Wikipedia

Talk:Scythians/Archive 7

< Talk:Scythians
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Sickofthisbs in topic Iranian origin
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Some issues with this article

Latest comment: 5 years ago65 comments8 people in discussion

As far i understand, the term "Scythian" is applied to the following topics, which are related to the following peoples:

  • Creators of this kind of art includes not only Scythians, but also Alans, Sarmatians, Sakas and even probable non-Iranian peoples like the Yuezhi, Wusun and Xiongnu
  • Inhabitants of this region includes not only Scythians, but also Alans, Sarmatians, and non-Iranian peoples like Germanic peoples, Slavs and many others.

Rather than focusing on the Scythians proper, this article appears to be a mish-mash of various things labeled "Scythian". A large portion of the article consists of forked content from Saka, who are actually distinguished from the Scythians by scholars.[1] The actual Scythians are barely mentioned at all. Many of the sources used in the article, particularly in the section about genetics, do not mention Scythians at all, and appears to be outright original research. The lead is also way too long. Some of the issues mentioned above, the length of the lead and the overemphasis on the Saka in particular, were in fact caused by me some years ago, and i would like to correct them. I'm inclined to do a substantial rewrite of this article using the following quality sources, which deal with the Scythians in detail:

Input would be appreciated. Krakkos (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, given the fact that subject has been over a long debates and changes of scholarly POV during the past 200 years, sometimes the subject of the article became to justify some POVs. Originally Scythians along with most of the related groups/ethnics were not considered to be related Indo-Iranians/Indo-Europeans, on the contrary. This view changes in the romantic natinoalist era lead by the new German theories, etc. However, as you reflected, it is also today pinpointed that not necessarily the term Scythian holds in some context, or at least arguable. The term Scythian has been used a various group of people even sharing no common ethnolinguistic heritage that leads commonly to debates, who is the source, etc. Somehow, in order to properly evaluate the things, we should in a way indicate the various history of classification and theories, and hopefully thing could be more consistent.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
Of course, scholarly opinion on the ethnolinguistic affiliation of the Scythians has changed throughout history, and there are still a wide range of theories promoted throughout the world. Information on outdated theories and fringe theories is relevant for a special section. The bulk of this article should however, per WP:RS, be based on the best modern sources available. Krakkos (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure, however to resolve the problems you pinpointed the so-called "outdated" theories (= historical theories and their evolution) should be presented in the beginning of the article (as I recall earlier there was such, but was sooner or later totally removed, so the reader does not have a clue of evaluation controversy and why some groups were treated or assigned to this name, not even by scholars but contemporary authors that would contradict recent scholarly opinion etc.). Regarding "fringe" tehories, I am not really favorizing them, however, in the end of the article, the "descent claims" may properly summarize some traditional historical views.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC))
@Krakkos: Rewriting the whole article or dividing it into two or more articles? The issues you have mentioned just need some clarifications. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Wario-Man: - I believe the most pressing issue is to make sure that the lead has a clear definition of what this article is about. Currently the lead is very ambiguous, stating (contrary to its source) that the Scythians were "Eurasian nomads... inhabiting large areas of the western and central Eurasian Steppe from about the 9th century BC up until the 4th century AD." The authoritative sources listed above all treat the Scythians as an Iranian people of the Pontic steppe who disappeared long before the 4th century AD. I believe we should base this article on that definition. Then we should transfer material which is beyond that scope of this definition (in particular content about the Saka), to more relevant articles like Saka, Scythia, Scythian languages, Scythian art etc. Krakkos (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Particularly I disagree to rewrite the lead because it is really accurate, since the problem of the language has never been resolved or verified, being one of the weakest point of the "Iranian" theories. We have to stick to the most accurate and neutral description, and your concern is openly reflected in the lead as well: The "classical Scythians" known to ancient Greek historians, agreed to be mainly Iranian in origin. It would look weird if you'd state factually they were Iranian poeples (that is just a widely accepted hypothesis recently), and after you'd doubt the langauge they speak would be just "probably Iranian". That's why we state first without any ethnolinguistic speculation what they were, and after we mention the most common scholarly view.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC))
Currently the lead basically defines Scythians as Eurasian nomads from the 9th century BC to the 4th century AD, and the article includes information on a variety of unrelated subjects called "Scythian". Within such a definition, we of course cannot make definite statements on linguistic affiliation. However, the definition of Scythians on Wikipedia misrepresents its own sources, and contradict the definition used by top scholarly sources. These top scholarly sources about Scythians, which i have linked to above, define the Scythians as the nomadic population of the Pontic steppe. Per the The Cambridge Ancient History of Denis Sinor, there is universal scholarly agreement that this people was Iranian.[2] Krakkos (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I have no prolem if you change to "nomadic population of the Pontic steppe", however next to the "top scholarly" sources (that some are unfortunately not accuarate enough and/or lazy in proper terminology sometimes) we have to serve NPOV and accuracy as also other RS tells about the linguistic problem. To your last sentence, again it is already described as referred above: The "classical Scythians" known to ancient Greek historians, agreed to be mainly Iranian.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
I'd say that we should follow the scholarly consensus per the rules. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Who said the opposite? Scholarly consensus is already presented in case you made this reaction to my earlier comment, but we should as well not to forget WP:NPOV per the rules. The two can co-exist without problem, as per many other articles.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
I doubt there will be POV issues if we simply follow the sources suggested by Krakkos. The current article seems rather a odd mixture of everything. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Unless, if we do not eliminate the information that the linguistic affiliation have never been resolved. Regarding the other parts of the article, yes, it may have been through of massive changes that I did not follow entirely, but it seems, many information were removed referred above, that would help the reader to understand more accurate the issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
It seems like we have an understanding that the topic of this article should be made more precise in accordance with what is written in the best available sources. I will begin the work shortly. Krakkos (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Please don't! Your fundamental mistake comes at the start, to assume there is any "precise" idea of "Scythians". There just isn't. So talk of "not only Scythians, but also Alans, Sarmatians, Sakas" is misplaced, a false dichotomy. Rather like "Viking", Scythian is an imprecise umbrella term for what was always an imprecise thing, about which we now have very imprecise knowledge. Your usual tactic of heavy research to dig up souces that appear to support your pre-determined ethnolinguistic frame of reference, and completely ignoring all others, is especially inappropriate here, and should be strongly resisted. The lead actually explains the limitations of the term pretty well. If you want to create a more precise article on the Pontic Scythians, go ahead, that would be useful, but I'd advise not messing with this one. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
