Talk:Scythians/Archive 6

New Iranica article


- LouisAragon (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Interesting passage at the start of the archaeology section (my bold): "The term ‘Scythian culture’ is used in archeological literature in both a narrow sense and a broad one. Strictly speaking, the Scythian archeological culture was a culture of the steppes and the forest steppes of Eastern Europe (approximately from the Danube to the Don) in the 7th-4th centuries BCE.  Some characteristics of this culture (similar, although not identical, shapes for horses’ bridles, weapons, and works of art in the ‘Animal Style’, the so-called ‘Scythian trias’) are close to those of cultures of the same period, which existed in other parts of the Eurasian steppes, even as far away as Mongolia.  For this reason, some researchers speak of the ‘Scythian cultures’ of Siberia, the Altai, the Urals region, and so on.  This extended use of the term is unfortunate and gives rise to a number of errors.  The archeological term ‘Scythian culture,’ even in its narrow sense, is still wider than the concept ‘culture of the historical Scythians.’  The Scythian archeological culture embraces not only the Scythians of the East-European steppes, but also the population of the forest steppes, about whose language and ethnic origins it is difficult to say anything precise, and also the Cimmerians." Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting piece of material indeed. I think this article could be used to tackle the many (key) issues this topic has brought with itself. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, although the "unfortunate" view also needs expression - different definitions, and different national views, have always bedevilled the article, and the subject in general. There is also Scythians: warriors of ancient Siberia (British Museum) Hardcover – 14 Sep 2017, by St John Simpson, the catalogue of the recent BM exhibition, which took a rather wider "unfortunate" definition (from the blurb): "The Scythians were an ancient nomadic people, who lived in the Russian steppe from 900 to 400 BC. They established a rich, nomadic civilization stretching from their homeland in Siberia as far as the Black Sea and the edge of China." Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Add this part to the article, very useful for typical random IPs who always spam the talk page by "Scythians were XYZ". Text: "From the 4th century BCE on, this term was often used as a collective name for the northern barbarians and could designate peoples who had nothing to do with the historical Scythians. Byzantine authors, for example, used it to denote Slavs or Turkic nomads. The term “Scythians” was also used in a similar way in a number of sources from the Roman period." I will mention more highlights from the Iranica article. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources I've seen note that this was from the perspective of the contemporary writers (Herodotus) — is that a direct quote from the article? Something like this might be better — some of these articles lack clarity regarding major historiographical issues — I haven't looked at this one in detail, so I can't be more specific right now, but it sounds like Johnbod is on the right track. Beyond that, this looks like its heading into advanced linguistics. (Or genetics, but I know less about that than linguistics). Seraphim System  ( talk ) 09:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As the EI article says, the terminology is very variable among academics, so we should try to scope out the current range of definitions (which indeed the article is already trying to do). Imo, linguistics (about which little is known, and less agreed) and genetics (early days with wildly varied results) are best treated with caution, and not in much detail. The extent to which either the narrow or even more, the wide, definition of "Scythians" really were an ethno-linguistic group, rather than a cultural and sometimes political one, is uncertain. Johnbod (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on the sources I've seen so far, I would support limiting the scope of the article to the central Eurasian steppe. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 13:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I think I see the issue - I agree with you that the published linguistics evidence appears to be thin, but it also seems to be what Iranica's narrower definition is based on it: whose language and ethnic origins it is difficult to say anything precise — from what I've seen so far, there are at least three usages: there is a literary usage (as in Paul and Herodotus), an archaeological usage that would make it difficult to limit the scope of the article (we also have Scytho-Siberian culture article). There are also copious sources describing Scythians as an Iranian people, and Iranica seems to be one of the latter — we aren't going to solve this on Wikipedia. Archaeologists use the term one way, linguists use the term another way, they both have their reasons for it. My personal preference would be to emphasize the literary histiographical issues in this article (where the term Scythians that we use today comes from and the secondary source analysis "verifying Herodotus") and provide brief discussions and links to the main language and broader archeology articles. Seraphim System ( talk ) 01:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's even that simple, and this is the main "broader archeology article". Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, and in my view this is a question of how to organize the articles to present complex information to readers in the most effective way (with the understanding that our readers are free individuals who can follow the links they want for more detailed discussion they are interested in). The article already represents the Scythians as an Iranian people in the LEDE — but there is some dubious unsourced content in the archeology sections. I don't think there is anything preventing us from treating Scytho-Siberian as a related but specialized archaeological term, and shuffling some of this content around, but I don't know how other editors will feel about it. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 02:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article used to (and imo still should) begin "The Scythians (/ˈsɪθi.ən/ or /ˈsɪði.