Talk:Scythians/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Can this be any more redundant? What is "Iranic"? The formal academic term is IRANIAN.

The Scythians are generally believed to have been of Iranian (or 'Iranic'; an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group) origin

@Joshua_Jonathan, @Wikaviani, this is highly inappropriate and factually wrong. There is no academic backing for "Iranic". When you hover your mouse above "Iranian", it leads to the Wikipedia article for IRANIAN PEOPLES. The formal academic term is "Iranian" and not "Iranic". Its simple correct term is Iranian peoples or Indo-Iranians, not the newly crafted "Iranic peoples". Thus, "Iranic" must be changed back to Iranian. If the suggestion edit is declined, then I demand a valid academic answer as to why said decision was made. Sickofthisbs (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Read the thread above please. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If you took a look, you'd see that I've read and responded to it. There is no valid academic answer in there. The newly crafted term "Iranic" falls under WP:OR and WP:POV unless someone is able to provide a valid academic answer. The correct term is Iranian for historical and academic reasons. Accept it because you are conceding that you've made a mistake since you're unable to provide an academic answer to justify the new lead. Sickofthisbs (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, this is "Iranic" en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Iranic. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 16:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article about a newly crafted term is not a valid academic answer. Sickofthisbs (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The lead actually uses both terms, sounds fair enough in my opinion. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm asking for a valid academic answer and not what you think is fair. There's also nothing fair or logical about the new lead because there was no confusion or ambiguity with the old lead since there's a hyperlink on the word Iranian leading to an article about Iranian peoples. It is very clear to what it's referring to. The lead should be corrected to "The Scythians are generally believed to have been of Iranian origin", as it was before. Sickofthisbs (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Spelling Mistake: "Archaemenid" should be Achaemenid.

Spelling Mistake: "Archaemenid" should be Achaemenid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.128.114 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed – thanks for pointing this out! Wham2001 (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Genetic section

I have removed the whole section (WP:TNT) per WP:BANREVERT see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turukkaean. I hope we can reinclude the section based on tertiary or review papers (there are quite a bit) in a reliable way. Any help is recommended!Whhu22 (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I restored it and will later check what parts are distorted. This is probably a better approach, as there are indeed inline citations which verify much of the written paragraphs. As such I will take a more balanced approach.Whhu22 (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The content seems largely fine, but I am not sure if we need two "genetic" sections? We have one sub-section about Scythian genetics in the Origin section, and an additional one at the end of the article. I personally would merge the later with the former, but will ask for community opinion about that proposal.Whhu22 (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: what do you think from the proposal to merge the two genetic sections into one?Whhu22 (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

No support. The genetics section edited by Turukkaean is bad and should be removed. Much, much misinformation and misrepresentation. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I am currently looking at more edits of Turukkean and or removing/correcting them.Whhu22 (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I refrain from commenting, and let other editors decide. The development in the talk page here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkic_peoples#Sock_edits) is beyond my understanding. A case to case approach for every citation is necessary. Hoping other users will comment and help us...@Erminwin:, @Qiushufang: Any thoughts here?Whhu22 (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Survival of Scythian/Sarmatian langauge into the 1890s in Crimea

In the 1880s and 90s, when German philologists were combing through Crimea and the Ukraine, looking for various Germanic people--Goths or otherwise--that may have survived the ages, came across a few settlements in Crimea where the folks were using mysterious language(s) that at a closer examination, proved to be the modern-time survivors of the ancient Scytho-Sarmatian. Their records show that the language(s) were close to those of modern Ossetians (the only related people to Scythians/Sarmatians to survive into the present day). There were much Slavic and Turkic importation, but clearly these/this surviving language(s) was Scytho-Sarmatian Aryan/Iranic. in grammar and structure. Seemingly, that is that last time anyone encountered Scytho-Sarmatians in their ancient Crimean habitat...

An exhaustive, scientific article about this appeared about 20 years ago in the US. Would anyone has more information on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:c6a5:1700:21f:5bff:fee9:91aa (talk • contribs) 23:42, 26 July 2015‎

Could you link me this scientific article from 20 years ago? 2600:1006:B004:EC03:71A1:8652:33C7:525E (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Map Error

Why is the Roman Empire labeled on this map supposedly depicting 100 BCE?

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scythia-Parthia_100_BC.png#mw-jump-to-license 2600:1010:B012:885C:EDA7:70D4:EB15:5737 (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2022

Change "region known as Scythia, in what is modern-day Ukraine and Southern Russia" to "region known as Scythia, in what is modern-day Central Asia, Ukraine, Southern Caucasus and West-southern Russia. Neonnr (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

. Neonnr (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead

@Antiquistik: There is way too much between the subject and the verb in the first sentence. Is there are reason we have to reproduce the "Names" section there? I would delete it, but I wanted to let you slim it down if you prefer or check that it is all covered with sources in the "Names" section first. Srnec (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, completely ridiculous. Something needs to be done. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Srnec: @Johnbod: I have removed the names from the first paragraphs and replaced them by a note linking to the "Names" section. Is this fine? Antiquistik (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not supposed to be.

WP:HOARD. Ethnicity articles have a serious problem with these unsightly piles of chunky information, which add up to a harmony-destroying eyesore. Delete, delete, delete! - Hunan201p (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This lead has so much junk in it it should be trimmed hard—blindlynx 13:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Middle Ages

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ewwhitf (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Amgride, Jbherm1.

— Assignment last updated by Dwlehm1 (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes

User:Antiquistik, what are you up to now? This edit not only adds another huge bleeding chunk, without saying where it's from, but changes dozens of references from precise one or two page ranges to a FIFTY page range. This is not acceptable, and I am minded to just revert, especially as you seem to be pursuing your merge proposal when discussion on it is so far opposed. Anything to say? Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC).

@Johnbod: This had nothing to do with a merger. I merely added some additional information (that was not from either the Scythia or the Iškuza pages and would not fit on either), and reordered the "Archaeology" and "Culture and society" sections so the information can be more easily processed by a reader. I had no choice but to change the form of the references for now because there were issues with them as I initially inserted them, and I will need to rework them over the next few days to improve them. Several parts of the article had issues before I started overhauling it, and it will unfortunately require some more work until these are solved.

As for the merger proposal itself, I haven't done anything to implement it. And I do not plan to do so as long it is not approved by consensus. Antiquistik (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, really? Frankly, I'm finding this hard to believe. I will give you a few days, but if the situation isn't resolved acceptably, I won't be shy about massive reverts. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: You have not bothered to read the content of my edits if you are finding my explanation "hard to believe." I have simply reordered two sections to facilitate flow of reading and processing information, and fleshed out the "Archaeology" section (now moved to a page of its own) with very basic information on the topic that should have been added to it long ago. I have also already corrected the issue with the references.

Most ancient history entries on Wikipedia are of abysmal quality, and have various problems such as use direct citations of Classical authors and various dubious sources as references or have been stubs since the 2000s despite significant information these being published for a long time, and these entries all need to be rewritten and fleshed out one by one, which is what I am doing.

So, if you have any issue with my edits, please just be clear about the said issues to me instead of repeatedly ignoring my responses and being condescending without actually addressing anything as you have been doing. Antiquistik (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022

Similarities with Türkic Culture Both Scythians and Türks were nomadic people, both dwelled in Pontic steppes, both used Runic letters, both built Kurgans for their burials, both had balbals. Genetic studies show that Scythians are very close to Türks.

Tanermutlu (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2022

In the section "Physical Appearance" in the first line, the original author has written "In Histories, the 5th-century BC Greek historian Halicarnassus of Halicarnassus ". I suggest that this should read "In Histories, the 5th-century BC Greek historian Herodotus of Halicarnassus" to correct the name of the author of "Histories". LMNjuice (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Mvqr (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on the deadlock concerning the proposal to merge Iškuza and Scythia into Scythians

I've been editing the articles relating to the Scythians over the course of several months, and since most editors tend to favour splitting pages after they reach a certain size, I split two further pages, Iškuza and Scythia, covering the phases of Scythian history respectively in West Asia and in Europe, out of the main page covering the Scythians.

