Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masguts
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Masguts[edit]
- Speedy delete
The user who created this article (barefact) is commiting original reasearch as he did here [1]. He already has also tried his hand in ossetic where he went against all scholarly sources and flatly claimed Ossetic is non-Iranic. Now he is trying to claim Turkic origin for Massagate's using unverifiable quotes and sources and folk etymology.
In this article he is cut & pasting materials from his site [www.turkicworld.org] which is a site full of Original Research and non-encyclopedia materials.
First and most improtant reason for deletion is that there is already an article about Massagetes [2]
Secondly again faulty folk etymology trying to connecti meshketian to Massagate is not shown by any scholarly sources.
Thirdly the author names a lot of ancient historians but does not provide the actual references, publications, publication date, pg number, edition and etc.
Fourth he even claims chorasmian and tocharians as Turkic people, which they were not!
Fifth the Massagetes are not related to Turks, Meshketian Turks, Huns and etc. I will just list several academic sources here on Scythians:
“… Scythians and Sarmatians were of Iranian origin” [John Channon & Robert Hudson, Penguin Historical Atlas of Russia, 1995, p.18] , “…Indo-European in appearance and spoke an Iranian tongue which bought them more closely to the Medes and Persians” [Tim Newark, Barbarians, 1998, London: Concord Publications Company, p.6], “The Sarmatians…spoke an Iranian language similar to that of the Scythians and closely related to Persian” [Brzezinski, R., & Mielczarek, M. (2002), The Sarmatians: 600 BC- AD 450. Oxford, United Kingdom: Osprey Publishing Men at Arms Series, p.3]. ,“…of Indo-European stock belonging to…the Iranian group, often called the Scythian group of peoples…they were akin to the ancient Medes, Parthians and Persians. Their language was related to that of the Avesta…” [Tadesuz Sulimirski, The Sarmatians, London: Thames & Hudson, 1970, p.22]. "
other verifable sources that mention them as Iranians: The Cambridge History of Iran edited by I. Gershevitch (1980): Massagate were Iranians[3]
Rome's Enemies: Parthians and Sassanids By Peter Wilcox [4]
Mounted Archers Of The Steppe 600 Bc-ad 1300, 2004 [5]
Note google books did not come up with one mention of Masguts!
Unfortunately the originator of this article has not contributed anything to wikipedia except claiming Turkic origin for dozens of ancient people that are not considered Turkic by standard references and reliable scholars. --alidoostzadeh 09:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Khosrow II 14:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Massagetae. We do not need a POV fork here. Obviously, there are many differnces between the articles (e.g. one claims the people are Iranians the other claims them to be Turks) we need to check which data is supported by WP:RS and which are not abakharev 09:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: The article seems to be just a cut & paste from a polemic book on tatar nationalism or something. To claim Tocharians, Chorasmians as Turks is also false (see the wikipedia enteries). I am not sure how many times a user has to be caught with original research ... --alidoostzadeh 09:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and Speedy Delete- This is another one of Barefacts POV and OR articles from his website, which claims absurd things. As per Ali, I vote delete. Barefact does not even show his sources at all. He has attempted historical revisionism before with Ossetians and Scythians, and has failed. Ali once proved that Barefact "rewrites" quotes by scholars to fit his interpretation.Khosrow II 14:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- POV fork, Redirect to Massagetae. (Merge whatever should turn out to be verifiable, probably not much). Note to !voters: please familiarize yourself with the technical meaning of "speedy"; it definitely doesn't apply here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Okay another suggestion could be to merge everything to the talk page (and not the actual page) of the Massagetae article and then work through the quotes and sentences one by one and once they are verified, then move it into the Massagetae page. But there is no way an original research article should be just inserted into the Massagetae page that contradicts the Massagetae page. --alidoostzadeh 18:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, could work too. But why bloat the talk page with it? Isn't in the history behind the redirect a "safer" place to hide the B**t? Plus, we are left with the question of whether the redirect as such wouldn't be useful on its own merits. How common is the term "Masguts" as a synonym of "Massagetae"? If there's any likelihood that people might actually search for it, then a redirect would be in order in any case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Okay another suggestion could be to merge everything to the talk page (and not the actual page) of the