Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagetae

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. Other than the article's author, unanimous consensus to delete as WP:OR and/or WP:ESSAY. If somebody wants to pursue the sock-puppet claim, that's best done at WP:SPI. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sagetae[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nominated version of the article; etymology-section has been removed after deletion-proposal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR and WP:POV. The whole article is an original research and Gioferri (talk · contribs)'s agenda to create Altaic or Turkic origin for many Eurasian peoples. Look at the cited sources and how the mentioned editor interpreted them: Herodotus, Genesis, Jeremia, Darius - Behistun Inscriptions, Avesta - Vendidad, Ptolemaeus - Geographia, Strabo, Erodotus and etc. The article creator only cited one modern scholar (Giampietro Fabbri) and that cited historian's works don not match with the rest of article because the whole article is Gioferri's POV. The user even uploaded this made-up and bogus map, completely unsourced and just based on his pov: [1] Wario-Man (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the cited source "Fabbri" is neither historian nor linguist, he's an engineer. Please see Talk:Proto-Indo-European_homeland#Fabbri and [2]. This article is pure bogus, using WP for promoting an agenda as I mentioned it in my rationale. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support' - bullshit WP:FRINGE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support More Turkomania by yet another obvious Tirgil34 sock. As mentioned, Fabbri teaches industrial engineering and is not a scholar with any relevant credentials, and the article completely depends on Fabbri's work (for which "fringe" is a euphemistic description, it's pure fantasy), but is misleadingly designed to make it seem like it depends on multiple sources. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But, then, what about Getae and Massagetae? -The Gnome (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about them? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability trumps bad article-quality. If the subjects of those other articles, about the Getae and the Massagetae, are notable enough to remain in Wikipedia, then how can we strike off Sagetae? IMVHO , it is a very badly written text (no sources, possible OR, etc); but if our main case against it is that it's badly written, then we should tag it for clean up and give it some time for improvement. Agendas or no agendas. -The Gnome (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ESSAY, WP:OR, use of unreliable PRIMARY sources (ancient historians and the bible), and WP:POVFORK of Thyssagetae and Massagetae that this article attempts to speculate on their origins.Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speculative pseudo-history doesn't really belong here, and without the extensive etymology section, its just a dictionary definition of a specialist word. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also the sources are suspect, if the author of the sources used is also the inventor of the word, then there is a WP:GNG failing as well. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article can surely be improved. However, as I understand, the main problem is that the author of the source that I cite, Giampietro Fabbri, also has a degree in Engineering. I think that the fact that Fabbri has a degree in Engineering is relevant as that he also has black hair, a blue car or a white dog. I have read the Fabbri’s theory and I have found it interesting and consistent with a large amount of data which the author presents. I have cited part of this theory in a concise way, clearly reporting the sources which are available also online. No user in this page points out discrepancies in the reported theory.
As I understand, some user believes that I am a sock of an user called Tirgil34 since I would be affected by Turkomania and I would promote the thesis of an Altaic or Turk origin for may Eurasian peoples. On the contrary, I cite the Fabbri’s theory which demonstrates an Indo-European paternity of Altaic peoples.
As I am new as Wikipedia editor, I can not understand whether “bullshit” has a particular meaning in this context. However, it seems offensive and not a constructive comment aimed to improve the article and Wikipedia.
I have drawn the map trying to summarise the main informations given by the cited sources. I will check whether I misunderstood them.
I will try to modify the article taking your constructive comments into account.--Gioferri (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gioferri: see Bullshit, a slang profanity term meaning "nonsense", especially as a rebuke in response to communication or actions viewed as deceptive, misleading, disingenuous, unfair or false. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fabbri's theory might (and I'm not sure about this) have a place (a very short mention) in Thyssagetae and Massagetae. However a standalone topic (a speculative ancestor group with a single proponent) this does not make.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We might have a clear case of WP:DONTBITE, here. :-) Let us all gear down. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the etymology-section of the article, per non-WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thank Prince of Thieves for explaining the meaning of Bullshit. However, I can not understand what has no sense in the original version of the article Sagetae. Joshua Jonathan could explain it in order to let the article be improved.--Gioferri (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Joshua Jonathan deleted the section that had been entitled “Etymology” since he believes that sources are not reliable, but he does not specify why he believe this. The only motivation for considering unreliable the source that I find expressed in this page is that Fabbri has a degree in engineering. Universities are used to confer degrees “honoris causa” to the people for the quality of the research they performed in a field in which they had no academic degree. This demonstrate that also who has no degree in a particular sector can perform good quality and reliable research in that field. The reliability of a source is not determined by the author’s biography, but, depending on the kind of source, by its consistence, coherence and method. These are to be taking into consideration to evaluate the reliability of the source, but I do not read nothing about these in this page.