However, trying to split it has resulted into three articles, with both Iškuza and Scythia requiring large amounts of material regarding the role of the prior and subsequent histories of the Scythians in the creation and destruction of those states copied from each other and from the Scythians page to exist since they are both about immediately preceding/succeeding states created by the same continuous population group. And because Iškuza and Scythia both cover immediately preceding/succeeding but also partially overlapping parts of the history of the Scythians, multiple sections and sub-sections of each page covering the culture, population, external relations, etc of these states also had to be copied from the Scythians page (e.g. the "Background" sub-section and "Society" section in Scythia, and the "Origins," "Impact," and "Legacy" sections of Iškuza). Moreover, the Scythia page as it exists now also functions as a WP:Semi-duplicate, given that most of the information relating to this polity also is also the same basic information that is required on the Scythians page.

Given this resulting situation, I have started a merger proposal to resolve this issue, per WP:MERGEREASON: Overlap, Context, not because I support a merger for the sake of merging itself, which I do not favour, but because Iškuza and Scythia require too much context and the information on these pages is too intertwined with each other.

The problem is that, despite months having passed, the discussion for the merger proposal is still at a deadlock due to the bad faith of one user who has consistently opposed the merger on the basis of verifiably untrue accusations while other opponents to the merger have refused to engage in further discussion even when the issues they had have since been addressed or corrected. Due to this, we have three users opposed to the merger, and three users (including myself) in favour of it, while the other supporters of the merger have been telling me to resort to WP:BOLD and implement the merger.

In this situation, I am bringing this issue to Wikipedia's dispute resolution noticeboard and to W:RFC with the hope of being able to resolve this deadlock. Antiquistik (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose merge; while there is some overlap of context on documents, this hardly seems a reason to merge functional and distinct articles. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support merge. I think User:Krakkos laid it out pretty nicely in the preceding discussion. Daniel Charms (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Come to think of it, I'm changing my vote to neutral. I became involved in this discussion because User:Antiquistik was looking for someone who could advise them re: ways to resolve the deadlock and I happened to be the one to respond. My advice was to seek for input from more people via WP:DR and/or WP:RfC, which they've dutifully done. Given my role in this, it's probably better if I do not get involved in the voting, though, even if I support the idea in principle. Daniel Charms (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• @Antiquistik: You already have a thread open earlier on this page about whether to merge or not, please don't start another one. Also, WP:RFC is not for use on merge proposals, see WP:RFCNOT and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Whether to add RFC for merger or redirect proposals. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: I didn't know that, and I apologise. How do I close this WP:RFC? Antiquistik (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

"Eastern Iranian"?

I came here for the merger discussion but after many pages of it my head hurt. If/when it settles down to a consensus of what is actually being argued about I may opine. :-) While here I noticed that the Scythian led described them as "Eastern Iranian". This is not something I have ever heard before and basically every paper I have read, at least those written in modern times, lists an origin of the Caucasus/steppes (occasionally the Danube region) which unless things have changed since I took geography is not "Eastern Iranian". Anyway, might want to consider if that really makes sense. Thanks.Ploversegg (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ploversegg: To my understanding, the Eastern Iranian refers to a genetic origin, related to the Indo-European migrations: what we would consider Iranic groups came from the same steppe area as the Scythians, see also the Indo-Iranians, so an ancient Scythian would share much ancestry with an ancient Persian, and probably also with many Iranic groups of today. It is separately mentioned that they mostly lived in the steppes; it is not a geographic descriptor but an ethnic one. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ploversegg: Eastern Iranian refers to the linguistic affiliation of the Scythians, i.e. that their language belongs to the eastern branch of the Iranic languages family just like Bactrian, Chorasmian, and Sogdian do, while languages such as Median, Parthian, and Persian belong to the western branch of the Iranic languages. It is not a description of the geographic origin of the Scythians, who are agreed upon to have originated in the steppes.

As for the merger discussion, the main problem is that, unlike @Iazyges:, who has provided adequate reasons for their opposition, even if I disagree with those, many of the other opponents of it are refusing to discuss at all: @Johnbod: has levelled some bizarre and baseless accusations against me as reason to oppose the merger, and when their criticisms were addressed, they resorted to repeating the same accusations while refusing to discuss anything; and user @Fowler&fowler: has completely dismissed the page altogether and has refused to further elaborate once the issues that have been the reason for their opposition to the merger were resolved.

Either way, this situation is unsustainable and is also leading me to the conclusion that Wikipedia's decision-making processes do not function properly if users can block consensus generation on such an important discussion relating to such an important article while refusing to actually participate in the discussion.

My guess is that, seeing as the rest of the discussion isn't moving forward, if you nevertheless still wish to participate in the discussion, you will need to opine on my initial reasons for proposing the merger. Antiquistik (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Physical appearance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Warrior_of_Scithians.png

This image shows someone of Middle Eastern descent, not at all what is described in the section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians#Physical_appearance

It seems that the scythians were blondes and gingers according to contemporaries. This "Self-made" image with the Arab look needs to go. Nowhere does it say the scythians looked like Arabs. 96.237.143.207 (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

There almost certainly were "Arab looking" Scythians given the broad range of Scythian territory, at times stretching down in to the Levant.

However, you are correct to point out that this image is "self-made", which would make this the epitome of original research in the physical appearance section. However the extent to which this photo is actually "self made" is unclear to me, because its parent image (Скиф VIII в до Р.Х..jpg) was removed from Wikipedia commons for a non-free license violation.

The point is not that we remove this picture because of what we think Scythians looked like, which is in the same spirit of original research, but because it's a modern artistic impression of dubious origin.

There are other problems with this section, such as mentioning Alans, on the basis that they are "closely related" linguistically to Scythians. The same can be said for the Seres, who may not have even been Iranian in tongue. In my view, this section should only mention descriptions of Scythians and people living in Scythian territory. Not broad, all encompassing descriptions of Indo-European steppe people. We could also add content about preserved Scythian remains. - Hunan201p (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: I would object to your point on the Alans not needing to be included in the article. The Alans are not described as "closely related" to the Scythians solely because they were an Indo-European steppe people or because they were an Iranic people, but because their language formed part of the Scytho-Sarmatian branch of the Scythian languages. Antiquistik (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Antiquistik: Hi Antiquistik, I have no objection to inclusion of Alans in the article based on their historical connections with Scythians. The question is, based on those connections, including linguistic similarity, should we associate their recorded phenotypes with Scythians? It's a bit of a leap that is teetering on original research. Alemany describes the Scythians as Eastern Iranian speakers but notes thst evidence for their language is "very scanty".[1] I am not sure if there is really consensus for classifying them as "Scytho-Sarmatian". Nevertheless I won't revert you if you want to add back that information. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: You do have a fair point in suggesting that linguistic relationship does not mean similarity of physical appearance, and I would agree on leaving the relevant parts of the article as they are now. Antiquistik (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Range of Scythians.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Additional Research

I have a source that provides many Circassian and Ubykh cognates for a few components of names of warrior women of Scythian tribes in the Caucasus. The source claims that while most of the Scythian tribes spoke Eastern Iranian languages (related to Ossetian and Saka languages), a few spoke Northwest Caucasian languages (the book says "Caucasian", I found so far only etymologies from Circassian and Ubykh). Scythian tribes were a very diverse group of culturally and somewhat linguistically related tribes. The book is by a Stanford professor of comparative mythology and religions, Adrienne Mayor, called "The Amazons: Lives and Legends of Warrior Women Across the Ancient World" which draws from a lot of existing research on Scythians as well as new archaeological evidence compared with various Nart sagas, Siberian shamanisms, and Herodotus's and Strabo's (among others) accounts. https://www.amazon.com/Amazons-Legends-Warrior-across-Ancient/dp/0691170274

I have added recent research .. the research previously included is from 1990 that is 30 years ago... this person is very accurate in saying the work on this page is extremely outdated to the point it is not accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRightofHerWay (talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Want to discuss removing a statement under lifestyle

Lifestyle[edit source]

Hello - I wanted to discuss deleting some of the statements in the below paragraph. I am not sure if the statement regarding hunting was/in faxt true - because to my knowledge the cattle kept weren't typically animals for slaughter but more so for milk (obviously some were likely used but doubtful enough to sustain peopple) thats porbably why they have deer all over their art and jewrely because it was a food source. Also - in the necklace there is obviously a man sitting there milking a cow... and what looks like a woman churning butter or doing something else... anyway my point is this text makes 0 sense - especially in regards to the women and children spending their time in wagons ? lol.... i am not sure what society EVER had that luxery but i can assure you this statement has 0 truth to it. These people had to live, they had to take care of animals, milk animals, do laundry, cook, meal prep, clean, probably gathered local greens.. make pottery, clothes, fix wagons make wagons, make bedding etc. no one was livin' out the good life sitting in a wagon all day - sorry. not sure what planet this person is on... but in particular if women and kids are sitting in a wagon all day and men are out riding horses who the hell is doing all of the normal day to day stuff?