Massagetae article and then work through the quotes and sentences one by one and once they are verified, then move it into the Massagetae page. But there is no way an original research article should be just inserted into the Massagetae page that contradicts the Massagetae page. --alidoostzadeh 18:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Alidoostzadeh. Khorshid 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sources quoted cannot be verified. Merging therefore imppractible. --Pan Gerwazy 16:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, a lot of the article has citations of primary sources, which in fact are perfectly verifiable (e.g. "[Herodotus 4.11]" easily resolves to: [6].) The problem is not so much with WP:V than with WP:OR (and general issues of relevance of detail). If we could find out what the secondary source was that the article author has worked from, then an editor using careful judgment could well find interesting material in the article to be merged with the real one. Therefore: don't delete, preserve in history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The problem is that the word Masgut is not used in herodotus. The author is trying to attempt folk etymology going from Massagetae to Masgut (which is not found in any google book) to Meshkat Turks. Or check this one out from the article: At around 950 Al Masudi (died in 956) describes 4 Turkic peoples: Ydjni, Badjkurt (Maskurts, Masguts, Massagetae Scythians), Badjanak (Besenyos, Russ. Pecheneg), Nukardi. Doing away with the terrible grammer (which is throughout the article), the author goes from Badjkurt to Maskurts to Masguts to Massagetae Scythians, all to claim some sort of Turkish affinity! Masudi is an Arabic source and I have it available, yet the author does not give the source. Or check out this invalud quote: In antiquity in the Central Asia the Sako-Massagets were closely connected with the Tochars, who in the 5th-7th cc. AD are known as Türkic nations among the Türkic[citation needed] Ephtalites[citation needed] and other Türks. M.Kashgari lists the Togars (Tochars) as Türks. [citation needed] There is no source for thist, but the tochars or tocharians are indo-european and not Turkic. Furthermore the word Togar (if such a word exists in Kashgari) is not necessarily related to takharians (Tocharians). Please take a look at the standard article [[7]]. In it there are sources verified by major scholars in the field. In this article there is not one major recent university scholar mentioned and the author feels like he can just make up theories. Also note google books never uses the term Masgut and this is probably the authors attempt to connection them to meshketian turks and so he goes from Massagetae to Masgut to Mashkut to Meshkat.. (all folk etymology)--alidoostzadeh 18:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Don't worry, I absolutely agree the article as a whole is a mess. :-) I'm only advocating leaving it in the history as a quarry for those bits that might turn out to be useful for Massagetae. Such as the Herodot cites and stuff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The problem is that the word Masgut is not used in herodotus. The author is trying to attempt folk etymology going from Massagetae to Masgut (which is not found in any google book) to Meshkat Turks. Or check this one out from the article: At around 950 Al Masudi (died in 956) describes 4 Turkic peoples: Ydjni, Badjkurt (Maskurts, Masguts, Massagetae Scythians), Badjanak (Besenyos, Russ. Pecheneg), Nukardi. Doing away with the terrible grammer (which is throughout the article), the author goes from Badjkurt to Maskurts to Masguts to Massagetae Scythians, all to claim some sort of Turkish affinity! Masudi is an Arabic source and I have it available, yet the author does not give the source. Or check out this invalud quote: In antiquity in the Central Asia the Sako-Massagets were closely connected with the Tochars, who in the 5th-7th cc. AD are known as Türkic nations among the Türkic[citation needed] Ephtalites[citation needed] and other Türks. M.Kashgari lists the Togars (Tochars) as Türks. [citation needed] There is no source for thist, but the tochars or tocharians are indo-european and not Turkic. Furthermore the word Togar (if such a word exists in Kashgari) is not necessarily related to takharians (Tocharians). Please take a look at the standard article [[7]]. In it there are sources verified by major scholars in the field. In this article there is not one major recent university scholar mentioned and the author feels like he can just make up theories. Also note google books never uses the term Masgut and this is probably the authors attempt to connection them to meshketian turks and so he goes from Massagetae to Masgut to Mashkut to Meshkat.. (all folk etymology)--alidoostzadeh 18:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, if substantiated as a variant spelling in English redirect to Massagetae. (ᛎ) qɐp 16:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No reliable sources to support the article. (Marmoulak 03:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.