The deletion of the etymology section by Joshua Jonathan seems to be an agenda to cancel theories unreliable from his personal point of wiew. I do not know whether Wikipedia uses a particolar code to define that, but I believe that it is not correct. Instead of deleting the section, Joshua Jonathan could improve it adding other theories that he knows and believes more reliable. I will try to do a similar improvement as soon as I can.--Gioferri (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained at Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland#Fabbri, which you seem to ignore. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can not find any explaination in that talk. You just reported some parts of Fabbri’s source adding some typographical errors, without pointing out what do you believes incorrect or unreliable and explaining why. I did not add any comment in that page yet since I am still trying to understand what was wrong in my edit. The only motivations for reverting my edit that I can find in that talk are that Fabbri also has a degree in enginering and I am supposed to be a sock of a previous user who was called Tirgil34. Only reading this article for deletion page I learn that Tirgil34 was a turkomaniac who wanted to diffuse his ideas on a Altaic or Turkic origin for many Eurasian peoples. As I have already written, I wonder of this supposition, since I reported Fabbri’s theory which is in contrast with those ideas, considering Altaic peoples as derived by Indo-Europeans. Perhaps, I did not report this part of Fabbri’s theory enough clearly due to necessity of being concise as probably I neither have been.--Gioferri (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Icewhiz believes that the article Sagetae is a fork of Massagetae and Thyssagetae. However, there are at least two points of view, 1) considering the names Massagetae and Thyssagetae as compound of Sagetae, 2) considering these names as having a different derivation, may be as compound of Getae. From the first point of view the main argument should be Sagetae while Massagetae and Thyssagetae should be treated as derivated. From the second point of view the name Sagetae means nothing. Including Massagetae and Thyssagetae in subsections of an article Sagetae would favour the first point of view. Having no article Sagetae would favour the second one. To be impartial, Massagetae, Thyssagetae, Sagetae, and Getae had to be treated as subsections of an unique article. But how to entitle it? Peoples having a name ending with getae? Perhaps is better to have an article for each of these names with links to the others.--Gioferri (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gioferri: a combined article would be a good idea. As the title, you pick the common name, which is the one used most often, or best covered in sources. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince of Thieves: I agree with you. A combined article could be a good idea. However, I had already tried to add an edit in Massagetae article, but some users reverted it immediately. I though that they were vandalisers, but, as I wrote, in this page I understand that they believe that I am a sock of a turkomaniac.--Gioferri (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well you could try and convince them otherwise. Or just save a copy of this page, don't worry about it and go edit other topics for a while, then come back with a fresh perspective. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince of Thieves: I will take your advice. I will reconsider this discussion after time.--Gioferri (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Until some sources are added referring the the views of modern academic commentators, I must regard this as WP:OR, trying to draw together two distinct Scythian tribes as if they were one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: Do you consider reliable only the sources of Academics? --Gioferri (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: However, you probably read the current version of Massagetae article, while, as I understand, the Etymology section is mainly under discussion, which has been deleted by Joshua Jonathan. In that section it was clearly specified that Massagetae and Thyssagetae were different tribes just bordering on each other and having different customs. --Gioferri (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Smells like WP:OR. Getae seems to be the real root here, and already mentions Massagetae and Thyssagetae. The Sagetae term only shows up in searches because the Google book OCR output has the hyphenated word Mas-sagetae. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TimTempleton: Actually, you can find the term "sagetae" in internet at least in Encyclopaedia Britannica https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Brahui "Sajdi, another Brahui tribal name, is Scythian, the principal clan of which tribe is the Saga, both names being identifiable with the Sagetae and Saki of ancient writers." --Gioferri (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that "Sagetae" does not appear anywhere in the current edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica. However the 1911 edition^[3] states clearly that it is a anarchic name for the Saga tribe of the Brahui people. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2018 (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.