Anyway I propose to keep this:

A gold plaque depicting a Scythian rider with a spear in his right hand, 2nd century BC The early Scythians tribes were nomadic pastoralists, and their lifestyle and customs were inextricably linked to their nomadic way of life; the Scythians were able to raise large herds of horses, cattle and sheep thanks to the abundance of grass growing in the steppe. By the time the Scythians were living in the Pontic Steppe, beginning in the 7th century BC, they had become semi-nomadic and practised both nomadism and farming, although the Scythian tribes living in the steppe zone remained primarily nomadic.

and delete this: while hunting was primarily done for sport and entertainment; among the more nomadic Scythian tribes, the women and children spent their time in wagons where they lived, while the men spent their lives on horseback and were trained as fighters and in archery since an early age.

if anyone has any objections please provide them with sources showing the above statement is in fact true - that all of the men spent their days riding horses and were trained for war/to fight while women and kids sat in wagons all day. Please provide facts to show that this is logical, such as who took care of day to day activates TheRightofHerWay (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. The statements are historically grounded, but need not be taken at face value. Herodotus and several other Greek authors observed that Scythian or Iranian women (and in some cases, men) lived primarily in wagons doing things like "women's work". It is also recorded that Amazon women regarded Scythian women as "Greek women [meaning not equal in status, like women in Greece] who lived in wagons".[2] Archaeological evidence seems to suggest that some Scythian women had fractures associated with horse riding, and there is evidence of Scythian women buried with militaristic grave goods, so it is believed that the idea of Scythian women spending all day in wagons was not always how it really was.[3] it is pretty clear however that the Scythians were not as gender-equal as the Sarmatians.

Probably Herodotus and the others were observing the more privileged Scythians, who obtained livestock feed and other goodies from allies. Scythians themselves may also have had divisions of labor. A milk-based food economy can free up a lot of time for things other than food production. But this is my original research. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I know the greeks kept the women at "home" so i will look into this...your comment actually has me even more curious about the greeks ... like now im wondering if they weren't even allowed out to go to the market and crap. Anyway, i will look and see if I can find references from Herodotus about the women living in wagons similar to how the greek women were forced to stay at home, I just hadnt seen any. Will let you know what I find TheRightofHerWay (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

So, I have googled for hours now and I can find no direct source other than this Wikipedia that states Herodotus or any other greek ever wrote anything of the like.

In fact, the only publication I can even find that remotely suggests something similar references an anonymous writer and has no reference to an actual historical record/citation. It merely states 'pseudo-Hippocrates(Opens in new window)' wrote that: 'The Scyths… have no houses but live in wagons. These are very small with four wheels. Others with six wheels are covered with felt; such wagons are employed like houses, in twos or threes and provide shelter from rain and wind … The women and children live in these wagons, but the men always remain on horseback.'

as opposed to when it referenced Herodotus, it used a reference to his actual historical record (Book 4, 5th century BC)

The Greek historian Herodotus(Opens in new window), in his Histories (Book 4, 5th century BC), wrote: 'None who attacks them can escape, and none can catch them if they desire not to be found.' Assyrian inscriptions from the 7th century BC also refer to fighting Scythians, with one mentioning a peace treaty secured by marrying off an Assyrian princess to a Scythian king.

Introducing the Scythians | British Museum https://www.britishmuseum.org/blog/introducing-scythians

The reference to a pseudo anonymous author for a quote, absent no authority does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for proper authorities of citation. Unless someone can provide a direct citation that is an actual valid authority by wiki standards ... it needs to go.

Please provide me a proper citation to use. I have done my part and spent significant time trying to back up what you are saying but I cannot. If you can post a legitimate source for a citation here then i will be happy to update the text with the citation to give it legitimacy but as of right now there is none and it does not belong on wikipedia if that is the case. TheRightofHerWay (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

and I am sure you will agree that if a legitimate source does not exist to support the information - then the information does not belong on Wikipedia - since we are all here attempting to promote truths of information for others. If it as true as you believe, it should be easy for you to supply a reference for me to update the text to legitimize it. Like I said, i spent significant time and could not find one. TheRightofHerWay (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to merge with stale discussion; some support for distinguishing content rather than merging Iškuza and Scythians. Klbrain (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

---

@Johnbod, Srnec, and HistoryofIran: It seems that I did not follow the proper procedure by mistake for my earlier proposal for merging the Iškuza and Scythia pages into the Scythians article. Therefore I am re-doing the proposal according what I hope are the proper WP:MERGE procedures.

WP:MERGEREASON: Overlap, Context: Much of the information on both Iškuza and Scythia, both as states and as geographical areas, are inextricably part of the history and anthropology of the Scythians, and because of this about half to three-quarter of both pages require their contents to consist of material copied from each other and from the Scythians page to exist. The Scythia page also functions as a WP:Semi-duplicate, given that the geographic denotation has never denoted any area independently of the location of the Scythians, and has always varied depending on which areas were inhabited by the Scythians at any given time. Therefore I am proposing that the contents of both Iškuza and Scythia should be merged into the Scythians page. Antiquistik (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Preliminary Oppose per the others. You have now started THREE different proposals. Have you closed the others, or linked from them to here? Your reasons, as ever are vague and unclear. You don't address the length issues at all. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I have closed the merger proposals on Talk:Scythia and Talk:Iškuza and redirected the links of the tags on the main pages to this discussion.

I don't understand what is vague about my proposal, given that I have been clear about them: the Iškuza and Scythia pages are both pages that cover two nomadic states created by the Scythians, but since they are both about immediately preceding/succeeding states created by the same continuous population group, about half to three-quarter of both pages consist of information copied from each other and from the Scythians page regarding the role of the prior and subsequent histories of the Scythians in the creation and destruction of those states. And because Iškuza and Scythia both cover immediately preceding/succeeding but also partially overlapping parts of the history of the Scythians, multiple sections and sub-sections of each page covering the culture, population, external relations, etc of these states also had to be copied from the Scythians page (e.g. the "Background" sub-section and "Society" section in Scythia, and the "Origins," "Impact," and "Legacy" sections of Iškuza). Which means that only half to less-than-half of the information on the Iškuza and Scythia pages are original to only those pages.

Therefore I am proposing a merger because moving all of this information to one single page would bring all the substantial information in one place without losing any context and will reduce the amount of duplicate information on Wikipedia. These fit the WP:MERGEREASON criteria of Overlap and Context.

