This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Saka article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Saka. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Saka at the Reference desk. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
why is this saying population unknown? it should say population extinct. Hypothetically if sakas were still around this would be one of the oldest surviving ethnicitys in the world. 76.244.154.251 ( talk) 12:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Slav does not derive from Saka, its an old English word for "slave." The modern decednants of the Saka are the Pashtuns, there is even one tribe of theirs called "Sakazai." Akmal94 ( talk) 01:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Is it possible that the Sakas - Scythians - are the same as the Sakya clan of Buddha Sakyamuni?-- Xact ( talk) 23:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
O gosh I feel overtasked... Are you guys really serious? Don't people get it - Sacae/Scythian/etc. is not a mono-linear globular term but a generalization of a wide variety of sub-complexes of ethnic groups however, yet, strongly, definitively ethnically consubstantial, at bottom -
The Buddha appears to have belonged to the most ancient warrior nobility of this our subject clan/sub-race/ethny in question, quite totally opposite to your nescience, fellows. The Pali Canon calls his bloodline, "The Sakiya race." Details of chronology aside, the oldest texts assert he belonged to the most primal Hindu aristocratic lineage: the Buddha claims descent from the "solar race" (surya-vamsa) of Iksvaku, genitor of the paleo-Indo-Iranian/Aryan nations, allegorized as "MANU"; and the Buddha, as a khattiya/Kshatriya of "old-guard" type rebelling against decadent priests, proclaims rather straightforwardly, "I am descended from the solar dynasty and I was born a SAKIYA" (Suttanipata 3.1.19)... "PROUD AS A SAKIYA" was the old saying, hmm... I mean, come on, the texts even talk about the dark-blue color of his eyes as a "superior man", etc. "ARIYA-MAGGA, ARHANT" etc. <--> Indo-Iranian or "Aryan" <--> Iranian Scythian/Sakan, SAKIYA, hello? Coincidences, sure...lol...
I can more meticulously source if needed, I am just astounded people do not know these things... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:7D57:797D:B38E:2C64 ( talk) 08:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Witzel and Beckwith have published on this subject. I have added it to the history section, with citations. Teishin ( talk) 20:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I have just been through the article removing the proliferation of academic titles - see: [1]. In the process I made a number of other small edits - mainly spelling and grammar mistakes. Sincerely, John Hill ( talk) 10:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
in the reference [1] Bailey mentions "The Khotan Saka language was replaced by Turkish from about 1000 of our era". However trhe article mentions (no reference given) that "Saka..resided in and migrated over the plains of Eurasia from Eastern Europe to Xinjiang Province, China, from the Old Persian Period to the Middle Persian Period when they were displaced by or integrated with Turkic language speakers during the Turkic migration.". Should we replace this?-- Xashaiar ( talk) 00:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There has been a box for a long time now suggesting that the articles on Sakas and Indo-Scythians be merged and a request that this possible merger be discussed here. There has been absolutely no discussion so far. I am totally against the idea as many Saka tribes seem to have had nothing to do with India at all, and the term "Indo-Scythian" has been used very loosely for groups of people (such as the Kushans - to give just one example) of whom the origins are still being hotly debated. I propose, therefore, that unless there is a significant number of editors with referenced arguments in favour, that we remove the merge boxes on both articles sometime soon. Any comments? Sincerely, John Hill ( talk) 21:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
this isn't correct. The problem is that this article has no clear scope. Already the claim that Saka is rendered in Greek as Skuthoi in the lead makes this clear. This article appears to be about the Indo-Scythians, but before they entered India, i.e. prehistorically. That is, when they were still just Scythians, of an eastern and therefore unattested variety. Now, it turns out that Saka is simply the Old Persian term for "Scythians". This makes the obvious merge candidate the Scythians article. It is unclear why we should have an article on the Scythians under their English name, and another one under their Old Persian name. If the point of this article is simply the discussion of the names "Scythians" and "Saka", we can call it Scythian (name) or similar. -- dab (𒁳) 10:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to the (unexplained) claim that there were differences were between "Saka" and "Scythians", the article actually contradicts that and suggests that the two words are virtually synonymous:
Thus the Behistun inscription mentions four divisions of Scythians,
Of these, the Saka tigraxauda were the Saka proper. The Saka paradraya were the western Scythians or Sarmatians, the Saka haumavarga and Saka para Sugudam were likely Scythian tribes associated with or split-of from the original Saka.
