Talk:Scythians/Archive 1

message: Also the legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table and the Quest for the Holy Grail are believed to be of Scythian Iranian origin." (Sea Scott Littleton,C.: From Scythia to Camelot, New York 2000).''
::If Littleton makes a good case for King Arthur's Scythian ancestors, give a condensed version of it for the Idea of Scythia" subsection, if you feel it throws light on the subject, which is essentially Scythia. Or add it to King Arthur if it throws light on the Arthurian legend. Wetman 20:23, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Romantic Scythian origins

message: There is no evidence that the Scythians were a Turkic tribe. The remnants of the Scythian language appear to be Indo-European. Alexander 007, November 2004
:Wikipedia entry Scythian languages could use some work, including  references. --Wetman 11:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia should reflect standard practice rather than our assertions of whether or not Scythian belongs in the Iranian group of IE languages. Links to the best recent publications on the subject are useful. There is an entry Scythian languages devoted to this subject. --Wetman 11:46, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Scythian an Indo-European language

message: An anonymous contributor has inserted the following abstracts, which would make a sound basis for an article Scythians (plural like Lombards etc.) . Anyone want to edit this material? --Wetman 22:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Material for a first edit of [[Scythians]], currently a redirect

message: A recent edit adds a reference to "barbed arrows." Are Scythian arrowheads barbed? Any reference in the archaeology? --Wetman 20:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Barbed arrowheads?

message: This agonizing circumlocution to avoid mentioning a Modern Nation would be more stylish if some specific geographic identifiers were identified instead. "Northwest south Asia" is droll enough though.--Wetman 03:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Northwest South Asia"

message: Scythia is a place. Scythians and Saka are peoples. No merge is sensible. I'm deleting the thoughtless tag. --Wetman 16:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Distinct articles

message: It will sound wired to you but was found that Scythians, Sakae people & ancient Aryans are ALTAIC!!! If they would be so-called 'Iranian' would they live in Altay, very cold place in that time, if you want to know, would Indo-Iranians that never has freezed because of cold just settle on places that was colder than Himalayas(In that times ofcourse).
There was found that images of Scythians & Aryans, looks very similar & who said that Indian man liked to wearing bashlyk(Ancient turkic hat).
Do Word 'Kurgan' says something? This words even sounds too turkic.
There also another evidence of this teory, in example the name of Kazakh(And they are turkic) people, this name was very evolved & it changed very much, but it comes from sound Kasaq-Hasak-Ghai-SAK! It absolutely destroyes, western archaelogic so-called science. Yes! You say it could be everyone Iranians,Mongols,Chinese,Indians but not Turkic. Why?! Why all western science treat to Turkic culture as it was something bad?!
Just like to point out that Turkman of central asia consist mainly of Haplogroup R1b and altaians R1a1 ,these account for 60% of European and Indian populations.One must not confusion language with race.Turkman  contain East Asian Haplogroups; these are not found in Iranians or Indians .Hence Turkman are probably part IE with East Asian components ("A Genetic Landscape Reshaped by Recent Events: Y-Chromosomal Insights into Central Asia" 
So? I know that Turkmen people are genetically Iranians, it is not secret, even their language mixes with Farsi. If I can understand you, the 60% of Europeans & Indians constist in R1b genetical group. And? You know why? I know. It because they not just Altaic, they are turkic, you must know that the turkic, mongolian & tungusic people has a different genetic code.
If you want to know, ancient turkic wasn't mongoloid they had europeid faces.
Modern day turks is mongoloid because the were mixed with mongolians. But did you saw turkish faces, they don't look like eastern central-asians.
So here is explain: Mixing of Nations, Climaticaly adoptation. (anon)
:Hell yeah! That was an awesome rant. Great article btw, what do you guys think of making it a featured article? I don't think it has far to go... Sam Spade 21:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scythians are ALTAIC!!!

message: I went after the article from top to bottom, have a look. Sam Spade 22:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent recasting of the material. I corrected the status of larch: its deciduous nature is essential in this context. "Old records actually say that the land where the Scythians originated was called Gerrhos." Not good enough any more, in such an outstanding article! I think this might be Pomponius Mela or someone misreading Herodotus and placing Gerrhos in the Altai, where Scythians did trek  their elite dead, instead of at the source of the Dnieper. I made a stub of Gerrhos to get a grip on this. Bravo Sam Spade! --Wetman 23:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  have a look 

message: I'm removing this section:
:Genetic research in modern populations reveals that the same Y chromosome haplogroup (R1a) represents a genetic lineage currently found in central, western and south Asia, and in Slavic populations of Eastern Europe. The simplest explanation of this distribution is that this Y-chromosome mutation originated in people of the kurgan-building culture of traditional Scythia (see link).  
:However haplogroups H, J2, R1b and L are also found in populations of Iran, Pakistan, Central Asia and India, and the idea that R1a1 originates from Kurgan Culture is questionable, since there seem to be a complete absence of haplogroup I and E in India (although it is common in  Europe, particularly Ukraine).
I'm sure it's valuable and meaningful, to someone, but it's nonsense to me.  I invite anyone who can translate or supplement it with a plain-English summary to please do so.  Also "(see link)"?  What link? —James S. 07:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "The genetic argument" section 