As for the page lengths, @Krakkos: and I have trimmed down the Scythians page by moving information from its two largest sections to separate pages at Scythian culture and Names of the Scythians. And since only about half or less of the information of Iškuza and Scythia is original information that is not already found on the Scythians page, only half or less of the information from these pages would need to be moved to Scythians, a possible merger would not drastically increase the length of the article or the size of the page. Antiquistik (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Support The content at Scythians, Scythia and Iškuza is so intertwined that it should be combined and discussed together. The right place to combine it is in this article. Antiquistik knows the content and the topic very well, and will definately merge it in a seamless way without increasing the size much. The primary topic for the term "Scythia" is the Scythians themselves and their kingdom, so Scythia should be a redirect to to Scythians. Meanwhile, Scythia as a historical region in classical antiquity is a notable topic that is not entirely the same topic as the Scythians. Wikipedia should have a short article about that historical region, like we have of Hibernia, Caledonia etc. We could merge the current content at Scythia to Scythians, move Scythia to Scythia (region) and write it anew, and make Scythia a redirect to Scythians. The following Oxford sources may be of use for writing a Scythia (region) article.[4][5][6] Krakkos (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Why would Scythia (obviously the name of a region) redirect to Scythians (obviously a people) when we have an article at "Scythia (region)"? Srnec (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The reason would be that the geographic term Scythia in its narrow definition (that is, when referring to the northern Pontic region) depended on the location of the Scythians, rather than as a geographic term independent of the whereabouts of the Scythians.

The historical users of the exonym "Scythia," the Greeks and Romans, used it to denote the regions inhabited and ruled by the Scythians, and their definition of that geographic term appears to have changed based on the expansions and migrations of the Scythians. For example, once the Scythians had been displaced by the Sarmatians, the Graeco-Roman sources stopped calling the Pontic "Scythia" and started calling it "Sarmatia", and they instead used the term "(Lesser) Scythia" only for the small states created by the Scythians in Crimea and in Dobruja. And the most up to date contemporary scholarship similarly tends to follow this strict definition of Scythia as merely referring to the areas inhabited by the Scythians and/or as the states formed by the Scythians (see Batty, Ivantchik, Sulimirski, Taylor cited in the Scythia page).

Although further elaborations on the use of the name "Scythia" as well as the broader use of the name by some Hellenistic sources for the whole of the Eurasian steppe might either possibly need to be on a separate page, or could be a section on the Scytho-Siberian world or Eurasian nomads pages. Antiquistik (talk) Antiquistik (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• We just had three new article creations (some with content moved from Scythians):

Scythian culture
Names of the Scythians
Scythian descent claims

and a page move:

Scythian cultures → Scytho-Siberian world

I note this for the benefit of anyone watching this discussion. If we are splitting content out of this article, why can't we just treat Scythia as a split-out article? Srnec (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod, Srnec, and Krakkos: These articles were split from Scythians because the information they contain is able to stand on its own without significant duplication of the information on the Scythian pages though. If they demanded the amount of context (i.e. information duplication) that Iškuza and Scythia require, then it would have been better to keep them on Scythians as they were. For that matter, I think that Scythian descent claims could eventually be folded back into Scythia, provided it is reworked to be shorter and simpler enough while maintaining all of its important information.

Likewise, whether Scythia as referring to the geographic term should be included within Scythians or be a page of its own is definitely tricky, and I would say it depends to what extent the information relating to the geographic term is intertwined with the information on the Scythians page and/or the information on the Pontic Scythian kingdom, given that, as I have mentioned before, the geographic term tends to be mostly be defined as whatever area was inhabited and/or ruled by the Scythians at any given time.

For now, I would suggest that we initially try adding a "Location" section on Scythians that will cover the geographic term of Scythia, and we could later decide whether we should split it into another page or keep it on Scythians depending on the extent to which the information requires further context and/or drastically increase the page size, and on what conclusion we can collectively agree on concerning the merits of creating a separate page vs those of keeping this information on the Scythians page. Antiquistik (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod, Srnec, and Krakkos: Do we have any consensus regarding this merger proposal yet? Antiquistik (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we can say no. You have gone on making massive changes without any consensus, indeed against initial opposition, setting up and closing a variety of proposals. You are asking people to comment several moving targets, with extremely vague and non-specific explanations for your changes (which you re-use several times). Doing this keeps the possibility of simply reverting all your changes to the status quo ante a live one. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: My edits, including moving content from one page to another, were not the subject of any discussion relating to any merger proposal, and I did not see any opposition to making those. As I have explained before, these edits had to be done irrespective of whether a merger was or not proposed because the concerned information moved was about phases of an archaeological culture, due to which keeping the said information on another page made that information incomprehensible.

I do admit that my initial merger proposals were not properly done. I have been a Wikipedia user for only one year, and I unfortunately did not properly understand how the procedures function before setting up those. However I have since then tried to correct myself by attempting to follow the procedures to a T. The present merger proposal on talk:Scythians does follow the WP:MERGE procedures, and I closed those other proposals which did not follow the procedures at your heeding.

As for "extremely vague and non-specific explanations," I do believe I have been clear about those before:

"Much of the information on both Iškuza and Scythia, both as states and as geographical areas, are inextricably part of the history and anthropology of the Scythians, and because of this about half to three-quarter of both pages require their contents to consist of material copied from each other and from the Scythians page to exist. The Scythia page also functions as a WP:Semi-duplicate, given that the geographic denotation has never denoted any area independently of the location of the Scythians, and has always varied depending on which areas were inhabited by the Scythians at any given time."

and:

"the Iškuza and Scythia pages are both pages that cover two nomadic states created by the Scythians, but since they are both about immediately preceding/succeeding states created by the same continuous population group, about half to three-quarter of both pages consist of information copied from each other and from the Scythians page regarding the role of the prior and subsequent histories of the Scythians in the creation and destruction of those states. And because Iškuza and Scythia both cover immediately preceding/succeeding but also partially overlapping parts of the history of the Scythians, multiple sections and sub-sections of each page covering the culture, population, external relations, etc of these states also had to be copied from the Scythians page (e.g. the "Background" sub-section and "Society" section in Scythia, and the "Origins," "Impact," and "Legacy" sections of Iškuza). Which means that only half to less-than-half of the information on the Iškuza and Scythia pages are original to only those pages."

I don't understand what is "extremely vague and non-specific" about these explanations, and neither do I understand how they can be made clearer, given they are as clear as can be. Antiquistik (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Iškuza without duplicate sections is pretty short and would better serve readers as a section of this article—blindlynx 14:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Srnec: I think it might be necessary for you to reiterate your positions you provided during the previous merger proposal on the talk:Scythia page on the present merger proposal too. For the sake of clarity on where you stand over the present discussion, and also so we can discuss the points of contention further. Antiquistik (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not think any full merge of articles makes sense. Existing articles are too long for that. I also think we probably need more articles, not less. What might make sense is for the title Scythia to redirect here, but only after the existing article there is clarified (e.g., to be political or terminological in scope) and moved to a different title per RM. And any big change in scope there should probably go through an RFC first. We do, after all, have articles on three different Scythiae minores.

@Blindlynx: What duplication are you talking about at Iškuza? It looks pretty different to me. Srnec (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

And, to reiterate my own position for the sake of clarity: I overhauled the Scythians page and initially moved content concerning the Scythian periods in West Asia and in the Pontic Steppe to the Iškuza and Scythia pages because it appeared more judicious to me to have the information spread across multiple pages at the time.

However, when I did move the information, I had to copy a lot of information from Scythians concerning the origins and migrations of the Scythians into West Asia and out of West Asia and add that information as the "Origins," "Rise," "Aftermath" and "Impact" sub-sections on Iškuza. And when I did the same for Scythia, I similarly had to copy a lot of information from both Scythians and Iškuza to and add that information as the "Background" sub-section, and the "Society" and "List of rulers" section.

The resulting problem has been that around half of both the Iškuza and Scythia pages consist of information copied from each other and from Scythians, and removing that information removes crucial historical and social context required to understand the actual non-copied information that forms the focus of each page. In consequence I have started this merger proposal, not because I support a merger for the sake of merging itself, which I do not favour, but because Iškuza and Scythia require too much context and the information on these pages is too intertwined with each other. These issues fit the WP:MERGEREASON criteria Duplicate, Overlap, and Semi-duplicate in support for merging Iškuza and Scythia into Scythians.

