Talk:Scytho-Siberian world

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scythian map[edit]

The map is wrong for that title. Because "Recent excavations at Arzhan in Tuva, Russia have uncovered the earliest Scythian-style kurgan yet found.[5]" . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganikgaos (talkcontribs) 21:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Content[edit]

This is a blatent fork of Scythians, as part of Krakkos's mistaken efforts to narrow the scope of that article. When the dust settles, it should be redirected back there. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that this article doesn't conform to Wikipedia's policies, I suggest you bring it to Articles for deletion for further discussion. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, in due course there with be a rearrangement of these articles, probably with an RFC. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the problems with this fork, see the (very long) ongoing discussion at Talk:Scythians#Some_issues_with_this_article. Better not start another big discussion here. Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simpson 2017 misinformation[edit]

The genetics section of this article, which is a mess of Biblical proportions, contained numerous citations of Simpson (2017), which was used to support, for example, this statement:

who then were themselves replaced by paternal lines of other Eurasian cultures.[1]

But Simpson doesn't support any such statement, and contains no genetic information about human beings at all:

https://www.academia.edu/33750890

The only reference it makes to genetics is about Scythian horses. The reference itself is a pop archaeology article.


The content was added by 107.115.33.55 (talk · contribs) in a blitz edit that overturned content that had been added by more trustworthy and established Wikipedians like Krakkos.

Diff:

[1]

Seems highly dubious. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "mongoloid" and "europoid" descriptors in physical appearance section?[edit]

Both of these terms are pseudoscientific and obsolete, as noted on their respective pages. I feel like this passage should be removed in favor of a more more modern descriptor, or accompanied by a disclaimer that these categories are outdated and unscientific. 47.55.95.232 (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, et al. (2019)[edit]

The haplogroup of the remaining 1 sample was uncertain (probably group R).

Not seeing this anywhere the paper cited. Did I miss something?

Mary, et al (2019)

The sample in question appears to be ARZ-T8.

A raw link to Supplementary materials 2 is found here. It's a .xlsk file and the Y-DNA data is found in Table 6.

I can't find anything saying that ARZ-T8 was "likely R". Is this original research or something?

Since it was actually 16 of the 17 samples yielded a Y-haplotype, I don't see why we should enumerate this sample as 17, in this context.

We also should describe the mtDNA lineages from Arzhan since that was a significant part of this study's contents. - Hunan201p (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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