Talk:Agathyrsi

message: Insert non-formatted text here--Ali doostzadeh 19:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Who is the source of the speculation that Thyrsi may be a Scythian corruption of Thracian Thrausi or Trausi? That doesn'tsound likely to me based only on speculation, unless there is an ancient reference that backs it up or suggests this. The Thrausi from what I remember lived all the way in the south of Thrace, and didn't encounter Scythians that much. I'm going to erase that suggestion for now. Alexander 007 00:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is not an acceptable site: www.turkicworld.org
If you want to quote it, then you should mention that the theorist in those site also connect Summerian, Dravidian, Indo-European and every other single language to Turkic.  Remember Wikipedia has a policy of NOR.  You need to bring relavent information that some theorists have jumped from Agathyrsi to Acatziri and then from there to Aghajari!  --Ali doostzadeh 18:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again www.turkicworld.org is not a reputable source.     The Agatghyrsi and Acatziri connection is not held up by reputable sources anymore.  So you need to put under old-theories.  As per going from Acatziri to Aghajari, this is not held up anymore either!  Read again: Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.  You need at least provide citation for the article you are considering!  You can't just refer to a website or the actual address of within the website.    Where is the actual quote from the website?  Lets see if it has a valid reference that goes from Agathyrsi to Acatziri and then from Acatziri to Aghajari!   Yes we can seek an arbitrator.  Note I have much better upperhand since I have shown that another article was totally false and madeup and the user you are using even claims Ossetic is non-Iranian! going against all modern sources.  So the user's website you are citing is not neutral.  Also you are not even citing the article, but just a webpage, which is unacceptable.  Where is the link to the actual article?--Ali doostzadeh 19:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not acceptable 