So far, @Krakkos: and I are in favour of the merger proposal, @Blindlynx: supports merging Iškuza into Scythians, while @Srnec: has not taken a position. @Johnbod: has opposed the merger proposal, although they have not replied any time I have I addressed their criticisms and keep on repeating these same criticisms of me being "vague and un-specific" although I have been clear what my reasoning is for proposing a merger from the beginning, although I definitely apologise for making novice errors when I first attempted starting the merger proposals on the talk:Iškuza and talk:Scythia. Antiquistik (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The Scythia article covers both pontic scythia and iskuza with the background section in scythian being a paired down version of the first half of the history section of iskuza (origins through conquest of media). I think one that the scythia article should cover all of scythia—iskuza through pointic. The easiest way would be to merge them but, having a scythia article that provides a general overview and seprate detailed pontic scythia and iskuza is also an option—blindlynx 16:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Opose Looking briefly at the three articles, I think that too much content will have to be cut in order to merge 3 fairly large articles. Perhaps the two articles proposed to merge into Scythians should be put together to create a large article about these Scythian countries.Jacqke (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jacqke: The problem is that about half of the content of both the Iškuza and Scythia pages contain are copied from Scythians and from each other. For example, the "Origins," "Rise," sub-sections which form about half of Iškuza are merely recopied content from the Scythians page, and similarly, Scythia's "Background" section is recopied content from Scythia and Scythians, and its "Society" and "List of rulers" sections are just content copied from Scythians and Iškuza.

I had initially moved content from Scythians to Iškuza and Scythia with the hope that splitting would make the information better understandable, but they each ended requiring large amounts of information to be also copied from Scythians and from each other to provide historical context that makes the focus of each article understandable. The result is a lot of WP:MERGEREASON Duplicate, Semi-duplicate and Overlap on the three pages, which creates a big problem that needs to be dealt with. Antiquistik (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Antiquistik and Antiquistik: I understand. I have two articles that need work to be separated, as copying one into the other made them similar. I really won't oppose a merge. I like the Scythians article and could see it expanding without getting into geographical distinctions (for instance, I have been briefly reading on culture and the roles of women--that by itself could make an article much larger). Best wishes Jacqke (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose mainly because the page itself is dubious, POV, history, that deserves analysis (like bootleg liquor), deletion, and a few convictions in its wake, not consumption. Any page that has garbage such as "In artworks, the Scythians are portrayed exhibiting Caucasoid traits," is part of a topic that a historian looking for tenure will not touch with a ten-foot pole and on which Britannica has a stub written by the general editors, not a historian, is not worthy of being fussed over. To languish in oblivion is the best quick option. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler: The source for that "Appearance" section is suspicious too. It was published by the Institute for the Study of Man. I have found only two results for organisations by this name, the first being a New Age group, the second being an eugenicist think tank run by the white supremacist Roger Pearson, neither of which are acceptable sources. Antiquistik (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Hunan201p: with respect to The Institute for the Study of Man, @Fowler&fowler: has above raised valid concerns about the information on Scythians using it as source. Antiquistik (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but this has also been raised at RSN, and the consensus seems to be that JIES is reliable. The book itself is published in the Journal of Indo European Studies, which is owned by the Institute of the Study of Man. The people running JIES aren't linked to the other journals owned by ISM, and the author of this book, which has been positively received, was a awarded a doctoral degree under J.P. Mallory. This book was his thesis. So I would say it is definitely a reliable source. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: Now you have reintroduced the opening part "In artworks, the Scythians are portrayed exhibiting Caucasoid traits". You will not be surprised that like User:Fowler&fowler, I strongly object to using such a statement in Wikivoice. Please think of a tweak that faithfully reflects the source, but nevertheless does not perpetuate concepts that have been long discarded in mainstream anthropology. The merits of having a section called "Physical appearance" at all are debatable, but I will postpone the discussion until the broad outline of the article(s) discussed here is settled. –Austronesier (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Yeah, I see what you mean. Day doesn't seem to be talking about racial terms, but is only making a point about the commonality of descriptions of Indo-Iranian pigmentation traits, broadly speaking. Thus the inclusion of Alans, Sarmatians, etc in this section would be out of place, as these groups are only "related" to Scythians in sharing an Iranian language. We could also say that this section over-relies on one source (Day) when there are archaeological and genetic sources that also provide evidence for Scythian appearance, some of which suggest diversity not seen in the current section. In any case, I think Antiquistik's removal of the Sarmatian and Alan content was probably a good thing, that should have been done. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, Day did mention the old racial terminology on page 56, saying specifically what the Scythians were *not* portrayed as Mongoloid, but it's pretty clear that the bulk of pages 56-57 mostly concerns pigmentation traits of Indo-Iranians in general, and Day nevertheless does give evidence from a Greek physical description of a Scythian-related people, which is interpreted as non-'Caucasoid'. It does appear that there is a WP:OR interpretation of this book as it stands, and I think the best thing to do is to just rely on it as a source of historical physical descriptions rather than to wrestle with the interpretation of the author's judgments concerning the outdated anthropological terms. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Before this merger discussion is over, I am going to take issue with @Johnbod:'s opposition to the merger proposal.

As can be seen, I started this proposal with a very clear reasoning behind it, namely that "Much of the information on both Iškuza and Scythia, both as states and as geographical areas, are inextricably part of the history and anthropology of the Scythians, and because of this about half to three-quarter of both pages require their contents to consist of material copied from each other and from the Scythians page to exist. The Scythia page also functions as a WP:Semi-duplicate, given that the geographic denotation has never denoted any area independently of the location of the Scythians, and has always varied depending on which areas were inhabited by the Scythians at any given time."

Despite this, Johnbod has refused to engage each time I have addressed their objections, and they have repeatedly claimed that my reasons for requesting a merger are "vague and unclear," even though I have laid my reasons clearly and reiterated them in further detail in response to their opposition. Johnbod also appears to not be knowledgeable about the subject, seeing as they accused me of WP:HOARD for fleshing out the former "Archaeology" section of the page by adding basic information about the topic to it.

In this light, I am left with no choice but to accuse Johnbod of participating in this discussion in bad faith. Antiquistik (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I simply reluctantly gave up trying to devote the time necessary to follow your reshuffling and cutting of content in the course of the discussion, not to mention your various procedural "mistakes". One thing is clear from the above: you do not actually have consensus for the changes you have made, with several more "opposes" than "supports", but went on making them anyway, while the discussion was going on. With this being the case, a wholesale revert to the the status quo ante remains a valid option. Your replies to points people made, though long, are remarkably low on relevance and specificity, and pretty repetitive. As for good faith, you have stretched mine to, or perhaps beyond, breaking point. I find it very hard to believe you have been editing with it here. In future I will be treating you as a suspicious character, and if I see that similar major changes are being done without a proper discussion (in the right place), I will not hesitate to revert until that discussion takes place. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I am aware that there are more Opposes than Supports, which is why none of my edits were aimed towards implementing a merger. If you haven't noticed, I have been overhauling the Scythians-related Wikipedia entries for months by adding basic information available from academic sources, and this requires significant editing independent of any move towards any merger.

And I have repeatedly clarified that these edits you have an issue did not require the consensus from this merger discussion because they were not relevant to the merger proposal, which is easily verifiable. Even your initial accusation that I was allegedly insisting on implementing a merger was in reaction to my fleshing out of this page's "Archaeology" section, and the material I edited was not contentious enough to require discussion to be edited, which you would have known had nothing to do with any merger proposal had you been familiar with the topic or even just checked the contents of the edited material or the sources I cited, but you kept on making uncharitable assumptions upon uncharitable assumptions even though my claims are easily verifiable.

Moreover, implying that my procedural mistakes were intentional with these scare quotes is also unjustifiably uncharitable. I have been editing on Wikipedia for merely one year, and, sorry, but it's going to take time for me to understand all the procedural rules properly.

And I would require evidence of my responses to other participants of this discussion being "remarkably low on relevance and specificity, and pretty repetitive," because I am having trouble seeing where have I been so.