In which case, I would point out that at least some of the historical peoples concerned clearly equated Scythian, in both the generic and "proper" senses, with Saka.
Consequently, Saka therefore seems to breach the WP guideline against forking/splitting similar material, since the articles appear to be about synonyms (as if, e.g., we had full-length articles about both India and Bhārata.)
Therefore, should a vote be held, I would support the merger of Scythians and Saka. Grant | Talk 10:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The Sanskrit name is शक which should be transliterated as śaka or shaka, not simply saka. mahaabaala ( talk) 17:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The current paragraph on language refers to Iranian - this appears to be vandalism. These people were not Persian or Iranian. 72.166.122.60 ( talk) 02:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a very condensed article. I think it could use a little more infrastructure and some expansion. It reminds me of 1911 to some degree. It wouldn't hurt to do an Internet search on some of the phrases just to make sure the writing is in fact distinct from its sources. There is a huge note in it. I would expand that area, breaking the big note up into smaller ones. It is, so to speak, a note for text not yet in the article. Why not put it in? Thanks. Dave ( talk) 13:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The scythians spanned all over eurasia as did the turks, russians and british. So why is a "history of Afghanistan" timeline put on there? Are the Scythians exclusively Afghan history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.90.213 ( talk) 05:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I started trying to do some minor edits today (italicising book titles, adding citation needed tags, toning down excessive claims, etc.) but soon realised some major work needs to be done to make (in particular) the section on Plato and note 23 not only grammatically correct but more accurate. The identification of the Kambojas with groups mentioned in Western Classical sources is by no means generally accepted and the article, I believe, should indicate this. However, I have little time to spare at the moment. Is there someone else who could take on this task, please? John Hill ( talk) 22:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I have tagged quite a lot of this article. We simply cannot say things such as "Various accounts agree", without giving at least some indication of what those accounts are, nor can we use the likes of Herodotus without at least some support from a modern secondary source. The article was recently mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Races_as_described_by_Megasthenes. - Sitush ( talk) 10:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
it is obvious if Saka people were proto Turkic people, this article says if Turks appeared from no where! unfortunately there are a lot of anti Turkic propaganda in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.164.109.112 ( talk) 11:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
You are right but to be honest so many historians did proved that saka people were actually a Turkic tribe . wikipedia has been used as a political tool to discredit saka and turkic history but this is because of vandalism and ignorance . may be this is why wikipedia is not allowed as a reserch metarial in high schools and universities . Anyways , saka people are turkic people . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.46.146 ( talk) 02:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
This is very romantic and cool and all but only a small percentage of any people are warriors and even they spend most of their time not as warriors but as people. 65.79.173.135 ( talk) 20:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Will in New Haven
Seriously I'm questioning that. According to Encyclopædia Iranica every nations which lived nearby Iran are Iranians and that's really annoying, nationalist crap. There are people who call themselves Saka in modern world and everybody know that they are Turkic people yet, we are using Encyclopædia Iranica as source and call ancient Sakas as Iranian. User without username ( talk) 17:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is reliable, and by the way, you're opinion counts as nothing, the same goes with everyone's opinions in these cases. -- Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust ( talk) 18:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I state: Anglo-Saxons, quintessential "Western Europeans", DO NOT anciently bear ANY relation to the SACARAUCAE. Moreover, SACARAUCAE is NOT corrupted Chinese for Tocharian-kindred antecessor "pre-Westerners" - reemphasizing, SACARAUCAE and SAKARAULOI are NOT cognate ethnonyms. NOT. Saxon tribal origins lie NOT THEREABOUTS.
Wu-sun Alan ethnic nuclei enjoy NO ROLE of FORMATIVE CREATION in Saxon origins - above all, Saxon is not related to Sistan, Iran. Sistan was NEVER named SAKESTAN after the then-dominant tribal group ruling - NEVER.
Or: Key-most perhaps, Odin is NOT related to Central Asian, Trans-Caucasian regional lands. Odin is from an Evolian alter-verse of the North Pole, simply dropping down to earth through an unexplained space-time tear.
