Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy

Main Project (discussion) • Project resources • Project Standards (discussion) • Project Category Structure (discussion) • Project Participants (discussion) • Project Assessment (discussion) • Recent Changes • Project Award • Popular Articles

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Anthroponymy and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:APO

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 60 days

Anthroponymy Project‑class

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names 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.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Anthroponymy and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 60 days

Origin of The Scythian Tribe

The history of the ancient Persia is quite complex. I have noticed a handful of authors of Russian, Israeli-Canadian, and Ukrainian origins have recently tried to force the hypothesis that Scythian nation were of Iranian origin. Interestingly, Scythia was a tribe with no confirmed DNA findings who apparently lived on the northern to north-western coast of the Black Sea as outlined by many articles (just google Scythia).

Other extremely interesting fact is none of the mentioned authors, themselves, have the origin of Iran or at least spent a good few years in that country. They have no idea about Iran as a nation or its origin. In fact, I go as far as to make this claim that they do not even truly understand the difference between Iran and Persia.

I am an Iranian. It is devastating when individuals with least information about a nation make such hypothesis, then publish it, then try to force-feed their circumstantial assumptions based on few ceramic artefacts as the facts to the public.

To make some clarifications: 1) Persia was not Iran. There is a huge distance between Persia and Iran Biologically, Anthropologically, culturally, religious beliefs, life style, traditions, languages, and Geographically.

So, it is inaccurate and simplistic to mistake Iran as Persia.

2) Iran as a country, at best, was only formed in 1935 [1] and at least did not exist prior to the Safavid Dynasty [2,3]. Thus, the claims made by these particular group of Ukrainian, Russian, and Israeli-Canadian authors are inaccurate at best and a myth at worst, objectively speaking.

3) The best and most primary way to describe the Scythian's (Scythe, Saka, Sakae, Iskuzai, Askuzai, Ashkuzai, Ashkenazi) origin is to recognise them based on their historical location that would be a cross among the well-known ancient nations of Slav, Khazars, and Turkic origin. It is noteworthy to mention that Turkic nation does not necessarily mean The Turks or Turkish tribes of Ottoman empire, or the modern country of Turkey. It would be the exact same mistake to consider ancient Turkic tribes as today's Turkey. The ancient Turkic tribes spread from Anatolia to Russia , and central Asia [4]. 4) Apart from the political agenda of these handful of authors that I mentioned at the beginning of this note, if one unbiasedly search for the truth based on the facts but not mind's assumptions, one would recognise that : a) Scythian origin is not clear until concrete, unbiased facts in the shape of artefacts such as scrolls, ancient manuscripts or DNA evidence confirm that Scythians were Iranians who migrated to the north. Of course, that would be highly unlikely chronologically speaking. That is because Iran simply did not exist at the time of Scythians. Further to the chronology, why would a group of people most probably farmers had decided to leave warm climate, fertile climate of the South (where the current Iran) for agriculturally cold, comparatively barren climate of the North of Black Sea and Russian Steppes!?

That would be highly unlikely.

b) Looking in to the biogenetics of such claims: The data on Srubna, Cimmerians, and Sarmatians shows clearer Y-DNA bottlenecks (of R1a-Z645 subclades) with the new data, the Scythian samples remain controversial, because of the many doubts about the haplogroups (although the most certain cases are R1b-Z2103), their actual date, and cultural attribution. However, given the expansionist trends of steppe nomads before, during, and after Scythians (as shown in statistical analyses), it is most likely that they are Scythian of ‘Para-Scythian’ nomadic tribes were originated from the east, whether or not they incorporated Balkan populations later would be another matter all together. Fact is Y chromosome-DNA studies have supported by the remaining R1b-P312 and R1b-Z2103 populations in and around the modern Eurasian steppe region, that means Russian steppes and Ukraine regions, not Iran.

Further to the above, the early Iron Age cultures of the Carpathian basin ca. 7-6th century BC, including steppe groups Baraba (modern-day Kazakhstan and Western Central Asia ) and Scythians were eloquently demonstrated by Ďurkovič et al. [5].

You may find an interesting and detailed take on the data published (in Russian) at Vol-Vlad’s Live Journal.

Alternatively, you may read an automatic translation from Google. The study maybe too detailed in debunking all information associated to the supposed Scythians, to the point where just a single sample seems to be an actual Scythian (?!) -, but is nevertheless it is interesting to read the potential pitfalls of the study.

References: 1) https://historyofyesterday.com/when-did-persia-become-iran-b10d639f5b71 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran#/media/File:Saffarids_900ad.jpg 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_people 5) https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110266306.93/html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kislev-Sheni (talk • contribs)

All this is interesting, but in Wikipedia talk pages we discuss the ways to improve our articles. Wikipedia is not a forum for various discussions. If you have a specific problem with a particular article, please state your suggestions in the talk page of the corresponding article. If you think that an issue with several Wikipedia articles is generic and must be discussed here, you still have to: (a) list specific issues and specific Wikipedia articles with these problems and (b) notify about this discussion here in the talk pages of the articles in question. Lembit Staan (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed re how to classify Burmese names as mononymous

Hello. I'm trying to maintain the List of legally mononymous people, and need help regarding how to classify Burmese names. If you're familiar with Burmese language and naming customs, I'd appreciate your contribution to the discussion there. Thanks! Sai ¿?✍ 19:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering

How do you order in lists people who insist on not having surnames? E.g. Icelanders, Indonesians. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also Tamils, among others; see Indian name#Tamil. Surnames are a relatively modern invention, and many cultures have done perfectly well without them (including the Irish, Scots and Welsh, until the English insisted that they adopt the then-novel English style).