message: Ali, you are playing a game.  You have claimed the authority here to be the one to lay down the rules, and you have stated that only the sources that back up your POV are reputable or valid.  The sources that go against your POV are therefore not reputable or valid, therefore they may not be mentioned, and you can pretend there are no sources.   There are sources, but they may not be mentioned because in order to be reputable, they have to back up your POV. This allows you to still continue to demand sources. It doesn't matter how many sources anyone finds that there is another POV, they are automatically pre-disqualified and the evidence thrown out of court by yourself, the self-appointed judge.  I sincerely hope that the arbitrators who are coming here can see through this charade and allow alternate POVs for the sake of neutrality.  NPOV doesn't mean telling only one side and suppressing the other. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again you need to first provide citation for your claim.  The general name of the website is not enough, you need to show the actual address of the article you are trying to cite!  As per me, yes I have the right to ask for reputable sources by modern scholars.  I brought three, you brought none.  So far you brought no modern sources either wheras I brought some major sources.  More likely a POV is one that is not mentioned by reputable scholars in peer reviewed journal, just like the NOR titled said.  Yes scholars could have a POV but they are entitled to it.  And yes I have a right to be skeptical about a site that manipulates facts(Ossetic is not Iranian, Sumerian is Turkish, Dravidian is Turkish) and plays with folk etymology.  That site has a major POV issue.  But first you need to even bring citation to the article you are claiming.  And yes I have the right to ask for citation, to make the quality of the article higher.  And right now we have written a good article, specially you did a good job.  I am asking for now a citation to the claim which you attribute to turkicworld.org and then we can discuss the content although the site itself is non-neutral and I will seek arbitration. --Ali doostzadeh 19:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like extreme "credentialism" at work here, wonder what Jimbo would say... But anyway, I haven't been to the library to check your sources yet, but I was wondering if you would be so kind as to actually quote some of them here on the discussion page... I'm just stunned that you so quickly found three book sources specifically rejecting that the Agathyrsoi were the Akatsiroi, when only yesterday you seemed to think that Akatsiroi was the name of a "commander"...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I have collected modern books and have access to some more through my university.  I never thought akatziri was a commander, I just wanted to see where is there a mention of a Khan by the name Kirdach.  Note I say Khan in the sources.  As per my sources, I will be happy to provide them if an arbitrator asks for it.  But it is definitely a general rule that you can't make a claim and then not even cite anything.  In this case you wanted to cite a webpage without showing where the actual article is located at.  I'll be glad to send thompsons right away where he rejects the connection of Agathyrsi and Acatziri.  Send me an email and I'll scan the relavent pages.  You need to bring modern sources that hold up the connection.  --Ali doostzadeh 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason I am asking is because you stated a couple times above here that Golden never once mentions the Agathyrsi.  But currently, in the article, you list him as one of the authors who specifically rejects that the Agathyrsoi were connected to the Akatziroi.  I don't see how he could have done that without mentioning them.  You also stated at first that "Akatazir" was only the name of a commander, and I may be wrong, but you did not seem to realize they were a real tribe until I brought cites.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well he has a section on Khazars and there is no mention on Agathyrsi and just states the connection between akataziri and Khazar is a conjecture that is weak.  if there was a remote connection between Agathyrsi and Akataziri he would mention it and he does not.  As per Thompson, he explicitly rejects it.   The original article claimed something about commander if I recall with the epiphet Khan, and so there might be a mix up.. I have scanned the three relavent pages from thomspon.  Golden calls the connection of akatziri to Khazars as a weak conjecture.  And I have said the old theory is not either mentioned or heldup.  Case in point Golden does not mention Agathyrsi to Akataziri connection and Thompson flatly rejects it.  --Ali doostzadeh 19:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Indeed Thompson has 4 full pages on Akataziri and I can send it to you if you want.  It might even prove useful for a separate entery on them.  --Ali doostzadeh 19:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If the section was on Khazars, Golden wouldn't necessarily mention the Agathyrsoi theory - that's two steps back. (Agathyrsoi<->Agatsiroi<->Khazars)...  But you are claiming argumentum ad silencio to be able to include Golden among your authors who reject the Agathyrsoi-Akatziri connection. So I'm afraid this one ref. will have to be removed as invalid, because assuming that silene equals rejection is something of a leap.  I am eager to see what Thomspon says specifically about the Agathyrsoi... By the way the Akatsiroi already have their own article at Akatziroi (qv). Note that I have not even touched that one (though I am watching it) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note I said they either do not mention it (Golden) or hold it up (all three none of them either mentions it or holds it up) or they outrightly reject it (Thompson).  So Golden indeed does not mention the Akataziri to Agathyrsi connection.  And it is perfectly valid to say so.  As per thompson, send me an email. --Ali doostzadeh 21:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well if there was a remote connection between the Akatziri and Agathyrsi, Golden would mention it since he discusses the Akatziri.  I believe most scholars would look at all possible sources and Herodotus says some interesting stuff about Agathyrsi and if there was a connection Golden would try to deduce it and compare it to Khazar as well.  So all I said is that he does not mention it whereas I firmly believe if any modern scholar believed in a connection, in the discussion of akatziri they would mention Agathyrsi.  That is they would look at all possible sources like any scholar to try to explain more facts.. --Ali doostzadeh 20:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Here is the direct statement of Thompson about akatziri.  Who precisely they were we do not know for certain although several conjectures has been offered; they were Agathyrsi of Herodotus, or the Khazars, or the Magyars, and so on.  These conjectures should be rejected.  --Ali doostzadeh 20:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: She wouldn't by chance give any supporting evidence or reasoning other than her say-so, would she? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And surely she wouldn't write "...several conjectures has"[sic]...?  Is this really a direct quote? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually it is a he.  E. A. Thompson was Professor of Classics at the University of Nottingham from 1948-1979. His previous books include A History of Attila and The Huns, The Early Germans, The Goths in Spain, Romans and Barbarians and Who was St Patrick? The Huns includes a revised afterword by Peter Heather, Lecturer of Ancient History at University College London. Professor Thompson died in 1994.  As per the quote,, It's direct quote except I mistakenly wrote have as has.  You can look at it in the local library or I can send you the relavent pages.  As per his references he does give a little bit.  And this is a modern scholar who has published in peer reviewed journals and books.   Here is the direct statement of Thompson about akatziri.  Who precisely they were we do not know for certain although several conjectures have been offered; they were Agathyrsi of Herodotus, or the Khazars, or the Magyars, and so on.  These conjectures should be rejected. So I stand corrected on the typo.--Ali doostzadeh 20:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Here is the book: [] in 1999 edition which I have quoted..  --Ali doostzadeh 20:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  raising the bar impossibly high 

