of Azes I from 48/7 BC makes it 5/6 and not 15/16 AD? Cornelius (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources and rough outline

Start. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)