While I do agree that the word "Scythian" seems to have been thrown carelessly around by some ancient scholars a la "Viking" (who, however, still are agreed to be mainly of Nordic stock, anyways there isn't even a proper emphasis regarding this "Scythian" error in the article), the ones in the Caucasus/Black Sea area (known later as Sarmatians and Alans if I'm not mistaken), and Central Asia/India (also called the Saka, basically another word for Scythian) were deffo of Iranian stock. I'd say give it a chance. Ultimately this article seems to be a mish mash of everything as of now. We shouldn't discourage other users to try to improve this hot mess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
No, as the long lead explains, the messiness of the term remains equally in modern scholarship, giving different meanings in different contexts, so a mish-mash, if that is what you want to call it - Celts and Vikings are other "legacy" terms scholarship is stuck with, and very similar in this. Note that Krakkos wants to remove the Saka entirely from the article, when as you rightly say, that is "basically another word for Scythian". I certainly do want to discourage Krakkos from his usual programme. We need an article that covers the full "Scythic" concept, and this is it. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Johnbod - you have done wonderful work here on Wikipedia on many subjects, especially art history. It is my understanding that "the full "Scythic" concept" is generally applied to art or various material cultures. Information on "Scythic" or "Scytho-Siberian" culture is thus more suitable at Scythian art, or perhaps a separate article is warranted. As shown in the sources linked to above, which are the top scholarly sources available on the Scythians, the Scythians, as a people, generally refers to the people of the Pontic steppe. We should base this article on such sources, rather than making it a mosaic of everything called "Scythian" in mediocre sources.
In any regards, the lead is not only way too long, but the initial sentence is a misrepresentation of the sources and complete original research. I will now add the top sources to the lead and phrase an accurate definition, and then we can discuss future changes later. Krakkos (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually "material culture" is all we know for sure about the Scythians, through archaeology, along with a few rumours from ancient authors who probably had little or no direct experience of them. We should therefore lean heavily on that. The lead is heavily referenced (and there are plenty more used in the past that are in the history. I wish I could be as complimentary about your past editing, but I can't. As I said, you should start an article on Pontic Scythians. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
In the best sources, the common name for this people is Scythians rather than Pontic Scythians. I have now cleaned the previous original research in the lead and replaced it with an intro based upon our best sources. This includes renowned archaeologists suchs as Tadeusz Sulimirski, Timothy Taylor, Askold Ivanchik and Yevhen Chernenko. Note that even Esther Jacobson, an expert on Scythian art, defines the Scythians as a separate branch of the Scytho-Siberians, living on the Pontic steppe.[3] Krakkos (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Note: Would be better to format all the citations into one single citation a la Alexander the Great ("a king (basileus) of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon[a]") to avoid Wikipedia:OVERKILL. Also, this is the first time I've heard of "Pontic Scythians", seems to be a rather unused term. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. This was a good suggestion. Will fix it asap. Krakkos (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Nobody talks about "the Scytho-Siberians" as a people - your usual twisting of sources, and defining those who agree with you as "the best". WE need a broad-concept Scythians article, and one of the Pontic Scythians would be nice. And that is what we will end up with. Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Scytho-Siberian or Scythic are the terms generally used for the broad-concept of Scythians. This has earlier been outlined by you at Saka.[4] As i showed earlier, Jacobson threats the Scythians as a sub-topic of this broader Scytho-Siberian concept.[5] This concept is very interesting, and i greatly appreciate the quality content on the concept that you have created. I will make sure that this content is preserved. Krakkos (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Now that we have a precise and sourced definition of the Scythians, i believe the next step is to adapt the content of the rest of the article to it. The most significant changes that should be made are a shortening of the lead, and the transfer of content about the Saka over to the article about the Saka. Most of the content here about the Saka is forked from that article anyway. As shown in the references from Muhammad Dandamayev, Tamara Talbot Rice and others, the Saka and Scythians are considered separate peoples, although closely related. This will make room for content about the actual Scythians, on which there is currently surprisingly little content in this article. There's lots work to be made and i'm looking forward to do it. Krakkos (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
It would help if the different terms are explained in the article, for example references to Saka are scattered in the article, but no clear explanation of how the term is currently used and how it is different from Scythians. Also the claim that "The Persian term Saka is used for the Scythians in Central Asia" seems contradicted by the term for Sakā paradraya which may refer to European Scythians. Hzh (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
See older versions - Krakkos has been busy removing such stuff from the article, though there just isn't all that much "clarity" to be found. The whole subject remains intractably imprecise, given our very limited knowledge. As shown by Krakkos's weak choice of authorities just above, the view that Saka and Scythians are or may often be the same, or that we don't know enough to meaningfully distinguish between them, is probably predominant in modern scholarship. Burt it contradicts Krakkos's usual blood & soil approach, which is especially inappropriate dealing with semi-nomadic steppes peoples. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hzh - Thanks for pointing this out. I will fix it. Krakkos (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just wanted to point out that I support Johnbod's approach to the subject here, which is a much more skeptical approach to the epistemology of ancient history, rather than the apparently rather positivistic approach to the subject that is being advanced by the editor revising it right now. I regret to say that I don't have much time available to dedicate to this subject, and I especially don't have time to get into editing disputes. But I am very skeptic of alleged improvements being made, and at a later date I may support going back to a previous version. Thank you,
Thanks - I think there is agreement that there is a "broad" definition of "Scythians" and a narrow one. Essentially, Krakkos is trying to turn the subject of the article from broad to narrow. I'm happy to have a narrow one as a different article, but we need to keep one on the broad meaning. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Johnbod - I agree with you that we have a broad and a narrow concept of Scythians. Per WP:BROADCONCEPT, we would then normally base the article on the broad concept. However, scholarly articles and books about the subject of Scythians are generally about the narrow concept. The narrow concept is the primary topic. This is illustrated by the sources i have provided both here at the talk page and in this article itself. I agree with you that the broad concept is notable and deserving of an article. I'd be happy to assist in creating one. Krakkos (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I find the recent major changes, and changing the scope of the article by limiting it only to "Western Scythians" (deleting info about Eastern Scythians) to be unconstructive. I support reverting back to the last known stable version until there is consensus for such a big change. Khestwol (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Khestwol & Warshy - It's unfortunate that you did not participate in this discussion during the two weeks when the proposed changes were being discussed at the talk page. I must note that information about the Saka has not been deleted, but merely transferred to the article Saka. The recent changes also included the introduction of a large number of scholarly sources and various other improvements. Reverting this article back to the old version will not only undo many hours of work, but also restore what in my opinion was an article of horrendous quality. Krakkos (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that I'm not really sure if there is a consensus in modern scholarship about the Scythians. There was an exhibition on the Scythians at the British Museum only a couple of years ago and it included artefacts from the Pazyryk culture [6][7] which you have moved to the Saka article completely. Obviously they still think it is part of the Scythian culture. You can pick and choose whichever scholar and highlight the particular narrative that they prefer, but I think it would not help the reader to understand the broader picture. I think a more balanced and nuanced approach would have been more useful. Hzh (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The Pazyryk burials are located in Scythia, they contain Scythian art, and the people buried there probably spoke a Scythian language. Peoples with such affiliations will sometimes fall under the broad definition of a Scythian. When the subject of Scythians is treated in detail in scholarly works however, it is generally the narrow definition, i. e. the people of the Pontic steppe, which is used. Please see this explanation by scythologist Askold Ivanchik. Krakkos (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't explain why Wikipedia needs to use a narrow definition used by some scholars. Those who organised the BM exhibition obviously didn't get the memo that the public should understand the Scythians in the narrow sense, it in fact suggests that they think the opposite is true. Wikipedia gives a broad view on a subject, it is there to help people understand, you can explain why some scholars think a narrow definition is preferable, but it makes no sense to exclude in the article what many still consider Scythian. Someone who attended the exhibition would be baffled by their exclusion in the article. Hzh (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Hzh. Also, in my opinion the content about Saka people should be restored to make the article WP:NEUTRAL. Since most people agree that Saka were a branch of Scythians, and everyone even says that they even spoke a Scythian language, then no reason to delete that content. Khestwol (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Thats a bold claim - do you have sources to back it up? And how is the article not neutral atm? Elaborate. HistoryofIran (talk)
I don't think Krakkos's work should be deleted. Most of it should go to a new, "narrow concept" article on the Scythians (Pontic steppe), Pontic Scythians, Western Scythians Royal Scythians, or some such title (we can't really have Scythians (narrow concept)). This would be very useful and match Sakas and other articles. But as several have said above, the narrow concept should not replace the broad one; we need both. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that we are dealing with two separate concepts, both of whom are notable. Based on the sources i have conferred with when working on this article, i would describe the concepts roughly as such:
  • Relevant sources
  • Relevant sources (these appear to be mostly about Scythian art rather than Scythian people)
The WP:COMMONNAME for both concepts is "Scythians". This generates an issue with regards to choosing convenient titles for the two concepts. Concept (2) has received a large number of passing mentions in various sources, but concept (1) has received more detailed coverage in specialized sources. Per WP:GNG, i would therefore say that concept (1) has received more notable coverage, and is thus the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. When the broad concept isn't the primary topic, WP:BROADCONCEPT does not apply. I suggest maintaining this article as being about concept (1), while creating a new article about concept (2) titled Scythian culture. I am in possession of The World of the Scythians, a scholarly work on concept (2) by Renate Rolle, and would be happy to write that article. The sources provided by Hzh from The Guardian and the British Museum are also very helpful for that purpose. Krakkos (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
To say "Concept (2) has received a large number of passing mentions in various sources, but concept (1) has received more detailed coverage in specialized sources." is completely ridiculous. Both concepts have many large bookshelves of coverage, much of it straddling the two. A typical distortion, supplemented by the usual wall of sources that allegedly support your view to drive the discussion into tldr country. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it is perfectly possible to cover both concepts in the same article. I'm wondering however if there is an element of WP:UNDUE in the narrative given - many sources say that they moved westward from Central Asia e.g. [15][16], therefore removing those people further to the East from the article may be choosing to side with a particular theory of the origin of the Scythians. Hzh (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Concept (1) is a sub-concept of concept (2). There is now an article about concept (2) at Scythian cultures. As already stated, concept (2) covers not only Scythians (concept (1)), but also Saka, Sarmatians, Massagetae etc. Concept (1) is just as notable as these other peoples, and deserves its own article, rather than being merged into the meta-concept. Krakkos (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The possibility of an eastern origin of the Scythians is indeed reported in a number of sources. There appears to to be lack of coverage of this in this article. The previous version did contain lots of (forked) information about the later history of the Saka in the Tarim Basin and India, but little about supposed 1st millennium BC origins in Siberia. Reverting back to the previous version will not solve the origins issue. Give me time and i will work on it. Krakkos (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I, too, think the article was better before the recent changes. The Scythians article in the Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity uses the broad concept. It seems better to make the article with the broad title the broad one in scope. These changes are going to get reverted, since consensus is clearly lacking. Srnec (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Britannica is not RS [17] --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
What? Srnec (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes please, revert the recent changes since there was no concensus to change the entire scope of the article. Khestwol (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Srnec: I was referring to the two links by Hzh up above. --HistoryofIran (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, there is no consensus as a RS. The objection to Encyclopedia Britannica is that non-staff contributors may be unreliable, but the article on Scythians is clearly edited by a named member of the staff. The objection is therefore not valid in this case. Your link to a personal talk page (which cannot have any kind of official status as a guideline) also mentions that the information may be out of date (many articles relies on old copies of EB out of copyright), which again does not apply here. Hzh (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The recent changes involve not only changes to the scope of the article, but also a wide range of other changes which were improvements regardless of the article's scope. Reverting back to the old version is a simple solution which will not only restore old problems, but generate new ones. It would be better to reformulate a broad scope, if this can be done through reliable sources, and then retransfer content about the Saka back into the article. Krakkos (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The article in The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity can be read here here. It restricts the Scythians to Iranian-speaking peoples, and also distinguishes them from the Sarmatians. The broad concept, which now has its own article at Scythian cultures, includes the Sarmatians and unrelated peoples such as the Cimmerians,[18] who were not necessarily Iranian-speaking.[19] The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity combines Scythians and Saka into one article, distinguishing them into "western" and "eastern" Scythian civilization respectively. As we have an article about "eastern" Scythian civilization (Saka), it it natural for Wikipedia to also have an article about "western" Scythian civilization. Such an article should be titled Scythians, per WP:COMMONNAME.