message: Article states that the Marathas are Scythian and that this belief is a "Tradition". It certainly is not one; a 'tradition' is accepted wisdom; no Marathi grandmother ever even heard of Scythia. A speculative theory of scythian origin was proposed by interested parties a century ago, in line with the then-prevailing trend to associate every "ruling" community with foreign lands. I object to being declared a foreigner in my own motherland. If you insist on mentioning a scythian origin for my people, you must phrase it to say that the notion is a "disputed theory", definately not present it as a "tradition". ImpuMozhi 17:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By "tradition" (in the case of the others) is meant a classical, or historical written account.  The Irish, Hungarians etc. all have these, hence they are 'traditions'.  The Marathi claim is new to me, I had not heard it myself, but a new user named New Rock Star  just the other day added it in place of 'Gujjar'.  I looked at the article for Marathi, saw no mention of it, and pulled it.  If you note, he re-added it with the comment line: "the reference in the Maratha article has been vandalised. Marathas call themselves Shakas apart from using the Shaka calender. Read any book on the Marathas"...  I have not had the time to read any book on the Marathas since then, so I certainly can't speak from knowledge, but if you claim to have knowledge, just out of curiosity, can you confirm or deny that Marathas refer to themselves with the name "Shakas"?  I will change the header for the other peoples to 'Traditions' again, since it is indeed accurate for them, including apparently the Gujjars, but maybe we should leave out Marathas until we hear more evidence about this, ie, cited material one way or the other... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just left as "various peoples of India".  There was someone here a few months ago that temporarily replaced the entire article with a lengthy copyvio'd essay about an Indian tribe called the Jats and their Scythic traditions, so surely "various peoples" is accurate.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: We are all foreigners to our own countries. I suppose that my linguistic ancestors (Indo-Europeans) sickled into my country (Denmark) ca. 4,000 years ago. Fortunately, they succeeded in eradicating the languages of the neolitihic predecessors, so there's nobody around anymore to assert their authochthony. In India, the Dravidian-speaking people are probably more indigenous than the Aryan-speaking population, but they are not "born from the earth" either but have migrated into the country at some time in prehistory. At any rate, the discussion is futile and dangerous: A person is not entitled to certain rights or deprived of certain rights just because one is able to trace his linguistic or his genetic profile back to some distant ancestors. Privileges are not inherited genetically through a bloodline or the adherence to a certain linguistic platform, but bestowed upon the fortunate by society. Enkyklios 12:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting back to the wording of the article - I would say either write "various peoples", or list all the peoples of India for whom Indo-Scythian ancestry has been claimed.  So far, that includes, Gujjars, Jats, and Marathas.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Tradition" or "disputed theory"?

message: I propose an article in Simple English, or some other organization of this article to make it readable.  Also, a map would be helpful, and/or a timeline, and/or some other easy visual means of comparing this group with other groups it was near and interacted with.  Thank you.
24 Feb 06 whoistheroach
why? people should be able to read about things in more than a brief overview...
:you may want to look at :simple:, which is a project directed precisely at people who cannot be bothered to read 'actual' English. dab (ᛏ) 10:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is too frickin long 

message: The article is mainly about Scytians (not about the region Scythia). I suggest to move this article to Scythian (The first paragraph can remain here under the title Scythia). Bidabadi 17:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving to ''Scythian'' and merging with [[Saka]]

message: I Suppose to be Scithians ... which firste inhabitinge and afterwarde stretchinge themselves forthe into the lande as theire numbers increased named it all of themselues Scuttenlande which more brieflye is Called Scuttlande or Scotlande" 
If Scythia -> Scotland, then why not go one step further and include the Irish, as clear Iran -> Ireland ?  
--Philopedia 21:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putative Scythian Origins 

message: Scythians was originally made a redirect of Scythia for lack of material, but it is high time to move this to Scythians now, and make Scythia a separate article on the term in ancient historiography etc. dab (ᛏ) 18:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: move/split?