Sometime after 9/11, I remember a report (CIA?) something like "Ali bin Mohammed AKA Ali abd Daoud" as if that was something devious if not nefarious. It wasn't. In different contexts, under Arabic naming conventions the same man might be called "Ali son of Mohammed" or "Ali father of Daoud". Narky Blert (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Hello, I'm trying to organize the listings of three names, which might or might not be related, to the appropriate name or DAB pages. I'd be grateful for your help and contribution, here is the discussion so far for background. Thank you 94.15.165.206 (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German names

I'm not sure about German names: should the page Raumer be moved to Von Raumer? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm advised elsewhere not, so I'll leave it where it is. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Zelensky

An article that you have been involved in editing—Zelensky—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Mapogo Coalition

The below is my observation regarding the Mapogo Coalition based on utube videos and articles that I read.

The Mapogo coalition can be categorised based on: 1) Physical, 2) Behavioural, and 3) The connection b/w 1 & 2.

1)Physical: Mapogo coalition can be divided in to two subgroups based on their facial features and shape of their skulls. Subgroups A consisted of : Makhulu, Leonid-Red or Rasta, and Mohawk also known as Mr T. These lions had a triangular face due to their prominently long, narrow jaw line which anatomically made their skulls resembled that of an African leopard [1, 5, 11]. The narrow long jaw line gave the above three lions a triangular face shape with a trapezoid forehead. Additionally, subgroup A seems to have a lengthened fore head and frontal-temporal bone structures. Makhulu, Leonid-Red, and Mohawk had slender bodies. Regarding their manes, Makhulu in his later years was the only of the Mapogos with darkest mane though in his early adulthood his mane was flame-blond like Leonid-Red's mane [5]. Mohawk had less mane with a distinctive pattern due to a recessive gene that he carried. His mane was as dark as Makhulu's but because he carried the recessive gene his mane and its dark colour was not as notable as Makhulu's.

Noteworthy mentioning that Makhulu was the tallest and longest (#5-10 cm) lion among The Mapogo brothers.

Subgroup B consisted of Phoenix, Scar or Tank, and Shaka famously known as The Worrier. They did not have prominent narrow jaw line and combined with their wide rectangular foreheads, it seemed as though they had larger and wider faces compared to subgroup A [8]. The three lion brothers in subgroup B had full, blond manes; fuller, robust front limbs and generally were more muscular compared to subgroup A.

2) Behavioural: There were two subgroups. Subgroup A: Makhulu, Leonid-Red, and Mohawk. Subgroup B: Phoenix, Scar, and Shaka.

Subgroup A:These lions were more strategic behaviourally. This might mean that they were more intelligent. Though, the three lions operated significantly different, they all applied strategy to their actions. Among them (including all The Mapogos), Makhulu was the prominent strategist and the wisest. Hence, he out-lived all his younger brothers. Though he could attack ferociously, he preferred to save his efforts only to apply where it was necessary. Thus, Makhulu was knowingly selective with regards to his aggression and that was his strategy that helped him to live longer than all of his brothers and many lions in the wilderness [12].

Leonid-Red was known to be mysterious that was due to his subtle yet swift actions [7, 11]. He was the invisible Mapogo. Data collected about Leonid-Red was the least compared to the rest of The Mapogos. Leonid-Red's discretion was his strategy and was his wisdom as a top predator.

Mohawk has been portraited as the most aggressive Mapogo. Yet, Mohawk was the most supportive of all his six brothers when it came to share his catch with his pride [2]. Based on the videos available on the utube, Mohawk was the most generous lion, among his brothers, towards his prides. He not only allowed his pride to have a full access to his catch but also he supervised the feed among them, occasionally as showed in the videos. In one occasion during the feed and after watching his pride feasting on his catch, Mohawk blocked one of his lionesses gently by placing himself between the lioness and his offspring allowing his offspring to have a full access to his catch [2]. A behaviour that was not recorded about any of other Mapogos. Mohawk's supportive role was also prominent from very early age, as cubs [9]. He was extremely protective of Shaka [3, 4, 9, 10]. In fact, I doubt that Shaka would have been as aggressive as he was without Mohawk's full backups. Shaka was a worrier or general because he knew Mohawk was always behind him.

Even the attack on Makhulu's offsprings was a strategy that required intelligence though it was ruthless and cruel.

Mohawk had two behavioural facets: supportive and ruthless [9, 10]. Both of these behaviours require intelligence and strength. To combine these two opposite poles, Mohawk had to be intelligent. In fact based on his behavioural patterns, Mohawk was the brightest second to Makhulu and among The Mapogos.

Subgroup B: They were less strategic more active. Among this subgroup, and the whole coalition, Shaka was the most aggressive. He attacked for the sake of attack with the unconditional support of his twin, Mohawk.

Scar was as aggressive as Shaka but his aggression was mostly directed towards protecting his brothers and his pride [6]. Due to his extremely robust physique (number # 1 among the six Mapogos; his physique even resembled the extinct Atlas lions or Panthera Leo Leo), Scar was able to take down a buffalo, even a giraffe without no support from his brothers, as recorded.

Though physically very strong, Phoenix applied his aggression towards catching his preys [8]. He was the least aggressive among this subgroup.

3) Physical vs Behavioural correlation: Subgroup A with a distinct narrow jaw line, trapezoid forehead, and lean body frames [11] seems to have a superior strategy to survive wild life compared to their fair-mane, muscular, highly aggressive brothers in subgroup B.

Whether there is a correlation between facial features ( that means a minimally difference in skull anatomy) and muscularity versus behavioural traits such as strategy or aggression is yet to be investigated, hopefully in future panthera leo coalitions.