Please pay in mind that the The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity is a tertiary source, and thus not ideal. It's important to examine the secondary sources referenced to by The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. These can be examined here. The sources used are works by Christopher I. Beckwith, Tadeusz Sulimirski, A. I. Melyukova and Renate Rolle, most of whom i have already mentioned in this discussion. The best sources of these are in my opinion the ones by Sulimirski and Melyukova, which cover the concept of Scythians in detail and is published in The Cambridge Ancient History. Both of these sources use the so-called "narrow" definition, and are confined the the people of the Pontic steppe.[20][21] Krakkos (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure the Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity is any more a tertiary source than the Cambridge History of Iran and the Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Both are composed of parts written by experts that do not really introduce original material. Srnec (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The article in the Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity is half a page and written by Mark Dickens (MLD).[22][23] He is a religious scholar who serves as a "Contract/Sessional Instructor" at the Department of History and Classics of the University of Alberta.[24] He researches "connections between Syriac Christianity and Central Asia in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages."[25]
The article in the Cambridge History of Iran, which Dickens cites, is a fifty pages long scholarly review by Tadeusz Sulimirski, Professor of Archaeology at the University of London and "a giant of the archeology of the peoples of the steppes".[26]
The article in the Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, which Dickes also cites, is another fifty pages long scholarly review, written by Anna Ivanovna Melyukova, Professor of Archaeology and Head of the Department on Scythology at Moscow State University, who was a pioneer in the work on Scythian archaeology.[27]
It should seem obvious that the Cambridge History of Iran and Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia are better sources than the Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity when it comes to Scythians. Krakkos (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I think you misapply WP:COMMONNAME by the way you stripped the article earlier of mentions of Pazyryk, since it is part of the way the topic of Scythians is still presented to the public. The link you gave on Encyclopedia Iranica complained of use of the term by other people and says that both the broad and narrow concepts are used in archeological literature, which does not exactly imply consensus (it also suggests that the same problem applies to Scythian culture). It is perfectly possibly to give both a broad and a narrow definition in a single article, see for example Berry, one a common usage, one used by botanist, and both are clearly explained in a single article. Hzh (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think that the entire old version needed to be restored (although I do prefer the older lede particularly the first two paragraphs, broad and narrow concepts, etc.), but I think at the least a section on the various people who have been described as Scythians should be added, a brief history, how they are related (or not related), how they are used historically and currently including any academic disagreement on them. Hzh (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
With regards to the berry analogy, it is important to note that the botanical concept also has its own separate article at berry (botany). When it comes to berries, the broad concept is clearly the one which has received the most notable coverage. When it comes to Scythians i would say it is the other way around, due to the larger amount of detailed coverage this concept has received. For example, the Encyclopeida Iranica article you mention gives the broad concept a passing mention, but devotes the bulk of the article to the narrow concept. There are lots of passing mentions of "Scythians", as members of the Scythian cultures, in the sources, just as we have lots of passing mentions of "Africans" and "Europeans", as inhabitants of Africa and Europe respectively. Those concepts are however titled Demographics of Africa and Ethnic groups in Europe. As the broad-concept Scythians were similarly not a single people, but rather composed of many, often completely unrelated, peoples, a similar precise title should applied the the broad-concept Scythian article. A broad-concept article with such a title is now located at Scythian cultures.
I see from the editing history that an attempt was made three years ago to merge Saka into this article, and that lots of material was transferred from Saka into this article. While the proposed merger was not completed, much of the content from Saka has remained, and you subsequently did a lot of good work improving it. I understand if it is discouraging that this content which you worked on has been transferred back to Saka again. I agree that the difference between the narrow and broad concepts are still not satisfactorly explained in the article, and the possible creation of a separate section to do this is a good suggestion. If given the opportunity, i will work on this is the coming future. Krakkos (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I actually don't mind trimming the Saka part - IIRC a lot of it was added by another editor who added the same thing to the Saka article, and I could have, and should have removed more even in the Saka article. I don't have any attachment to my edits, merely that I think such wholesale removal as you did is not helpful to the readers who want a broad overview of the subject. Entries in Wikipedia are not scholarly studies but encyclopedic introductions to the subjects, therefore it there are different ways a term is used, whether it be a difference in popular or academic usage, or a difference in usage by different experts, then it should be explained. The point about the Berry article is that, whichever term you think is the main topic, both concepts are clearly explained in the main article. I also disagree that Scythian cultures is the same as Scythians as a broad concept (one is about a particular grouping of cultures, the other is about the people, they are separate if related topics), and as I said, there are also broad and narrow concepts of Scythian culture. Hzh (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia rarely creates separate articles for cultures and the peoples of these cultures. See Ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Sumerians, Minoans, Etruscans, Elamites etc. Your points are however valid. Our readers deserve a more comprehensive explanation of the various "Scythian" concepts in the main article. Due to the earlier suggestions of reverting every recent change to this article, i've been wary of making any further improvements. I will make the proposed improvements tomorrow. Krakkos (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment I'm OK with Krakkos' edits but I think details & info about "Scythian as a collective/umbrella term" should be restored. If we exclude such info, chaos, nationalistic rants, and disruptive edits will return to this article and its talk page. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Your concerns are understandable. I will work on ensuring that the article explains this satisfactorly in the coming future. Krakkos (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I've now made some changes in an attempt to explain more clearly the so-called broad and narrow Scythian concepts. One of the sources i had to verify while doing this was one added on 8 February 2015 by Johnbod,[28] who was at the time busy transforming this article into being about the "broad" concept,[29] apparently without any discussion. While adding the source Johnbod linked to TurkicWorld, a pseudo-Turkology website which claims Etruscans, Sumerians, Native Americans, Celts, Vikings, the Scythians and others were of Turkic origin. This website is a favourite resource for Tirgil34, and has since been added to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, ensuring that the link Johnbod added has been removed from this article.[30] The source is an article by Nicola Di Cosmo (mispelled as Di Cosimo by Johnbod), published in The Cambridge History of China. The article by Di Cosmo is available at Academia.edu, and on page 891 he writes the following, which Johnbod quotes out of context:

"Even though there were fundamental ways in which nomadic groups over such a vast territory differed, the terms "Scythian" and "Scythic" have been widely adopted to describe a special phase that followed the widespread diffusion of mounted nomadism, characterized by the presence of special weapons, horse gear, and animal art in the form of metal plaques. Archaeologists have used the term "Scythic continuum" in a broad cultural sense to indicate the early nomadic cultures of the Eurasian steppe. The term "Scythic" draws attention to the fact that there are elements - shapes of weapons, vessels, and ornaments, as well as lifestyle - common to both the eastern and western ends of the Eurasian steppe region."

Johnbod leaves out the next sentence, which is crucial:

"However, the extension and variety of sites across Asia makes Scythian and Scythic terms too broad to be viable, and the more neutral "early nomadic" is preferable, since the cultures of the Northern Zone cannot be directly associated with either the historical Scythians or any specific archaeological culture defined as Saka or Scytho-Siberian."

It is also worth mentioning that on page 924 of his article, Di Cosmo defines Scythians as the people who "inhabited the steppe north of the Black Sea", and distinguishes them from peoples further east.

The excerpts above show that while the broad concept is notable, it should not be covered under the title "Scythians". We now have a separate article for this concept, titled Scythian cultures. For more than four years, the scope of this important article has been defined by the misrepresention of a source through a pseudo-turkology website. It was about time for the scope to be narrowed back to where it should be. Krakkos (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

What a load of nonsense. I was not "transforming this article into being about the "broad" concept" just bringing better sources to the existing scope, which everyone has been content with for years. My first edit here was in February 2015, when the article looked like this. It is amusing to see that this was just after a load of edits by Krakkos, doing this - a considerable improvement, but singing a very different, broad concept, tune from his current one. That Di Cosmo doesn't himself like the terms hardly matters, as his preferred "more neutral "early nomadic"" shows no great signs of catching on. His description of what terms most specialists use is what is important. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Individual editors may judge whether it is nonsense. You did change the scope into being about Eurasian nomads in general .[31] Regardless of the popularity of his preferable term, Nicola Di Cosmo states that the broad concept of Scythian is "too broad to be viable". I woudn't say linking to TurkicWorld[32] can considered "introducing better sources".Krakkos (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
If you are describing the broad concept, as the article already was (and as your edits had intensified), then you have to qualify the Iranian-ness of the people you are talking about. You yourself are now using exactly the same passage by Di Cosmo that I gave a convenience link to in the link you are complaining about!! Johnbod (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Contrary to what you did, I'm quoting Di Cosmo directly, rather than through a fringe website, and i'm including an important extra sentence from the passage by Di Cosmo, where he writes that applying the term "Scythic" to the broad concept is problematic. These are significant differences. Krakkos (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a distinction between fact and opinion, Di Cosmo expressed an opinion about the broad concept of Scythian, but he is not disputing that the fact that broad concept exists. We don't take side on matters of opinion apart from taking account of WP:DUE. Note also that he is distinguishing Scythians or Saka or Scytho-Siberian from the cultures of Northern Zone, which doesn't doesn't help as far as deciding what to do with the large part of text you removed (e.g. on Saka). I'm still not sure what you plan to do with the Saka, at the moment it still reads confusing. Saka gets mentioned and then suddenly dropped for no apparent reason. You need to explain why what some sources called the eastern Scythians are not considered Scythians here. Explanation is necessary even if you want to drop them. I'm also dubious about some sentences, e.g "The ancient Persians used the term Saka for all nomads of the Eurasian Steppe, including the Scythians" ("all nomads" just sounds unlikely, I remember reading one source that used "northern Iranians"). Some sources say that the Persian Saka is simply what the Greeks called Scythians. Hzh (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