When Snorri wrote "TYRKLAND" and "ASALAND" and "ASGARD" as identical to "TROY OF PRIAMUS", and such idiocy, we must simply realize the Edda and Snorri etc. are schizophrenic. Saxons and all Western Nordic and Nordic-affiliated folk are mysteriously autochthonous, simple as that without question...
The article serves nicely in omitting the Gokturk, Sogdian "MONGOL" runes - fratricide between Western and Eastern Aryans is judicious, RASSENKAMPF inevitable: blood-race difference is essentialist, is the main idea - Westerners and Easterners should be murderously engaged in warfare per present-day Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-American and Judeo-Zionist interests (I assume identical to Wiki-interests, right?)... Gumplowiczian sociological science knows RASSENKAMPF is unavoidable, racial division is foreordained, etc. This Hebrew maestro of sociology is given no credit today, oddly. "DER RASSENKAMPF" should be required reading for all Israelis and Americans and those not of Amalekite-Canaanite bastardy and subhuman genome.
The Saxon olden matrix is NOT related to Sangsar or Sag(a)sar, the modern Persian (Iranian/"Aryan") area: Saxons originated NOT as distant cousins of Irano-Parthian "ORIENTAL SWARTS" - etc. The omissions and scholarly duplicity here are sublime!
The Wu-Sun, the Shakya groupuscles etc. - belong only in Sinology. NOT related to the initial formative nuclei of "Saxon" blood - EMPHATICALLY.
AGAIN: NO RELATION BETWEEN IRANIAN PARTHIAN-affiliated clannish entities and the purely West-born, grandly Caucasian Saxon breed, the Weberian "ideal-type" "Caucasian"... Well, second to the true Israeli Jewish of COHEN MODAL HAPLO-TYPE, I correct myself...
Wikipedia, march on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:7D57:797D:B38E:2C64 ( talk) 05:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
John Milton, we all know, is one of the most famous morons and doltish brainless scammers in European literary history. I find the following words of Milton TOTALLY MEANINGLESS and corroborates the...Wiki-reality...about the UTTER ALIENAGE and VOID NIHILITY of relation betwixt the "true Sacae/Sakai/Saka" (EXTRA-EUROPEANS, ORIENTALS SIMPLY, INARGUABLY, EXCLUSIVELY!) and those other strangely UNRELATED folks whose ancestry they have now forgotten as "Westerners":
http://d.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/text/milton-history-of-britain
The Saxons were a barbarous and heathen Nation ... They were a people thought by good Writers, to be descended of the Sacæ, a kind of Scythian in the North of Asia, thence call'd Sacasons or Sons of Sacæ, who with a Flood of other Northern nations came into Europe, toward the declining of the Roman Empire...
WHAT A MADMAN! Any one ready for Pliny, Ptolemy, etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:7D57:797D:B38E:2C64 ( talk) 08:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
PericlesofAthens Hello, PericlesofAthens. I see you've been working quite a bit on the article. I'm not here to comment on the content of the article. Instead, I thought I'd ask you about the formatting of the lead. I see the second paragraph is indented. The indentation makes it look like the second paragraph is a block quote, which would be unusual in a lead section. Since I didn't look at your edits closely, I do not know if you indented that paragraph or not, but I thought I'd point it out rather than interfere in your on-going work on the article. If that paragraph is not a block quote, then it shouldn't be indented from the left margin. Best regards, – Corinne ( talk) 14:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
And now, in that way almost all of Epirus, Hellada, the Peloponnese and Macedonia have also been settled by the Skiti-Slavs. (from Strabonos Epitomathus) C.Muller, geographi graeci minores, Paris 1882 p574. 89.205.59.137 ( talk) 20:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@ SureshK 67: Could you explain what's the point of these edits? [2] [3] [4] And how your cited book support your claim? [5] -- Wario-Man ( talk) 11:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
There is no mention of saka denoting a race exist in pali canon. Just download Pali canon from here [6] and search saka (सक) or saaka (साक) and you will get 0 results. Why publish something that exists only in theory as true fact? SureshK 67 ( talk) 12:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
FYI SureshK 67 has been blocked for 36 hours as they have also been engaged in an edit war on https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mount_Kailash&action=history Teishin ( talk) 19:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Teishin's points. Per this diff, it seems SureshK 67 still does not know what 3RR and edit warring are. Plus Special:Contributions/SureshK_67 proves it too. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 19:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Saka article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Saka. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Saka at the Reference desk. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
