This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dacia, a WikiProject aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to ancient Dacia and primarily to the history of Dacians, Getae and Moesi. If you would like to participate, please improve this article and/or join the project and help with our open tasks. If you have questions regarding the goals of the project, as well as the time span, space, people and culture in the project scope, please review them here. Your input is welcomed!
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
So what were Scythians?! A general name for some Eurasian nomads? Majority of them were Iranic? Different tribes with different stocks and languages (Iranic, other Indo-Europeans, Turkic, Mongolic, Magyar, Uralic, etc.)?
[Nothing was "done"] The vagueness reflects the notorious uncertainty of most things to do with the Scythians who, let's remember, flourished for around 1000 years in an area several '000 miles across, around 2000 years ago, and left almost no written records themselves. As long as scholars don't agree on them, Wikipedia won't either. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Just adding that much of the problem is the varied scope of the term, which some writers use for a large larger set of peoples than others. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
When did found the first Scythian state? How many states founded by the Scythians? britannica: "From the second half of the 8th century bce, the Cimmerians were replaced by the Scythians, who used iron implements. The Scythians created the first known typical Central Asian empire. The chief thrust of their expansion was directed against the south rather than the west, where no major power existed and which thus offered little chance for valuable booty. In the late 8th century bce, Cimmerian and Scythian troops fought against the Assyrian king Sargon II, and, at the end of the 6th century bce, conflict arose between the Scythians and the Achaemenian king Darius I." Pazkyle (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Should there be further detail regarding the usage of the term, "Scythian" by the Romans?
It seems that many primary sources which include references to others as "Scythians" do so in a very derogatory sense. Its usage as a term for referring to others as barbaric heathens, who live far away, which demonstrates the ignorance of the person using the term, seems like it deserves more explaining. Denoting the significance of the term's historical usage as a derogatory seems like it would be important for this article, and it is not clear from reading it what its true colors are. Further elaboration and citing primary sources that demonstrate the haughty attitudes had by citizens of the Western Latin world who used the terms for describing their perceptions of the East Romans. A number of Western Latin citizens saw the Greek-Eastern Romans as barbaric heathens and express their attitudes in reference to the transferring of Roman power and authority to Constantinople, that the once great city of Rome had gone mad, forsaken its values, and furthermore had somehow "receded into some Scythian wilderness". It resonates with the phrase, "going native". The usage of the term "Scythian" hardly ever seems to actually refer to actual Scythians, and comes off as a term which reeks of imperialism and claims moral highground over whom it presumes is any number of nasty adjectives such as, uncultured, barbaric, and filthy. I think its a term more people should be familiar with and I imagine discussing its usage in further detail will significantly improve the content of the article.
I don't trust my own writing well enough to do the edits myself. However, I thought I'd offer my feedback and advice on how to improve it.
Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2015
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Clarify the lead section. Add a direct link to Scythian languages instead of Eastern Iranian languages. Why readers/viewers are forced to read a whole article about Eastern Iranian languages? Readers want direct info and details about Scythians, not all living, dead, extinct, ancient, old, modern, and new Eastern branch of Iranian languages. Thanks. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC) 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Scythians were not a Iranian, were a Turkic people. Madyas (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
That is a very minority view among scholars. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
No, just the opposite. Scythians were Turk accordin to generally accepted opinion. Madyas (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
No, they just weren't! sources? That is not to say that some people described, either in ancient times or in modern sources, as "Scythian" were not Turcic. The term is a very elastic one, as the article tries to make clear. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Scythians were Turkic according to Oxford. Madyas (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Why should one listen to a nationalist who has no reliable sources with him and only likes to make disruptive edits? exactly. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey Iranian boy, "HistoryofIran" username, he is not a nationalist, not only all Turkish historians, I mean all Turks (I mean not only Turkey Turks, all Turkic peoples) believes the "Turkic" theory. But we are used to hearing these lies from Wikipedia lie "encyclopedia". For example, there is no "Turko-Persian" or "Persianate" Turkic khaganate, empire in Iran in history. But ridiculous thing that Wikipedia creates something popular in Iran or Europe, but not Turkic countries, if it suit for your freaking interests, you show us "Oxford" or etc. sources, but if not, "No, why we listen a nationalist?" Really? Give me a break... KARA (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Please read this 2013 consensus (talk page, archive 4, started by me): Consensus for the lead section: Iranian people or Iranian-speaking people. There are opinions by involved editors plus second and third opinions by other editors. We don't need another edit war or endless reverting. If you want to improve the lead section, consider comments on that 2013 consensus. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a consensus there? What is it? The recent spat of reversions really concerns the scope of the term, which is notoriously not used consistently. This definitional difficulty is adressed a little later, but the lead should not begin with a statement that says or implies the Scythians were exclusively "Iranian_people_or_Iranian-speaking_people". Where those links go is not of great importance to me. The wording I reverted to has been there for a while now (well since Feb 8). I was also concerned to remove the bad Easter-egg piping of "Eurasian_nomads|equestrian". In general the scope of the term remains variable, and the linguistic and ethnic make-up of most groups so defined rather uncertain and controversial, so the beginning of the lead should be rather cautious and reticent on the matter. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not one of the major contributors to this article (only few minor edits). Plus, I don't see any problem in your edits (current revision), it's better and more neutral than previous revisions. I agree with your edits and changes. But I'm sure that "last dispute" will start again, so if you decided to improve this article, reading the talk page archives will be helpful. I didn't say you must create a revision that satisfy all editors! But there are good points that can help you to improve this article. That's my point and suggestion. I watch this article and I wish this article becomes a good article or had a stable accepted revision at least. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Well I hope it won't revert to disputes - it is protected now, which helps. I have also done very little here and don't intend to add much more - my main interest in this area is Scythian art. As so often with ethnic/nationalist-related disputes, it all seems to be about the first couple of lines. I don't think that the 2013 debate, though it was interesting and useful, can be said to agree on a consensus version, and I personally prefer how it is at the moment. The trouble is that depending on the scope used for the term, it may be correct (within the uncertainty surrounding the whole area) to say that Scythians entirely/mostly/partly used Iranian/Scythian languages, or that they did not. Thanks for your comments. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)