ən/; from Greek Σκύθης, Σκύθοι), also known as Scyth, Saka, Sakae, Sacae, Sai, Iskuzai, or Askuzai, were a large group of probably mainly Iranian-speaking[1][2][3][4] Eurasian nomads ...", but I and others gave up trying to defend "probably mainly Iranian-speaking" from being turned into just "a group of Iranian people", which is plain ridiculous as a plain statement, but Iranian nationalists kept re-adding it. I should start trying again. Then there have been those trying to say they were all Turks (see archive 5 for example).... The "Names and terminology" section introduces the idea of broad and narrow meanings of the term, though it is not often clarified later which is meant at particular points. I'm not sure what the "dubious unsourced content" you refer to is. A big problem is that the main publishing language for the archaeology is Russian. Don't forget also that Herodotus was describing a particular period in Middle Scythian culture, probably very largely based on information about the extreme west of their territory. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, I think I found some English language publications last night that would be secondary for some of that Russian language research. Even foreign language sources should be cited for material that is likely to be challenged (what caught my eye is the paragraph beginning A high degree of cultural syncretism pervades the findings, however. — this may all be obvious to those with subject matter knowledge, but it is the kind of thing I would like to be able to verify while reading an article. If I have to go searching through databases for high quality sources to verify it myself, it usually takes more time than just reading the book directly — for a reliable summary, this is non-optional, imo.) I would support softening the LEDE language some, if the "also known as" could be pulled into a footnote. Seraphim System ( talk ) 03:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That para is adapted from Tillya Tepe, & though unreferenced doesn't seem at all dubious to me. See for example this short account in a book.  Whether so much on TT belongs here is a rather different matter. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Today I was working on an article that said something like "Long a Hittite port" and it turned out subsequent decades of scholarship had rejected that. It didn't seem dubious at all to me — I think there's a similar issue here. There's a lot to unpack in that statement — "and the continued existence of the Indo-Greek kingdom in the northwestern Indian sub-continent until the beginning of our era." ? The cultural syncretism in the findings is attributable to the continued existence of the Indo-Greek kingdom until the beginning of our era? — that must be an error, but I'm not sure what the original editor who added it was trying to get at with that. Seraphim System ( talk ) 05:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I generally don't think that working backwards from the article is the right approach. Content follows sources produces better articles. Based on this and Sarianidi's 1980 paper it seems it was a Kushan burial site, some of the findings had non-indigenous motifs, there's also this  "By that time the Yuezhi were being welded into the Kushans in Bactria and Sogdiana, they had a vibrant and astonishingly syncretic material culture" — but sources are not consistent about how they are using Yuezhi and Scytho-Siberian.  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we should be wedded to the existing text, but the whole area is uncertain, with many conflicting views, and several different sources should ideally be used at each point. TT is certainly very late to be called "Scythian", but possibly rather early to be called "Kushan". This good 2012 source is rather suggesting TT was Saka rather than Yeuzhi (p 88-89, but see also 120). Johnbod (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we should restore or rewrite the more neutral revision of the lead. The lead should summarize the whole article. Keep the "Iranian" or "Iranian-speaking" but also add the important part that "Scythian" also used as a collective name or an umbrella term for several Eurasian nomads and their nomadic lifestyle. Honestly, the current lead section does not match the other sections of article. It's one-sided. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, but it may need ongoing support. I can move the broad/narrow bit up to the lead. Johnbod (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you support my suggestion? --Wario-Man (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Just make sure that it looks appropriate, especially with regard to WP:DUE weight. Last thing we need is another shitstorm of socks/SPA's/e-nationalists and what-not trying to push one of those well known disruptive agendas. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact restoring to 9/2015 achieves that, so I've done it for now. Can be refined, & the new source worked, but it's already better. I wasn't allowed to re-add http "//s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_Archeology/Zhou/CambridgeZhouChouNorthChinatEn.htm online text" as blacklisted - text that may be copyvio? Johnbod (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That website belongs to Long-term abuse/Tirgil34. For more details, see his LTA and SPI pages. Full of fringe, mistranslated, falsified and misrepresented stuff. One of the reasons why this page is protected is him and his endless disruptive edits. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok - well in this case it supported a quote from the Cambridge History, which should be ok. Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're free to look at his website. But never trust what he writes there. Falsification, mistranslated sources and misrepresentation of references (even the English ones) is one of his remarkable behaviors. Plus, he usually adds his own opinions to those sources. He mentioned a reference and it seems legit? Then look for the main source/book. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It was on current ref 3, which (oddly?) supports "Iranian-speaking" not Turkic. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Another source on confused definitions etc. Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well the edit-wars gave started! A whole raft of additions, including all the EI mentions, reverted. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * About moving an entire paragraph from "Origins" to the "Lead" section ([|revision] by Johnbod); clearly that paragraph discusses the definitions and terms of Scythia and Scythian, hence it can be moved to the "Names and Terminology" section. Also pls keep that in mind that the lead section must be kept as extracted as possible, while already it is too large and bulky and moving more paragraphs to it will only make it more crowded. Thank you. --Armaiti (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 2015 and still... Stop edit warring and reverting. I will ask some other editors to participate here. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