As for accusing me of being a "suspicious character," this is absolutely uncalled for, and nothing I have done, my mistakes included, warrants such treatment. Antiquistik (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Srnec: I have changed my earlier position regarding Scythia as a geographical location, and I am willing to support your position that a separate page should be created for it while maintaining my request for merging the present contents of Iškuza and Scythia pertaining to the West Asian and Pontic Scythian kingdoms into Scythians. I will also need to require @Srnec:, @Blindlynx:, @Jacqke: and @Fowler&fowler: to clarify your present positions regarding the merger proposal, seeing as some of you had previously changed opinions on some things as the discussion has developed (and Srnec had changed positions about the merger during the previous proposal on the Scythia talk page), and some of the issues you three had previously pointed out have since been corrected by other users. And, although so far the discussions relating to the other oppositions to the merger have developed quite positively, I am finding myself in the unfortunate position of maintaining my accusation that @Johnbod: is acting in bad faith seeing as they have from the beginning been again and again repeating the same accusations that are very clearly and verifiably untrue and they keep on ignoring all my attempts to address their issues and while moving their goalposts. Antiquistik (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I for one think this is a good proposal. The overlap between the current versions of "Scythians", "Iškuza" and "Scythia" is very substantial. The appropriate article to give comprehensive coverage of the Scythians and their kingdoms is the "Scythians" article. A short article about Scythia as a historical region, akin to Germania, Illyria, Thrace etc, could be written with the help of the following sources.[7][8][9] You have contributed immensely to improving our coverage of the Scythians, but the current obstruction of the merger seems be impeding further improvement. I suggest you apply WP:BOLD and just go for it. Once the merger has been successfully made, I'm sure many of the current skeptics will recognize the value of your changes. Krakkos (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Krakkos: Do Wikipedia's rules permit me to resort to WP:BOLD in the face of such substantial opposition to the merger? Antiquistik (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Antiquistik: As long as the Scythia article is preserved in a modified form, I don't think there will be such substantial opposition. You are the primary author of the "Scythians", "Scythia" and "Iškuza" articles, and have a greater familiarity with the content and the topic than any other editor here. If you think merging your content as proposed would be an improvement to Wikipedia, then i see no reason why should not go ahead with it. Krakkos (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, given all @Antiquistik:'s recent expansions of all these articles i doubt any information will be lost by consolidating them into this article—blindlynx 19:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Given the present deadlock and the bad faith of some of the participants to the merger discussion and the lack of response of the participants whose concerns have been corrected, I will accept the recommendation of @Krakkos: and @Blindlynx: and go for WP:BOLD. Antiquistik (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I will also add that, so far, blindlynx, Krakkos and I support merging the articles. Jacqke initially opposed the merger but later rescinded their opposition. @Fowler&fowler: opposed the merger on the basis of some of the information in the article being dubious, although that information has since been removed, but they haven't responded to any request for their present position so far. @Srnec:'s position is still unclear for now. And Johnbod has kept on opposing the merger based on bad faith arguments while refusing to participate in any further discussion when their points are addressed. Even though it seems that I will have no choice but to go for WP:BOLD, per Krakkos's suggestion, I would nevertheless still like to ask for @Fowler&fowler:'s and @Srnec:'s input before I take any further steps. Antiquistik (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Antiquistik, you created two articles on Scythiae Minores, moved the page on the Roman province to create a dab page, then reversed course and merged the new articles into Scythia. Now you want to merge Scythia with Scythians? I can't quite figure it out and it seems to me that you are still figuring it out. I default to splitting and keeping articles shorter. Srnec (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Srnec: The articles covering the two Scythiae Minores were created when the data I had at hand suggested that there was little to no continuity between them and the Pontic Scythian state (ie Scythia). I merged them into Scythia only after the new data I obtained (Melyukova 2000) showed that was more significant continuity between Pontic Scythia and the two Scythiae Minores, which, in light of the information available on these latter two states being already very scant, made keeping them as two articles on their own quite untenable.

Regarding the proposal to merge Iškuza and Scythia into Scythians, I am not sure how it is a "now" issue, since it has been under discussion for multiple months before I even created the two Scythiae Minores pages, as you already know given you have participated in this discussion from the beginning. The issue regarding these pages is more serious than regarding the two Scythia Minorae pages though, as Iškuza, Scythia, and Scythians each copy large chunks of information from each other: for example, the Origins sections of Iškuza and Scythia are just copies of the section of the Scythians page detailing the origin of the Scythians; likewise, the West Asia section on Scythia is slightly trimmed copy of the contents of Iškuza. And all of this is due to the fact that Iškuza and Scythia are both merely two phases of the same polity created by the Scythians, which means that the political and social history of these is one and the same with the history of the Scythians, which in turn makes it impossible to create stand alone articles for the Scythians and for their polities in West Asia and in the Pontic Steppe without each page requiring large mounts of context and overlap of information, which in turn means that way too much of the information on each page needs to be copied from each other for them to exist, and creates large amounts of intertwining of the information contained in these three pages.

This is why I have been proposing to merge the contents of Iškuza and Scythia solely relating to the Scythians kingdom in its West Asian and Pontic phases into the article for the Scythians per WP:MERGEREASON criteria for Overlap and Context, while maintaining, as you suggested, a separate page for the geographical region of Scythia similarly to how there are articles for geographical regions like Caledonia, Germania, and Thrace. (If anything in my argument is unclear, please do ask for further explanations). Antiquistik (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

While the question of whether Scythia and Iškuza are one subject or two has been discussed for months, the lead section of each article barely differentiates the two, is mute on the their relationship and even the existence of the other. The basics need to be covered.  —Michael Z. 21:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: Yes, I will expand those as soon as I feasibly can. @Iazyges: The problem is that Scythia, Iškuza, and Scythians aren't really distinct from each other. The contents of the "Society" section of Scythia are the same as those of the "Culture and society" section of Scythians because the anthropology of the Pontic Scythian state and of the Scythians are one and the same. And the "Origins" section of Scythia is a slightly trimmed version of the "Early History" section of Scythians and of the bulk of Iškuza, and the "Origins" section of Iškuza is a slightly trimmed version of the "Early History" section of Scythians. And trimming these sections of Iškuza and Scythia further removes too much context necessary for these pages to be understandable to the average reader. The problem with the overlapping is not one of some overlapping sources, but a large amount of overlapping content, and after trying to figure out how to solve this issue for months, a merger still seems to be the preferable option to me. Antiquistik (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Antiquistik: that seems understandable to me; the two are interrelated to a high degree. I think this is more a problem of the current form than what it could be; I see no real reason to merge the three. Perhaps too simple a comparison, but the articles for Roman people, Western Roman Empire, and Eastern Roman Empire also share a large degree of context, for similar reasons. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Iazyges: What would be your proposed solution to the current issue for our present situation in this case, then? Antiquistik (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: I have expanded the lead sections of both Iškuza and Scythia. Please let me know if my expansions are satisfactory or if they need any corrections. Antiquistik (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Antiquistik: IMO there's a bit of material that can be removed to reduce it to summary style, with more material being kept on the appropriate article, especially as each section has its own article on this page. A little bit of trimming would go a long way toward making the articles more distinct, I think. This mostly applies to the Scythians article, but there's perhaps a little that can be taken off the other two. I don't think that's strictly necessary, but it would help a little I suppose. As the distinct articles get developed (and perhaps more splits take place) I think they will better develop distinct identities. This is more an area I find interest in rather than have expertise in, but I will help with what I can. I would also like to see the two redirects (Scythian kingdom in Crimea and Scythian kingdom on the lower Danube) be made into their own articles, but I don't have the time or present source-access to really manifest that desire. IMO that now-merged Scythia Minor (Crimea) article that I reviewed could be split out again, I believe. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Correction: Both Scythian kingdom in Crimea and Scythian kingdom on the lower Danube previously had articles that were later merged, whoops. I am in favor of restoring both, to allow for greater distinction in the articles. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