"Physical appearance" should include the results of archaeological digs

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The descriptions of the physical appearance of the Scythian peoples as tall fair haired caucasians are supported by the archaeological record. Almost every burial dig associated with Scythians or other Eastern Steppe Indo-Europeans (Tarim mummies etc) had the overwhelming majority of people as caucasoids with visibly preserved fair hair or the DNA for fair hair (minority were Mongoloid or mixed-Mongoloid with dark hair). Most mummies were around 6ft to 7ft tall. This can be seen in the Tarim mummies, the Wusun, the Tagar culture, the Karasuk culture, the Ordos culture, the Catacomb culture, pretty-much every ancient archaeological dig associated with either Steppe Iranians or unknown Indo-European groups as far East as Siberia and West China turns up tall hawk-nosed blondes. The current Physical appearance section is made to sound like the physical description is romantic or hearsay, but it is quite well backed-up by the archaeological record as well. STRENGTHOFSTORM (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Then you need academic archaeological sources describing the Scythians as tall fair haired caucasians. An examination of their artistic representation[33] states that "The homogeneous physical characterization of the Scythians, broadly Caucasoid, with low forehead and pronounced superciliary ridges, is remarkable, considering the heterogeneous picture indicated for the Dnieper region by human remains and the recognizably Asiatic features of some of the so-called Scythian archers in sixth-century bc Athenian vase-painting." We might be able to use that. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Gorytos

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article mentions "gorytos" in the Clothing section. As there is a Wikipedia article named Gorytos, could there be a link?165.225.38.206 (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Where is the warrior's gorytos

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The caption for the Scythian warriors figure states "The gorytos appears clearly on the left hip of the bare-headed spearman". The left hip of the bare-headed spearman is not facing the viewer. The spearman with his left hip facing the viewer has a shield obstructing it. The archer stringing the bow may have a gorytos on the back side of his right hip?165.225.38.206 (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Fix spelling

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I notice a mistake in picture description in this article: "An arm from the throne of a Scythian king, 7th century BC. Found at the Kerkemess kurgan, Krasnodar Krai in 1905. On exhibit at the Hermitage Museum". Instead "Kerkemess" should be written "Kelermess". I have no rights to edit this articles, and ask autorized members fix this mistake.

HEXOHOB (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  Fixed Thanks for pointing this out. Carlstak (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Origin

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

They were an aryan tribe around lake Urmia or Van, were the Neo-Assyrian Empire took horses for the first mounted cavalry (where the horses were big enough to be mounted), an army of horse archers that the Scythian copy, extending themselves to the north. --188.171.57.108 (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Article is locked, spelling error correction needed

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Whomever has edit privilege, please correct this.

One of the "is" to "if"-

"The Scythians had professional priests, but it is not known is they constituted a heridetary class. "


Moultingmajor (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Moultingmajor

The correct version would be:

"The Scythians had professional priests, but it is not known if they constituted a heridetary class. " Moultingmajor (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Done.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC))

Did Scythians speak and write in Avestan-Sanskrit?

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Did the Scythians speak and write in Avestan-Sanskrit?

Do the Scythians have a link with Zoroastrianism? Please kindly investigate this.

Best Wishes,

49.228.40.33 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The whole world would be interested any (written) evidence of the Scythian language, etc., however not even the present general assumption may be reinforced with anything.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC))

There are scholars, to this very day, very seriously arguing that Zoroaster was Scythian and/or even proto-European (please do not use the classical term). This claim is heavily disputed, though.

Check out: The Scythians: nomad goldsmiths of the open steppes.

Best Wishes,

184.22.248.42 (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


Search for the following term, "Neolithic" (that's without the quotation marks), in this paper: < https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(17)30291-4 >.

Also, according to myth and legend, the Scythians were supposed have an advanced society that somehow disappeared. We have this strange source, right here: < https://bstrategyhub.com/sanskrit-is-the-best-language-for-artificial-intelligence-says-nasa/ >.

184.22.248.42 (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Descent claims

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

I think that at the descent claims section Turkic origin allegations should be added. The claim that Scythians are Turkic is the main academic view in Turkic countries, even though it is described as pseudoscientific and pseudohistoric globally by mainstream scholars. Nonetheless, it is indeed a very widespread idea and notable. You can check Pseudo-Turkology article for further information. It might be added as something in the lines of

"Scholars from Turkic countries since early 20th century claim that Scythians are of Turkic stock, yet this notion is a minority view globally and perceived as pseudoscientific by wider academical community. Nonetheless, the concept of Turkic Scythians are officially taught in Turkish schools. The contention is especially popular among Turkish nationalist circles.".