New lead section

 * Firstly, although I still believe the leading core of their population was Iranian-speaking, I absolutely agree that the ambiguous classification of the Scythians as represented in ancient texts (and suspicions fueled by modern archaeology) should be clearly noted in the lead section. Given how other steppe empires included a confederation of many nomadic peoples speaking various languages, it's also basic common sense that some "Scythians" would have been different from the core ethnic group, in the sense that an "ancient Roman" need not have been a native speaker of Latin and could easily have been a Greek, a Punic Carthaginian, a Persian, an Aramaic-speaking Jew, an Egyptian, a Thracian, an Illyrian, a Gaul, a Briton, etc. Even the early Han Chinese, who are typically seen now as being homogeneous, would have spoken a wide variety of almost incomprehensible dialects and would have incorporated assimilated groups on the fringes of the ancient Han Empire in southern, western, and northern China, especially the nomadic, Mongolic Xianbei people who gradually fully Sinicized. The lead could perhaps be trimmed to make room for such a statement about possible non-Iranian components among the nebulous "Scythians", but it is already rather large. Per WP:LEAD we should have no more than four paragraphs in the introduction section. Also, the lead should absolutely reflect and summarize what is said in the body of the article, per WP:SUMMARY, regardless of what some editors and POV-pushers might think. I would be happy to help reverting some editors in that regard, but I would only feel comfortable doing so once the lead is either suitably rewritten or at least trimmed, as I would not help to restore a lead that has more than four paragraphs in it. I know it's hard to represent all the salient points about the article in the lead section, but it needs to be balanced in such a way as to include all or most of them while still being tightly composed and compact enough for our readers to easily digest. Pericles of Athens  Talk 09:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * We can't ignore notable and different views about Scythians and the different usages of "Scythian" in historical and archaeological sources. I myself prefer something like the current lead section of Huns (rev). No mention of ethno-linguistic stuff in the starting sentence. The first paragraph should introduce Scythians. After the intro, we could mention Iranian background, language, and other usages and povs. More details should go to relevant sections, e.g. Origins, Terminology, and language. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I actually have no problem with the first paragraph saying they "were Eurasian nomads, probably mostly using Eastern Iranian languages", so long as the lead section, either here or in a following paragraph, provides a sentence noting the ambiguities about their ethnic identity. It's actually better to fully define the topic of the article, in this case an ancient steppe nomadic people, in the very first paragraph of the lead section. That follows the guidelines of WP:LEAD and MOS:BLPLEAD. Further details and history of the topic are given in the paragraphs that follow, but the basic nature of the topic should be mentioned right off the bat, so to speak. Pericles of Athens  Talk 09:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Every article is unique and if article X have its own tone it does not meant article Y must follow X too. But I mention some other instances for comparison: Kushans, Hephthalites, Wusun, and Xiongnu. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Dunno if I'm writing the right place, there is lots of information here. Anyways, majority scholars state the Scythians were of Iranian stock, yet that has been changed here? Looks like more like the personal opinion of someone else than actually academic sources. Not to mention no consensus has been reached for this change to be made? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd rather edit a popculture article than this one, and I would run a mile from them. But I'm broadly in agreement with Pericles of Athens as well as Wario-Man's suggestion that the first sentence not mention ethno-linguistic stuff. Damn, I just looked at the lead for the first time and I think I've gone blind. Far too many blue links and I think too much detail in the 4th paragraph. Of course it's hard to summarise a long detailed argument, so maybe I'm wrong about that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody wants to remove "Iranian" or make it unimportant here. If I wanted to write my personal opinions, I would have never opened this section. How many times I have touched the lead of this article or have inserted my pov on this article? The point is: Per WP:WEIGHT, the lead should clarifies other usage of "Scythian" in my opinion. Why? Because the visitors read the old lead section and the 100% Iranian background (mentioned in the lead) do not match the other parts of article. Did you read the new Iranica articles like Scythians and Massagetae? Search "Turk", "Hun", "Slavs" via your browser (Ctrl+F). As you see the authors do not say those mentioned groups were Scythian or Massagetae but the term was used for them in Roman sources. So why we should censor or ignore such helpful info? Actually completing this article makes our job easier (dealing with disruptive editors and nationalist users with agenda). When a high quality encyclopedia like Iranica tries to represent more details, why we should avoid them? --Wario-Man (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Wario-Man : I was referring to Johnbod. But yeah, I don't really have too much else to say, reading a bit more of this section it seems that you guys have a good discussion going on. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * (ec) I don't much doubt that at least the bulk of the extreme Western and probably the central parts of the wider definition were ethnically and linguistically "Iranian people" (not plain "Iranian") - the questions arise to the East. Perhaps the article doesn't yet make that clear enough. I think we certainly need some ethnic/linguistic statement near the start, or people will be endlessly adding one. The lead is indeed 4 paras long, but the 4th, with the political history, is much too long, too detailed, and rather indigestible. It might be better to add a shorter summary, also mentioning the trend to settled towns, states and territories, and moving much of the current para to an overview at the start of the history section. Getting the lead right is difficult, as it is so complex, and I certainly don't think we've got there yet. But we should keep discussing changes here. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * All reliable sources i've seen about Scythians state "Iranian origin" :
 * : "SCYTHIANS, a nomadic people of Iranian origin who flourished in the steppe lands north of the Black Sea during the 7th-4th centuries BCE".
 * : "Scythian, also called Scyth, Saka, and Sacae, member of a nomadic people, originally of Iranian stock, known from as early as the 9th century bce who migrated westward from Central Asia to southern Russia and Ukraine in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE."
 * Since sources seem to support an Iranian origin, this should be written in the article (lead ?), there are many ways to fight disruptive editors who are here to push their POV (like page protection, adding this page to our watchlist and have a look at its changes ...). Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You probably haven't seen as many RS as other editors here then. As said above, the issue is around the eastern and perhaps central portions of the broader definition. The previous section discusses the Encyclopedia Iranica article, which also complains about different definitions - his article uses one definition. If you look at the archives you will see there are also plenty of "reliable" (but wrong) sources that say they were (or spoke) Turkic.... Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Effectively, many definitions can be used for the Scythians. More, genetic testings proved that these peoples were not homogeneous (it's likely that some of these tests were made in the far eastern section and found different gene pool from the central and western parts), however, it seems that they were all (or almost) 'Iranian' speaking. We are also misled by the ancient Greek definition of the scythians. This word was used to define any horsemen group with a particular way of life; with this definition, some non-Iranian ethnic peoples (like the Turco-mongols) are sometimes listed as 'Scythians'.Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have clarified in the lead that the "narrow" definition Western group were "of Iranian origin", somewhat passing over those sub-groups like the Gelonians who were apparently at least partly not.... Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your last edits. It's true that the Gelonians are partly non Iranian, but since you said "mainly Iranian in origin", that seems well-balanced enough (according to me), let's see what other users think about this.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how you define Eastern, Central, Western branches of Scythians. Is it inspired by section "Autosomal studies" or what? e.g. how Saka and Sakastan fits in those categories? East, center, or west? --Wario-Man (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Purely by approximate geography. Narrow definition Scythians are Western, the Saka would be central, and for example Ordos culture eastern. We know next to nothing about how fluid the populations were between these broad zones were, of course. Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Kingdom of Khotan and Saka language, limiting Iranian background to Western ones and excluding Central Asian groups is not very accurate. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Who is excluding Central Asian groups? Not the article. But one should be very careful jumping from language to ethnic origin - see Kingdom_of_Khotan, not that I put much faith in such random studies. . Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, terms like Iranian/Iranic, Slavic, Germanic, and etc are ethno-linguistic categories. So an ethnic group could have mixed background or a complicated/diverse ethnogenesis but experts label it as X per evidences like spoken language. Anyway I think the current lead is close to my mentioned concerns and there is nothing more that I could say about it. Other editors are welcome to participate. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