One thing that would go a long way towards fixing the articles IMO is fixing the FUBARed refs on this article; the mix of directly cited, HARVNB, and sfns on other articles, with notes throughout, is not ideal, but the formatting here is completely unwieldy; I'll see about fixing it tomorrow. I plan to standardize it (and the others) to SFNs, and inserting EFNs for the notes themselves, unless anyone is severely bothered by that. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Iazyges: I merged those pages because new data I had obtained suggested more continuity between them than the previously available data suggested. Though the continuity between Iškuza and Scythia appears to be way more extensive, seeing as the sources treat them as merely two phases of the same polity, unlike your example of the Western and Eastern Roman Empire, which were separate offshoots of the same state. Given that, would splitting the pages for the two Scythiae Minores while merging Iškuza and Scythia be an adequate alternative? Antiquistik (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Antiquistik: I would prefer all four articles for the states be separate to be honest; politically similar but locationally different is not without precedent, indeed this is similar to the progression of the Byzantine Empire from the Roman Empire; if they are historiographical separations, which they appear to be, even if one led directly to the other, I think they deserve separation, such as the Roman and Byzantine Empires. I'm not deeply emotionally invested in the subject, but I think there should be four articles for four historiographical distinct states, however similar, as a starting point; and we can make the actual content within distinct from there. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Unfortunately, I cannot agree with this proposal. The level of social and political continuity between Iškuza, Scythia, and the Scythians all suggest to me that single article for them, much like how there is a single page for Canaan and the Canaanites, or Phoenicia and the Phoenicians, or Ancient Greece and the Ancient Greeks, would be better adapted for the Scythians and their history. Antiquistik (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Antiquistik: Not sure that's the strongest example for you given that basically every example you have has a page for the culture, and one for virtually every state that exists from that culture; which is hundreds for the Greeks. Their situation is essentially the same as I propose. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Iazyges: I apologise, I was not going for an exact analogy, but for more of a rough comparison of situations when the history, anthropology and sociology of a population and of a geographical area tend to be one and the same, as is also the case with the Scythians and the polities they have created, where much of these are one and the same for Iškuza, Scythia, and the Scythians. I would also clarify that I am not emotionally invested in this issue either, and my request for merging the various pages is due to problems of conveying the information within them within their proper context.

Additionally, could I ask you what you meant in your older reply about the issue with these pages being with their current form? Antiquistik (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Antiquistik: I just meant how the pages read right now; there's some unnecessary overlap of content in the articles (for instance, a unified king list in the Scythians article that I've removed) that make the overlap larger than it need be. It's not that I disagree that an overlap exists, this is necessarily true in pages that are as interrelated, it's just that I don't think it is so strong as to justify a merge. I retain a preference for four articles for the disparate states, plus one for Scythians, and however many forks need be made, such as the case in Scythian culture. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Unfortunately, I cannot agree with this option, for the various reasons I have mentioned during our discussion. Antiquistik (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Additionally, after re-reading the various concerned pages, the sources (especially Ivantchik anf Olbrycht) describe Iškuza as merely an extension of the Scythian kingdom of the steppes, which means that Iškuza and Scythia cannot be described as "politically similar but locationally different," but that Iškuza was nothing more but a temporary extension of Scythia, which is another argument in favour of merging at least these two pages. Antiquistik (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Since I never actually said the words apparently, I oppose merging the articles. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Iazyges I believe you did say so in the request for comment attempt section. But it is nevertheless a good thing to re-state it in the proper space of the merger proposal discussion as well. Antiquistik (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Additionally, I think that how the Medes page covers both the Medes and the Median Empire, and how Ammon, Moab, and Edom cover both the states of Ammon, Moab, and Edom, and the Ammonite, Moabite, and Edomite peoples, are better examples for what I see as an appropriate model, rather than Canaan, Phoenicia, or Ancient Greece. Antiquistik (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @Antiquistik, that is a big improvement and a job to be proud of.  —Michael Z. 15:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-merge content glut

The introduction here of a bunch of material from Scythia has in turn created an article length issue, with this page no clocking in at 92kB or readable prose - seems like a prime candidate for a "History of X", i.e.: History of the Scythians, child article. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Despite this article having become a bit too long, I must say that the situation is drastically better now, after the merge. Hystory of the Scythians could be a good solution.—Alalch E. 18:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"Central Asia" as term for origin

The Central Asia doesn't bring to mind north of the Caspian in the first place, does it? Another term should be used. --95.24.70.8 (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have rewritten the second part of the page because there were several occurrences of the same claim being repeated as well as dubious claims that were not found in any of the sources cited, and I have also removed the content relating to the Central Asian Scythians and moved them to the Saka page, where that content belongs.

I nevertheless had to remove the information from Belfiglio (2023) and Anthony (2007) because they lump together the social roles of women among the Pontic Scythians and Sarmatians although there were significant differences among the societies of these two populations. Information on the Pontic Scythians specifically will be needed to correct anything inaccurate from the older sources of Sulimirski (1985) and Sulimirski & Taylor (1991).

I did not rewrite the information from Day (2001) because I do not have any access to the text.

I will need to rewrite the "History" section eventually to break down the large paragraphs and make the citations more specific. Antiquistik (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Legacy

Hi @Antiquistik!

I see you are rewrote many Scythian content, just I would like to tell you that I plan to add some Hungarian, Avar, Hun related things to the legacy section later, of course using by academic sources. A lot of old foreign and all Hungarian medieval sources (+all from Hungarian royal court) claimed that the Hungarian (and the Huns and Avars) have Scythian ancestry (I do not doubt that many other folks have Scythian ancestry, Scythian influence was huge and Scythia had many tribes). All horse archers, there are also several Scythian treasures which same to Hungarian items and mythology (like the Scythian magic deer). I already rewrote many Hungarian medieval contents, there are some quotes from the old sources with pictures: Chronicon Pictum, Chronica Hungarorum

Some examples among many:

File:King Ladislaus I Hungary - Haplogroups.jpg

Leo VI The Wise (Taktika): “The Scythian nations are one, so to speak, in their manner of life and their organization; they have a multitude of rulers, and they have done nothing of value, living for the most parts as nomads. Only the nation of the Bulgarians, and also that of the Hungarians, give thought to a similar military organization, which makes them stronger than the other Scythian nations as they engage in close combat under one commander.”

Regino of Prüm “In the Year of Our Lord 889, the Hungarians, the most unrestrained and most merciless savages, came out of the land of Scythia and crossed the marshes that are continually flooded by the River Don. If we read the notes of the historians, we will learn some things about the location of Scythia and the customs of the Scythians.”

Pope Sylvester II in a document glorifying the German Emperor Otto III, in connection with the coronation of King Stephen of Hungary: “Ours, ours is the Roman Empire. The fruits of Italia give it strength, Gaul and Germania provide soldiers, and we may include the powerful King of the Scythians.”

From laws of King Andrew I of Hungary: “In Hungary, every Hungarian or newcomer who does not abandon the ancient pagan custom of Scythia, who will not immediately return to the true religion of Jesus Christ and will not obey the holy law given by the glorious King Stephen, punished with the loss of his head and goods." Paragraph 4: "Turn away from the unholy Scythian customs and false Gods and destroy Idols.”

Godfrey of Viterbo (Pantheon): “The country of the Scythians and Avars, i.e. the former Hungarians.”

Gesta Hungarorum “The Hungarian people, most valiant and most powerful in the tasks of war thus originated, as we said above, from the Scythian people that is called in its own language Dentumoger.”

Chronicon Pictum “And this Captain Árpád had a special dignity in Scythia, it was the custom of his clan, according to the Scythian law and tradition, that he went alone before those who went to war and those who retreated, saying, therefore he was the first to enter this land before the other captains going to Pannonia.”

Chronica Hungarorum “No one doubts that the mother of the Huns, namely the Hungarians, was Scythia: Even at the beginning of their exodus from Scythia, the famous fighting virtue glowed in them, and now, in our day, their swords are flashing over the head of the enemy.”

