Talk:Scythians/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Genetics section is incomplete based on the source cited
From fig. 3 in the cited paper (Gnecchi-Ruscone et al 2021), we can see that all Scythian groups have a BMAC component as well as an East Asian one (Khovsgol, Ekven). I therefore propose the following rewording of the section based on the source already cited:
"The Scythians (specifically Western or Pontic Scythians, as in differentiation from Eastern Scythian Saka) primarily emerged out of the Bronze Age Andronovo-related Steppe_MLBA population, with additional contributions from BMAC and East Asian populations. The (Western or Pontic) Scythians (such as Sarmatians) fall in or close to the European-related cluster and derive ~75% of their ancestry from the Steppe_MLBA population with 25% additional ancestry from BMAC and East-Asian-related populations. Eastern Scythians (such as the Pazyryk culture) are more heterogeneous, both genetically and culturally, and demonstrate high levels of East Asian ancestry which makes up about half (50%) of the Pazyryk ancestry and 30-50% of the Saka ancestry, with BMAC ancestry ranging from 10 to 15% and Steppe_MLBA ancestry ranging from 40 to 50% respectively." 91.140.28.116 (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- The genetic section in this article is just a short summary on (Western) Scythians. The main article is found at Scytho-Siberian world#Genetics, which mentions these admixture events in more detail.-Wikiuser1314 (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Re: Length
I tried to rewrite much of the page to remove outdated scholarship, but it resulted in a 450k size page that was not unreasonably reverted back by @Carlstak: to the previous version, which however was the one which contained much scholarship that has since become out of date since the 90s.
Therefore, we are going to need a find way to bring back the up-to-date information while keeping this page within the limits of Wikipedia's standards for article size, ideally through splitting the "History" and "Society and Culture" sections into pages of their own as previously discussed in the former discussion on the article's length.
I will nevertheless also add a caveat that most of Wikipedia's ancient history articles are very poorly written and that, if, say, the page for the Neo-Assyrian Empire or the New Kingdom of Egypt had to be rewritten with all the up-to-date relevant information, then they would probably exceed the 450k version of this page. Meaning that Wikipedia itself will eventually need to adapt to better cover and convey topics consisting of extensive amounts of information. Antiquistik (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Antiquistik being up to date and accurate is not related to length, imo. The issue is that if new information appears then some outdated content needs to be removed (or moved to historiography/sub articles) at the same time to maintain the correct length. For example Armenian genocide covers a complex topic in a short number of words with all sources cited being both fairly recent and high-quality. (t · c) buidhe 17:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with buidhe that an article being up to date and accurate is not a function of its length. Antiquistik, based on a cursory read of your massive addition, you seem to have command of the material, and have demonstrated proficiency in handling it. Surely you can write up a summary-style version that covers the updated information, and eliminates the outdated stuff—no need to retain it. Most of the content in excess of 100,000 bytes can be spun off into subsidiary articles. I have faith that you can do this.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Carlstak: @Buidhe: I would nevertheless need to restore the version that you reverted and then work on trimming and condensing the page from there to do that, if you are ok with it. Antiquistik (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why can't you do it in your sandbox? That wouldn't be disruptive, and other editors could track its progress, make comments, and edit it without the disruption of constant changes to the present article. Carlstak (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll work on it in my sandbox. Antiquistik (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why can't you do it in your sandbox? That wouldn't be disruptive, and other editors could track its progress, make comments, and edit it without the disruption of constant changes to the present article. Carlstak (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Carlstak: @Buidhe: I would nevertheless need to restore the version that you reverted and then work on trimming and condensing the page from there to do that, if you are ok with it. Antiquistik (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with buidhe that an article being up to date and accurate is not a function of its length. Antiquistik, based on a cursory read of your massive addition, you seem to have command of the material, and have demonstrated proficiency in handling it. Surely you can write up a summary-style version that covers the updated information, and eliminates the outdated stuff—no need to retain it. Most of the content in excess of 100,000 bytes can be spun off into subsidiary articles. I have faith that you can do this.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Wrong citation in section Physical appearance
In the section Physical appearance it says that : "The fourth-century bishop Gregory of Nyssa wrote that the Scythians were fair skinned and blond haired". I looked at the original source but I could not find any reference for this claim in the text. Can this please be checked and, if nobody finds the reference, removed? Dominik3810 (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)