, I’ve read this talk page but I don’t really understand why you reverted my edit. Quote from the Wikipedia article about Iranian peoples : «The Iranian peoples, or Iranic peoples, are a diverse Indo-European ethno-linguistic group that comprise the SPEAKERS OF THE IRANIAN LANGUAGES.». Therefore, if i’m not mistaken, saying that scythians belong to eastern Iranian peoples = scythians spoke eastern Iranian languages. Not sure why you reverted me saying « nooo » just as if i had made a huge mistake. I would appreciate a claryfication.—>Farawahar (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See above, and the archives - eg "one should be very careful jumping from language to ethnic origin..." just above. Quoting Wikipedia won't help. The question is very uncertain, especially as what is covered by "Scythians" varies a lot. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, i’ve already read the above, i see nothing which contradicts my edit. Speaking eastern Iranian languages = belonging to eastern Iranian peoples, this is not about how narrow one defines scythians, etc, it’s just about the definition of Iranian peoples. Therefore, i don’t understand your point, really.—>Farawahar (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

No reliable source for women warriors/edit request
This sentence:

"Cyrus the Great of the Persian Achaemenid Empire fought the Saka whose women were said to fight alongside their men."

is misleading. If you look at the source then this claim comes from Ctesias. A man whose "historical" writings include unicorns, manticores and 18-foot tall giants. This person is not considered accurate at all. Even Herodotus is considered far more accurate.

If this claim is to be included, then the source needs to be mentioned as Ctesias. It shouldn't even be included at all if the only source is a man known for spreading yarns. Later Roman writers had him fictionally placed in hell for spreading lies. 63.155.33.196 (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Women part of sentence should probably be moved down to Kurgan section which discusses it and headed by Ctesias claimed with footnote to edition is possible. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

New genetic study about Iron Age nomads (Cimmerians, Scythians, and Sarmatians)

 * Ancient genomes suggest the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe as the source of western Iron Age nomads --Wario-Man (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit request
Most modern historians and archaeologists agree that both Scythians and Sarmatians came from the eastern steppes, either from Central Asia or from Turkestan and western Siberia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.212.157.18 (talk • contribs)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Specifically where do you propose to put this text in the article?
 * Bell-Fialkoff is a good read but has many small errors and the above quote is not good geography. I would not use him as a source. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

“who were mentioned by the literate peoples to their south“

 * Who were the illiterates?
 * What evidentiary record substantiates the mention was by “illiterates”?
 * To the south of whom? Talotta (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

History of Iran
I think we can consider this article as a part of a series on the "History of Iran" too. Haanz.mb (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)\

I agreeMigboy123 (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2019
"change also known as Scyth, Saka, Sakae, Sai, Iskuzai, or Askuzai to also known as Scyth, Saka, Sakae, Sai, Iskuzai, Szittyák (in Hungarian), Szkíták (in Hungarian) or Askuzai" Farkas Maria (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: duplicate of request below. Danski454 (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2019
"change Scyth, Saka, Sakae, Sai, Iskuzai, or Askuzai to Scyth, Saka, Sakae, Sai, Iskuzai, Szittyák (Hungarian), Szkíták (Hungarian) or Askuzai because Hungarians/Huns consider Szittyák/Szkíták as their ancestor and this is the name of the Scythians in Hungarian" Farkas Maria (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, these are just the alternative terms used in English, not translations. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Changing answer flag to not done per Johnbod's response above.  Orville talk 16:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Descent claims
i want edit about tapur tribe according to this sources from ptolemi and and Rawlinson and The Cambridge History of Iran and according to the article sources scythians was eastern iranian peoples :

but the article is Locked. please help .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by CenemaWithoutColor (talk • contribs) 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Just No. You copy-pasted the above text from Tapur tribe. That tribe is already mentioned in Scythians. Plus they were a Scythian tribe and your request and provided content have nothing to do with "Descent claims". --Wario-Man (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * dear : first i can make sure you my job is not just copy-paste ! second i must say i want edit about "Descent claims" EXACTLY because according to this source Tapurians migrated to south of Caspian and mixtured with Amardians (at many sources like this source amardians was scythians too) and that was the origination of mazan or mazandarain pupulation . so today mazandarani population must be edit at Descent claims . ok ?