What y'all think? --Gogolplex (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Here --Gogolplex (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree, as the fact, that it is indeed a very widespread idea internationally in Turkic communities and officially taught in Turkish schools is in itself noteworthy. All the best Wikirictor 07:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I was just being bold, if you were to revert edits at least state your opinion on the talk page per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, @Wario-Man:. All the statements are well sourced and I highly doubt that it would have been reverted if I hadn't written anything on the talk page to begin with... Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary --Gogolplex (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the addition was acceptable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
However, if you have some references that some Turkic tribes called Scythian in historical sources, it's OK to add them; e.g. see Massagetae and the content we added to it: "In the end, various Byzantine authors use the name of the Massagetae in a quite archaizing manner for Huns, Turks, Tatars, and related peoples (see Moravcsik, pp. 183f.), what has no relevance, however, for ancient times."[34] --Wario-Man (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I see; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
My idea was to present it as an unscientific theory, by arguing that Genetic mapping has confirmed Scythian descendence from the Yamna culture. However, i am perfectly fine without it. Sticking to the essentials generally ensures the highest degree of clarity. All the best Wikirictor 12:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Genetics

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Above all, thanks for adding these excerpts. However, they urgently need some logical and grammatical corrections. What, e.g., is this, "various peoples belonging to the Scythian cultures, including the Scythians, ". Further, avoid the passive voice, and instead of extensive journal citations (into the reference section), name author and year INSTEAD. Thank you. 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:A1E8:AB30:4C27:C0DC (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a new (very recent) paper on the genetic ancestry of the Scythians. For anyone interested, it is this one: 189.122.57.144 (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/13/eabe4414

Difference Between the Sakas and the Scythians

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Weren't the Sakas and Scythians different people? The Scythians were in Eastern Europe and Parts of Central Asia, but the Sakas were Iranian. The Sakas also derived from the earlier Andronovo culture and the Scythians were not. That is why I want to remove Sakas from the list. Cupcake547 (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

In the section on the physical appearance of the Scythians, please change the sentence "Pliny the Elder characterises the Seres, sometimes identified as Saka or Tocharians, as red-haired..." to "Pliny the Elder characterises the Seres, sometimes identified as Saka or Tocharians, as flaxen-haired..." The reason for the change is that Pliny's text explicitely says so, and there is no mention of red-haired Seres in Pliny's account. Hansalbertsson (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pliny's original text is not in English (quite confident of that one); so this might be an issue of which translation is being used. Please specify which translation it is... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, we should have the original Latin. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
wikisource:la:Naturalis_Historia/Liber_VI#XXIV (in paragraph 88). To be fair the translation cited in the article is here, and it does read "flaxen-haired". Whether that is the only possible translation of the Latin is another question (we all know translation is, at best, an inexact science, especially when we're two millenia removed from the context of the original writer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Turkic

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The culture of the Scythians is ancient Turk culture. Burial mounds were used by the Scythians and Turks. The Scythian dna also indicates that they belonged to a Turanid race . AzərbaycanTürküAze (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Here we go again... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
From the article: "Another 2017 genetic study, published in Scientific Reports, found that the Scythians shared common mithocondrial lineages with the earlier Srubnaya culture. It also noted that the Scythians differed from materially similar groups further east by the absence of east Eurasian mitochondrial lineages. The authors of the study suggested that the Srubnaya culture was the source of the Scythian cultures of at least the Pontic steppe.[38]"
They had nothing to do with the East Eurasian-origin proto-turkics. There is no such thing as "Turanid race", neither in genetics nor in looks are turkics similar to each other, and no one besides turks takes that term seriously since the 1940s ended. --Qahramani44 (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Iranian origin