Priscus was on a diplomatic mission in the court of Attila the Hun. Priscus, Jordanes called Attila as a Scythian.

(I can show, also Hungarian individuals have genetic high number of sample matches with Scythian, Sarmatian, Asian Scythian, Saka, Hun, Avar samples)

Genetic studies also confirmed this, DNA of the Asian Huns:

Genetic evidence suggests a sense of family, parity and conquest in the Xiongnu Iron Age nomads of Mongolia - Human Genetics “Our findings confirmed that the Xiongnu had a strongly admixed mitochondrial and Y-chromosome gene pools and revealed a significant western component in the Xiongnu group studied.” "We propose Scytho-Siberians as ancestors of the Xiongnu and Huns as their descendants.”

File:Szent laszlo.png

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2 “Scythians admixed with the eastern steppe nomads who formed the Xiongnu confederations, and moved westward in about the second or third century BC, forming the Hun traditions in the fourth–fifth century AD.”

According to the DNA studies:

Scythian tribes moved east (archeologists found a lot of blonde mummies in the Tarim Basin in Western China). The Asian Scythians played a key role in the formation of the Asian Hun Empire. The predominantly European-looking Asian Scythians merged with the local population in East Asia and southern Siberia, followed by other European Sarmatians during the Xiongnu period, later Alan elements. The Asian Hun Empire had a civil war and the losing Xiongnu tribes belonged largely to the Europid anthropological type who were displaced to Central Asia in the first century. Expanding to the west they integrated the related Sarmatian tribes and mixed with Sakas, and then they suddenly emerged as European Huns. Genetic continuity is detected between Xiongnu and European Huns.

https://indo-european.eu/2020/08/xiongnu-ancestry-connects-huns-avars-to-scytho-siberians/

The study is confirming the presence of Andronovo or Scytho-Siberian ancestry in the Asian Huns. Moreover, these haplotypes also matched those of ancient Hungarian rulers, which indicate the persistence of some Asian Hun paternal lineages in the gene pool of early Hungarian conquerors. Close matches were also found with Scytho-Siberians. The database search also revealed a shared haplotype between a Hun person in the cemetry and King Béla III of Hungary (1172–1196), one of the most significant rulers of the first Hungarian dynasty as well as a matching haplotype between an another Asian Hun person in the cemetry and another male individual found in the Royal Basilica in Hungary where King Béla III was buried. More Asian Hun individuals also carried haplotypes similar to those carried by the 10th century Hungarian conquerors and by 7–8th century Avar individuals. The genetic study suggests that some modern subclades, those related to Avars or Hungarian Conquerors became first integrated among Scythians. The Eurasian R1a subclades R1a1a1b2a-Z94 and R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 were a common element of the Hun, Avar and Hungarian conqueror elite and belonged to the branch that was observed in Asian Hun samples.

OrionNimrod (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod: "Scythians" in modern scholarship refers only to the Pontic Scythians though, so you need to add the information regarding the Asian Scythians to the Saka page instead.

As for the mediaeval claims on Hungarians, you need to take care to avoid conflating actual Scythian contribution to ethnogenesis with the mediaeval European use of "Scythia" and "Scythian" as an archaising blanket term for the steppe peoples. Antiquistik (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Antiquistik Hungarian conquerors came from the Pontic Steppe https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193700/ (they were a very mixed tribes according genetic studies, they became new nation by using the Scythian blood oath, Blood oath (Hungarians) and to rise to shield the leader of the most stongest tribe) also in the showed genetic sample matches are Scythian samples from today's Ukraine (Asian Scythian samples by individual level, but the majority matches are European Scythian as you can see above on the average). I know about that the archaising blanket, but we can mention birefly with sourced academic contents that this was a medieval claim regarding Hungarians, btw modern academic genetic test proved this connection. (Many Hungarians made nowadays genetic test, there are three main components: ancient local Carpathian basin + Scythian folks (European Scythians, Sarmatians, Hungarian conquerors, Avars, Sakas, Hun, Asian Scythian...) + Germanic and Slavic) Also there are several myth, customs, items... which are Scythian legacy in Hungarian history, so I plan to mention some contents in the legacy section or also the descendant claim topic. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod: I have no issue with adding information concerning any links between Scythians and Hungarians so long as you are able to provide reliable sources for it.

Although you need to take into account that the Hungarians migrated into the Pontic Steppe from the east of the Ural Mountains, meaning that they and their ancestors might have received influences from both the Asian Sakas and the European Scythians at various points of their history. Antiquistik (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Length

At over 20k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks, I'm glad somebody finally pointed this out. The article contains an excessive amount of content that can easily be split to relevant articles. Ephemera about arrowheads, bows, saddles, potrery, physical descriptions, etc, can be moved to their reapective subject-matter articles or trimmed. - Hunan201p (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: @Hunan201p: @Iskandar323: @Alalch E.: While I agree that the content on the page should be reworked to make it more easily navigable, I would caution against doing anything that would cause the same issues that forced me to merge Iškuza and Scythia into this page.

A significant part of the information on this page requires context from the various other sections of it to be understandable, and we must be careful that whatever solutions are applied to resold the current page length issues won't end up accidentally removing much needed context. Antiquistik (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I deeply sympathize with your position, and appreciate your good work in this article. It was correct to perform the merge. This is definitely one of those articles that need to be big to give the subject adequate coverage. However, at 123 kB of readable prose the article is significantly beyond WP:TOOBIG and we should take our time to identify possible solutions. There may be multiple ways to address this. There is no need for WP:HASTE.—Alalch E. 17:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

At 123kB in length, only some fairly drastic splitting into child articles is going to make a dent. Mild trimming isn't going to cut it. The too giant sections are history and culture. The most obvious child articles are therefore "History of the Scythians" and a "Scythian culture and society". Concerns that this will split the content and make it less accessible go against the entire purpose of a web-based encyclopedia, which is designed to interlink. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Solutions

List your ideas here (or mention what you've boldly done yourself) as h4 sections.—Alalch E. 17:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Shorten the 'Names' section to three medium-sized paragraphs max

This should be done because Names of the Scythians exists. The information in this article and that article which is the main article on the subject is presented in a similar level of detail. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE dictates that coverage of the topic of names of the Scythians here should be a summary of the "Names of the Scythians" article. Therefore, my first proposal to address the length issue would be to combine all of the content here and there (there shouldn't be any information here that is not included there), write a good two- or three-paragraph lead for that article (instead of the current poor single-paragraph lead), and transclude that lead here to act as a summary, per WP:SYNC. Or copy it back here.—Alalch E. 17:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Moved section on Scythian art to the Scytho-Siberian art page

I have moved the larger piece of information and left a shorter summary on the Scythians page. Antiquistik (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Split both "History of the Scythians" and a "Scythian culture and society"

Honestly, pure size aside, the contents for this page is just monstrous, to the point of being daunting, let alone readily navigable. You cannot even see the entire contents for either the "History" or "Culture and society" sections at the same time on a smaller screen - the bottom of the Level 3 sub-headers just disappear out of view. All the most reason to split these, as these legion Level 3 sub-headers will then become Level 2 and actually begin to serve some sort of navigational utility in the new Vector format. At the moment, it's a navigational nightmare. From a size perspective, if these sections became their own standalone child articles, allowing for reasonably useful summaries to remain here, that would probably take this page back down into the 60-80kB of readable prose range, which is where it should actually be. Currently, at roughly 120kB, it is double the length at which a split should begin to be countenanced, per WP:TOOLONG. I really don't see another reasonable alternative. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: While I understand that Wikipedia has rules regarding the size of articles, I am also wary of excessive splitting.

When dealing with ancient history dealing with societies that existed for around a millennium like the Scythians, there are various sections and bits of information that all need to be in the same place to be understandable. And we need to keep that in mind too regarding large articles regarding ancient history like the one we are currently working on.

I would favour condensing wherever possible instead. Antiquistik (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)