message: According to Hermann Parzinger, a leading archeologist in the field of scythian history, the Agathysi are associated with the Vekerzugculture of Easthungry and Transylvania. 
See also :http://openlibrary.org/b/OL2639592M/Vekerzug-Kultur  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerFreigeist (talk • contribs) 15:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vekerzugculture 

message: "According to most authorities, Agathyrsi were of Thracian stock"
Since when have Thracians lived in Transylvania? Shocking news for me. Centrum99 (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Chances are you, like many within the past 100 years, were conditioned to associate "Thracian" with Thrace proper, which is the extreme southeast of the Balkans in the area of Bulgaria and Turkey-in-Europe. But scholars since ancient times to the present have recognized that the tribes for some distance considerably north of there were also "of Thracian stock" - you can learn more at Getae, Dacians, and Thraco-Cimmerian.  Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Their languages were very different, as toponyms clearly show. In fact, the available evidence points to the relationship between Dacians/Mysians and Albanians on one hand, and possibly between Thracians and Armenians on the other hand. Very different people. Merging Thracians and Dacians together is perverse.109.81.252.94 (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thracians?! 

message: The user LuUkus has been carrying out disruptive editing on the Agathyrsi entry by constantly adding information rejected as ideologically-motivated historical revisionism by researchers on the topic and is now edit warring with me. LuUkus added an etymology of the name "Agathyrsi" which attributed it to a Turkic language origin, and I removed because it is contradicted by the presently published and verifiable peer-reviewed research on the issue, which is contained in the numerous citations I have added to the article. The Agathyrsi were not a tribe of the Scythians proper, but a member of related peoples of the Scythian cultures. The sources on the Agathyrsi page, especially Olbrycht and Batty, which contain recent published information gained from linguistic and archaeological research in recent years and decades, do confirm that the present scientific consensus is that even though the Agathyrsi were not a tribe of the Scythians proper, but were nevertheless still a Scythic, and therefore Iranic, people closely related to the Scythians and attest of members of the Agathyrsi having personal names in an Iranian dialect, which is what the info in my edits say since they use the presently published and verifiable peer-reviewed research on the issue as source.
I also cleaned up the article, which for the most part consisted largely direct quotations of Herodotus, Pomponius Mela and Ammianus Marcellinus, i.e. pieces of raw data. I instead added the information based on that raw data in shorter and condensed but on point form in the information from Olbrycht and Batty, and removed these citations. I also cleaned up the section on the discredited connection Akatziri because it contained too many details not relevant to the article, so I trimmed it and kept only the parts relevant to the Agathyrsi. I will of course re-check if anything important was deleted during my edit and I will add the information back with the proper sources in that case. Antiquistik (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no substance here. The way you treated me is not acceptable. This has revealed your true aim. I am also not inclined to discuss with a person who sees himself as self-proclaimed peer review expert. This cannot be accepted in the Wikipedia. --LuUkus (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My actions weren't aimed at you personally nor did I proclaim myself as any kind of expert. There is already an established body of research on the Agathyrsi based on historical, linguistic, and archaeological evidence out there which contradicts the info you have been adding, that's all. I am sorry that you are taking this personally, but this is ridiculous. Antiquistik (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring and cleaning up the article