Talk:Scytho-Siberian world

Scythian map

The map is wrong for that title. Because "Recent excavations at Arzhan in Tuva, Russia have uncovered the earliest Scythian-style kurgan yet found.[5]" . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganikgaos (talk • contribs) 21:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Content

This is a blatent fork of Scythians, as part of Krakkos's mistaken efforts to narrow the scope of that article. When the dust settles, it should be redirected back there. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

If you believe that this article doesn't conform to Wikipedia's policies, I suggest you bring it to Articles for deletion for further discussion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No, in due course there with be a rearrangement of these articles, probably with an RFC. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

For the problems with this fork, see the (very long) ongoing discussion at Talk:Scythians#Some_issues_with_this_article. Better not start another big discussion here. Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Simpson 2017 misinformation

The genetics section of this article, which is a mess of Biblical proportions, contained numerous citations of Simpson (2017), which was used to support, for example, this statement:

who then were themselves replaced by paternal lines of other Eurasian cultures.[1]

But Simpson doesn't support any such statement, and contains no genetic information about human beings at all:

https://www.academia.edu/33750890

The only reference it makes to genetics is about Scythian horses. The reference itself is a pop archaeology article.

The content was added by 107.115.33.55 (talk · contribs) in a blitz edit that overturned content that had been added by more trustworthy and established Wikipedians like Krakkos.

Diff:

[1]

Seems highly dubious. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Use of "mongoloid" and "europoid" descriptors in physical appearance section?

Both of these terms are pseudoscientific and obsolete, as noted on their respective pages. I feel like this passage should be removed in favor of a more more modern descriptor, or accompanied by a disclaimer that these categories are outdated and unscientific. 47.55.95.232 (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Mary, et al. (2019)

The haplogroup of the remaining 1 sample was uncertain (probably group R).

Not seeing this anywhere the paper cited. Did I miss something?

Mary, et al (2019)

The sample in question appears to be ARZ-T8.

A raw link to Supplementary materials 2 is found here. It's a .xlsk file and the Y-DNA data is found in Table 6.

I can't find anything saying that ARZ-T8 was "likely R". Is this original research or something?

Since it was actually 16 of the 17 samples yielded a Y-haplotype, I don't see why we should enumerate this sample as 17, in this context.

We also should describe the mtDNA lineages from Arzhan since that was a significant part of this study's contents. - Hunan201p (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Range of Scythians.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)