Talk:Scythians#What needs to be fixed: an enumeration

(Old Persian: Sakā; New Persian: ساکا Saka; Greek: Σάκαι Sakai; Armenian: սկյութները Skyout'nerə; Latin: Sacae, Sanskrit: शक Śaka), and Sai (Chinese: 塞; Old Chinese: *sˤək), respectively.[8]

This statement in the preface is neither sourced, nor reasonable. Why would "authors" especially "ancient" (being much closer in time) persist in applying name Scythians to various non related people? Stupidity or just knowing much better about "disappearance"? 91.230.101.219 (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The statement needs to be deleted or replaced with something like "Modern historiography consensus on Scythians' extinction through having been totally assimilated ca 5th century AD disregards the abundance of references to Scythians in medieval and early modern sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.230.101.219 (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Scythians|answered=yes}}

Under the "Culture and Society" > "Warfare" > "Weapons" > "Archery" section, there is a minor typo at the very end of the paragraph, "...possibly because *hey* might have been...".

Presumably, "hey" is meant to be written as "they" instead, and should be edited to fix this. Karma12th (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hippocrates NEVER describes the Scythians as light skinned!!! REMOVE THE SOURCE IMMEDIATLY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.180.144 (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the subject, but shouldn't the topics discussing the periods be included within the history one? Maybe that would help with the problem concerning the large amount of headlines.

Also, shouldn't the topics and sub-headlines be organized in chronological order? It seems that some subtopics, such as initial interactions with greeks, at the early period aren't arranged like that.Icy Train (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The recent condensation of the page by @AirshipJungleman29 has removed too much information from the page. I have managed to salvage the history section by moving it to a separate page, but the rest of the article has still lost significant amounts of information during the condensation process and it keeps getting reverted by @Nikkimaria when I try restoring it. I know I am biased, since I am the one who wrote much of the pre-condensation article in the first place, but isn't it possible to condense the information without losing it? Antiquistik (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Having more detailed subpages is how it should be done, per WP:DETAIL. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{green|I have managed to salvage the history section by moving it to a separate page}}. False. You have merged three separate pages, of appropriate length, that I created to salvage the utter mess this page was, and created another page that flagrantly violates a simple Wikipedia guideline that young children should be able to understand. Your ownership of this and related pages is rapidly becoming disruptive {{u|Antiquistik}}, along with your tiresome misconception that "more equals better!!!!", fundamentally at odds with basic policy. You are not helping readers, and thus you are not helping Wikipedia; you are only helping yourself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Nikkimaria}} The information removed belongs on this page because it is essential to understand the society of the Scythians. What has been moved into subpages has already been, spinning the rest of the information off into subpages doesn't work.

::{{ping|AirshipJungleman29}} What I did was to copy the content of the history section from before you went through it and turn it into a new page, and then I redirected the pages you created to it. I agree that it is also long and also needs condensation.

::However I am not trying to own this page. I have issues with how you condensed it because you merely removed paragraphs without editing the remnant so that the text now mentions information that is no longer within it. And you have also removed important information such as the list of tribes and of related cultures. This is not me being "more equals better," because as can been seen from my overhauling of the related pages Agathyrsi and Cimmerians, I have neither written huge pages nor tried to "own" these pages.

::I am objecting to your removals simply because this information is necessary for this page. Otherwise, the source material I used would not have devoted so much to explaining these. Antiquistik (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Your definition of "essential" and "necessary" is nowhere near the definition of the rest of Wikipedia. Similar to how you believe the 13,000-word Cimmerians article is not a "huge page"!—well, I suppose nothing else compares to the mess this previously was. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|AirshipJungleman29}} There is a limit on page size, but otherwise the rest of Wikipedia hasn't decided that the list of tribes or of related cultures or the explanation for what the Chernogorovka-Novocherkassk complex is are non-essential or unnecessary on this page.

::::Additionally, many of the sources still in the page no longer support the statements they're meant to be supporting after your purge. This is shoddy work.

::::As for Cimmerians, the limit for what constitutes a huge page is 15K words; 13K is well within the limits making it not huge.

::::To reiterate myself: I am not against condensing the excessively long article I wrote, I am for doing so with minimal loss of information. Antiquistik (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)