 * Your second source is an outdated 19th century source. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  15:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * dear : my point is based on this source . its Can be cited . and in this source talked about their transportation  from parthyene (parthian satrapi) to south of caspian sea and how was Creation of  mazandarani population . really you cant sea this ? what happened at history world that Hungarians and Gaels and Celts and Scots and Irish peoples and Anglo-Saxons are edited as "Descent claims" of Iranian Scythians (probably some African nations as soon as LOL ) but an Iranian Ethnicity like Tabari Peoples (mazandarani) cant be edit as "Descent claims" of Iranian Scythians ?! however ptolemy said their ancestors was scythians (and to the eastward are the Galactophagi ; and eastward from Tapuris mountains and the scymbi scythae are the Tapurei. ptolemy (6.14.12) ) !!!


 * The Cambridge History of Iran is reliable and you can use it. But it says Amardi were non-Iranian people. Do you have more sources about origins of Amardi and Tapurs (Iranian/non-Iranian)? You added this to Amardi. Could you post full quote, screenshot, or a link to Frye's work? Clarification and more details would be helpful for our readers. Is non-Iranian = non-Iranic in that text? For now, you better expand Amardi and Tapur tribe if you have some sources. When your account becomes WP:AUTOCONFIRM, you can edit this article by yourself. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

hello again Dear : yes and i have some sources about Amardians that the sources noted them as Scythians and in language relation with Scythian tribes like Dahae and Sacae like This Source Pages 3 and 4 the source said : «There can be no doubt that the language was that of the pastoral tribes who inhabited the Persian Empire ; and, whether Known by the appellations of Dahae , Sacae , mardi or any others they were fundamentally the same people and spoke similar language which probably were allied to the language of Scythia proper ... the remainder of the world is written bye a character which make the first syllable of the brother of the Cambyses, who is called smerdis bye Herodutos , mardos (or mardis) bye Eschylus , mergis bye justine and Bardia in Persian. now we find a race of men of pastoral and predatory habits spread about in several parts of Persia called mardi and amardi. most of them lived near caspian sea ... »

And other Source is this the sources said : «the median dialect was shared bye nomadic Tribes in the Persian Empire including Daians and Saka and the Amardoi (see below) whom he saw as fundamentally a single people speaking similar dialect derived from that of their Scythians relatives in Bacteria and Caucasus .... The Mardians .... »

in this source Daians is the same Dahae and the both source said about Amardian and their relation with Scythian language and Scythian tribes.

What is your Opinion about my Edit at Descent claims ? CenemaWithoutColor (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)



After couple days, i am tired of this way and also tired of being sorry for myself. I HAVE RELIABLE SOURCES AND I WANT EDIT THE ARTICLE BUT ARTICLE IS LUCKED. I CAME HERE AND I SHARED MY SOURCES WITH SOME PEOPLES BUT FINALLY NOTHING HAPPENED. JUST SOMEONE CAME HERE AND KIDS SATIRIZED ME AND ANOTHER ONE DIDNT NOTHING. THIS WAY IS AGAINST THE RULES OF WIKIPEDIA. PLEASE SOMEONE IN CHARGE ANSWER TO ME. WHY I CANT EDIT ?!!!!! CenemaWithoutColor (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Reason you can't edit this article is that it has been protected (since lots of people over time tried to vandalize this article). The way for you to be able to edit is to have at least 10 edits in wikipedia (currently you have 8, though I'm not sure if talk page articles count.) . So just make a few more edits on random articles and you'll become autoconfirmed so you can edit this one. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The article states "While the productivity of domesticated animal-breeding greatly exceeded that of the settled agricultural societies [...]", could this be sourced, and could the productivity metric be stated ? Also if the implied metric is food per year per land area this seems wrong (I can't find any precise reliable source on the subject unfortunately). Chien.Banane (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)