message: I removed a passage from the text that said scythians were associated with turkic people. this is not generally accepted among scolars and against the rest of the text and if some people insist that it should be mentioned in the article, I suggest that they create a paragraph explaining this point of view. Arash the Bowman 11:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arash the Bowman, you were given your last warning. {{subst:test4}
You better stop spending time on vandalism and spend it on reading the discussion. Barefact 16:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can't threaten people.. You gave me so called Last warnings 100x times.  You can do this to Arash too, but your warnings lack credibility since it is perfectly legal to remove unsourced information and discuss it in the talk page.  As long as you bring unsubstantiated material, you need to discuss it in the talk page, let there be a concensus and then insert in the article.  It has to also be sources correctly, (unlike your previous article which was deleted) and must not contain folk etymology.  --Ali doostzadeh 16:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  that is what I have been saying to.. Unfortunately user [] and Barefact quote OR material from www.turkicworld.org and then claim there is an Iranian watchdog.  These people do not check their material for their sources.  Herodotus for example clearly distinguishes between Agathyrsi and Scythians and yet they bring their faulty information everywhere.  Even in the medes article the usercodex_sinaiticus tried to defend that Magyars are related to Magians.  --Ali doostzadeh 19:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You accuse me of being part of  an Iranian watchdog whereas I have already shown at least 10 major errors and faults with barefact's unverifable quotes.. Yet you cut & paste it like it is not a big deal!  Also you did RV the false magian magyar connection when I deleted it from the Medes article (I wonder how many people might have been misguided reading that article before such unreliable claims were deleted).  I have no agenda except to make sure articles related to Scythians, Medes and the sort correspond to modern scholarly opinion and for example Enyclcoped Britannica.  Barefact was even claiming that ossetic is non-Indo-Iranian going against every scholar in the field.  This is major OR.   I am getting tired of correcting his OR from www.turkicworld.org and then someone else just cut & pasting the same unsubstantiated materials..All of his materials needs to be checked with modern English translations of relavent texts before insertion into actual articles or else every single people of antiquity will morph into Altaic people(no that anything is wrong with Altaic people, but putting false information is wrong) (check his website). So I think it is best to get any quotes verified from the sources and then check to see if the content is what it is being claimed then to insert it in the article so we stop repeated arguments.  --Ali doostzadeh 20:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  turikc scythians 

message: Reference to a good expanded article is a good idea, but complete removal of Scythian people from Scythia article is way too harsh. A synopsis would be more reasonable. Without a good synopsis removal would look as a Iranist agenda, especially when it is removing classical references and literature. Barefact 00:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Too bad but the Encyclopedia Britannica and thousands of other books and encyclopedias Encarta and Columbia are not Iranist agendas and their articles on Scythians says nothing about Turks and they have a neutral POV will be reflected in Wikipedia despite all your  disruptive efforts to push your unscholarly sites POV. --Ali doostzadeh 01:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirecting is a Redirect vandalism. Its purpose is to remove the subject from public scutiny. You can't advance your agenda by vandalism Barefact 15:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you are the one deleting quotes and inserting unrelated quotes and that is vandalism. Scythians, Alans, Ossetians according to all modern sources were Iranians and the information of scholars and not pan-turkists will be reflected in Wikipedia.  That is what an Encyclopedia is.  Instead of paying many dollars for Britannica or Encarta, a person wants to know the correct information for free.  If you have problem with what universities and Encyclopedia Britannica say, then you should take it up with them.  --Ali doostzadeh 15:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirecting is a Redirect vandalism. Using socketpuppets to redirect is a saocketpuppet vandalism. Its purpose is to remove the subject from public scutiny. You can't advance your agenda by vandalism. Today, the subject was already redirected twice. This repeat vandalism does not add credibility to your cause. Barefact 17:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nearly everyone who gets ever blocked for 3RR cries vandalism, but it never does them any good, when it is clearly a content dispute.  You have no reverts left today so I suggest you cool it before you get blocked.  Also what in the world do you mean by "redirect", are you using the right term?  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To barefact, there is no suckpuppets and the ip address is mine, but Khosrow and Arash the Bowman and Codex are not me.  As per credibility, you have lost all credibility because of your home www.turkicworld.org.  For example I was just reading the proto-slavic article on that page and how it supposedly contains abundant material of Turkic!  I guess Slavs, Sumerians, Scythians, Elamites.. are all fair games.  My suggestion to barefact is that if he has problems with what modern scholars say, then write to them and ask them to change their opinion.  But Wikipedia is not that place and should reflect the opinion of actual scholars in the field on the current subjet.  That is the purpose of Wikipedia to create a free encyclopedia and not a free forum of ideas between amatuers (and note I am not considering myself a scholar either but I try to directly quote scholars in the relavent fields and Britannica, Columbia, Encarta, peer reviewed Journal publications and etc.).  --Ali doostzadeh 18:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agathyrsi 

message: Now that copyediting has made it clearer what the content of this article is, I suggest that that it be deleted and relevant sections be moved to Indo-scythians, Scythians, Sakas, Scythia, etc.
The content of Invasion of India by Scythian Tribes itself substantially duplicates these articles and I can't see any reason for keeping it as a standalone wikipedia entry.--Saganaki- 11:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. dab (ᛏ) 12:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Invasion of India by Scythian Tribes]]