Latest comment: 3 years ago33 comments7 people in discussion

In light of the recent retrieval of so much ancient DNA, the Iranian origin of the Scythians is potentially in doubt. One of the works cited in this article is from 1922, another from 1985. Getting a little long in the tooth. I recall one renowned anthropologist suggesting that in fact the population movement was from the north to the south, from the Pontic-Caspian steppe all the way into what is today India. A basic re-evaluation would seem in order. Dynasteria (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dynasteria: the Iranians originated in the Sintashta culture, southern Urals, from where they moved west, east, and south. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan:, the question I've posed is whether the Scythians originated from the "Iranians". The latter are a group in a modern territory to the south of where the Scythians lived. The Sintashta people apparently post-dated the Scythians so your statement implies the Scythians pre-dated both the Iranians and the Sintashtans. Therefore the Scythians could not have come from the Iranians. Not by a long shot. However, this is what the article currently states. It presents exactly the kind of mess I feel needs to be cleaned up. By the way, for anyone newly into this subject, as I was several weeks ago, the ancient DNA evidence has gone up a about a hundredfold in the last 10 years. The info in this article appears out of date. Dynasteria (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
"Iranians" in this context refers to ancientIranians, c.q. Indo-Iranian people. Sintashta (2200-1800 BCE) pre-dates Scythians 7th-3rd cent. BCE). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, quite right. According to this article the Scythians lived from about 700-300 BC. I was relying on a talk given by Barry Cunliffe (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ7Ia_L6bgk) where he designates the origin of the Scythian culture at around 4,000 BC with the domestication of the horse in the broader steppes ranging from modern Hungary to China. The other scholar I referred to was from UPenn. Can't remember his name. If you have a specific interest in this article perhaps you could comment on the possibly obsolete scholarship in the sources. Thanks. Dynasteria (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
For all I know, Cunliffe is treating the Sintashtans and the Scythians as the same people. Dynasteria (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
An ignorant question, if anyone cares to answer: Where is the new "ancient DNA" mentioned above being found? How? How is it being collected and by whom? I am just curious in general about the scientific soundness of these new/recent methods. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@Warshy:I'm no expert but you could take a look at David Reich's Who We Are and How We Got Here. He runs a big research lab at Harvard. Then there's a bunch of stuff going on at the Natural History Museum, London where they sequenced Cheddar Man's genome. The Max Planck Institute is sort of the originator under Svante Pääbo. Happy hunting! Dynasteria (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Dynasteria. warshy (¥¥) 16:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The question I still have is whether the Scythians were in fact descended from the ancient Iranians. If they were prevalent at around 700 BC, where did they come from? Did they replace earlier Steppe populations, like the Ancient North Eurasian peoples? Perhaps they brought the horse culture to the early Eurasian nomads, but that would have been a few thousand years earlier than the 1st millennium BC. Dynasteria (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems like WP:OR. Scholarship acknowledge them as Iranians, it's not our place to make our own speculations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Please don't throw accusations around. Is it original research to ask questions and express lack of understanding? How is it speculation to point out that some of the scholarship is 35 and 100 years old? If you are going to weigh in here you might be helpful and share your knowledge while answering some questions. I do understand now, having read the Sintashta culture article, that "Iranian" refers, or should refer, to a designation of an ancient group. However, this article, taken at face value, reads as if the Scythians descended from people in what is modern Iran. It takes quite a bit of effort to untangle everything. Dynasteria (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Seriously where does this article say Scythians were from Iran?! Iranian (or Iranic) is an ethno-linguistic group (read the linked article). Speaking an Iranian language does not mean they came from Iran. Iranian/Iranic =/= Iranian (from Iran). Wario-Man talk 05:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
What does the word "Iranian" mean to the vast reading public who don't happen know this one specialized bit of anthropological jargon? When you read a news article about the "Iranian" government do you imagine it's from 3000 years ago? That is what I am talking about. Dynasteria (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence of the second paragraph in the lead:
The Scythians are generally believed to have been of Iranian origin.
The average educated, intelligent reader would parse that as "Came from what is modern day Iran". It could very easily dispel confusion by right then and there by defining the term in the text. Dynasteria (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I've added a clarification. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks good! Dynasteria (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I am being a bit of smartass here (in that case I am sorry), but isn't that what's the Iranian peoples link is for? You can't explain everything in the lede. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
In my view an article needs to stand on its own and provide unambiguous information rather than create confusion. Here, the wording I objected to was jargon reserved to anthropology. It certainly promoted confusion in me. A newcomer or information seeker, like me, needs clarification. Frankly, following too many links can lead to information overload in my experience. But I get your point. Dynasteria (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but i reverted back to the stable version as i don't see any "confusion" here. The article says that the Scythians are of Iranian origin, Iranian being obviously an ethno-linguistic term unrelated with the modern political entity named Iran. Also, no offense, but you have written many things here while i see no sources to back your claims up, please keep in mind that this talk page is not a forum. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 04:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Read again; the term "Iranian" may not be confusing to you, but it clearly was to Dynasteria. Who, and what, are you writing for? For the people who already know everything? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: Firstly, my apologies for the markers, i did not realize that i removed them. However, with all due respect, i think that a veteran editor like you blatantly knows that your revert was unwarranted, as per WP:BRD, but that's not my main point. You have written in the article that the term Iranian is "a term referring to a number of people who have their origins in the southern Urals, from where they dispersed throughout the Asian steppes and Iran." according to whom ? As far as i can see, none of the cited sources is dealing with the origin of Iranian peoples, thus your wording includes unsourced claims in the article in my humble opinion. As to your question "Who, and what, are you writing for? For the people who already know everything?" i would say that people just have to click on the sources next to the sentence that they don't understand to get what "Iranian" means in this article. What are you going to do the next time an editor removes the word Iranian in the Kurds article on the ground that all Kurds are not Iranian citizens ? Are you going to write in the article that Iranian is "a term referring to a number of people who have their origins in the southern Urals, from where they dispersed throughout the Asian steppes and Iran." ? I suggest replacing Iranian with Iranic to make it clear. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 06:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
{yo|Wikaviani}} might be a good idea. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
We don't replace common academic terms with the better ones. Iranic is better than Iranian but it's still not a common term among historians, linguists, and other experts; e.g. compare Iranian languages with Iranic languages. However, you can clarify the lead section like this:
  • The Scythians are generally believed to have been of Iranian (Iranic) origin...
OR
  • The Scythians are generally believed to have been of Iranian (an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group) origin...
Or any other kind of clarification. If you change Iranian to Iranic on this article, some users may consider this article as a standard/template and it would cause some issues and problematic edits on the other articles; e.g. someone changing Iranian to Iranic on the articles of WikiProject Languages. Wario-Man talk 09:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for you remark, i agree with it. Let's just wait to see if Joshua Jonathan agrees with your proposal.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Both are fine; slight preference for the second. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I edited the article with the first one, as it is more precise (Indo-European is too vague) and removed the unsourced claim about the place of origin of the Iranian peoples. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
"Iranian = an Indo-European languages ethno-linguistic group" was not vague. I wonder how you interpreted it as vague. Wario-Man talk 04:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I think that Iranic is more accurate, since Indo-European refers to a wide range of peoples, some of them being unrelated with Iranian speaking peoples (most of European peoples are Indo-European but not Iranian speaking). Besides, it was your first proposal. Please feel free to let me know if you think that i'm mistaken. ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
You seem confused about it. IE would be unclear if my suggestion was something like this:
  • The Scythians are generally believed to have been of Indo-European origin...
But as you see in my above comments, I didn't suggest something like that. The content in () actually clarifies/defines the term Iranain. So I suggest another one:
  • The Scythians are generally believed to have been of Iranian (or Iranic; an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group) origin...
Looks better? Wario-Man talk 07:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks very much for that proposal, i edited the article accordingly. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The actual average educated, intelligent reader would parse that as "Indo-Iranian" or "Iranian peoples", which is further enforced by the fact that it contains a hyperlink to an article about Iranian peoples. You know very well that this article is not talking about Iran's citizens. You've ulterior motives and you're pushing an agenda. I cannot believe my eyes that somebody like you convinced someone with edit rights to add in "Iranic". All instances of the newly crafted term "Iranic" must be replaced with Iranian. The formal academic term is "Iranian" and not "Iranic". Its simple correct term is "Iranian peoples", not the newly crafted "Iranic peoples". If the suggestion edit is declined, then I demand a valid academic answer as to why said decision was made, Joshua_Jonathan. Sickofthisbs (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scythians/Archive_7&oldid=1070536608"