why is this saying population unknown? it should say population extinct. Hypothetically if sakas were still around this would be one of the oldest surviving ethnicitys in the world. 76.244.154.251 ( talk) 12:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Slav does not derive from Saka, its an old English word for "slave." The modern decednants of the Saka are the Pashtuns, there is even one tribe of theirs called "Sakazai." Akmal94 ( talk) 01:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Is it possible that the Sakas - Scythians - are the same as the Sakya clan of Buddha Sakyamuni?-- Xact ( talk) 23:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
O gosh I feel overtasked... Are you guys really serious? Don't people get it - Sacae/Scythian/etc. is not a mono-linear globular term but a generalization of a wide variety of sub-complexes of ethnic groups however, yet, strongly, definitively ethnically consubstantial, at bottom -
The Buddha appears to have belonged to the most ancient warrior nobility of this our subject clan/sub-race/ethny in question, quite totally opposite to your nescience, fellows. The Pali Canon calls his bloodline, "The Sakiya race." Details of chronology aside, the oldest texts assert he belonged to the most primal Hindu aristocratic lineage: the Buddha claims descent from the "solar race" (surya-vamsa) of Iksvaku, genitor of the paleo-Indo-Iranian/Aryan nations, allegorized as "MANU"; and the Buddha, as a khattiya/Kshatriya of "old-guard" type rebelling against decadent priests, proclaims rather straightforwardly, "I am descended from the solar dynasty and I was born a SAKIYA" (Suttanipata 3.1.19)... "PROUD AS A SAKIYA" was the old saying, hmm... I mean, come on, the texts even talk about the dark-blue color of his eyes as a "superior man", etc. "ARIYA-MAGGA, ARHANT" etc. <--> Indo-Iranian or "Aryan" <--> Iranian Scythian/Sakan, SAKIYA, hello? Coincidences, sure...lol...
I can more meticulously source if needed, I am just astounded people do not know these things... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:7D57:797D:B38E:2C64 ( talk) 08:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Witzel and Beckwith have published on this subject. I have added it to the history section, with citations. Teishin ( talk) 20:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I have just been through the article removing the proliferation of academic titles - see: [1]. In the process I made a number of other small edits - mainly spelling and grammar mistakes. Sincerely, John Hill ( talk) 10:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
in the reference [1] Bailey mentions "The Khotan Saka language was replaced by Turkish from about 1000 of our era". However trhe article mentions (no reference given) that "Saka..resided in and migrated over the plains of Eurasia from Eastern Europe to Xinjiang Province, China, from the Old Persian Period to the Middle Persian Period when they were displaced by or integrated with Turkic language speakers during the Turkic migration.". Should we replace this?-- Xashaiar ( talk) 00:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There has been a box for a long time now suggesting that the articles on Sakas and Indo-Scythians be merged and a request that this possible merger be discussed here. There has been absolutely no discussion so far. I am totally against the idea as many Saka tribes seem to have had nothing to do with India at all, and the term "Indo-Scythian" has been used very loosely for groups of people (such as the Kushans - to give just one example) of whom the origins are still being hotly debated. I propose, therefore, that unless there is a significant number of editors with referenced arguments in favour, that we remove the merge boxes on both articles sometime soon. Any comments? Sincerely, John Hill ( talk) 21:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
this isn't correct. The problem is that this article has no clear scope. Already the claim that Saka is rendered in Greek as Skuthoi in the lead makes this clear. This article appears to be about the Indo-Scythians, but before they entered India, i.e. prehistorically. That is, when they were still just Scythians, of an eastern and therefore unattested variety. Now, it turns out that Saka is simply the Old Persian term for "Scythians". This makes the obvious merge candidate the Scythians article. It is unclear why we should have an article on the Scythians under their English name, and another one under their Old Persian name. If the point of this article is simply the discussion of the names "Scythians" and "Saka", we can call it Scythian (name) or similar. -- dab (𒁳) 10:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to the (unexplained) claim that there were differences were between "Saka" and "Scythians", the article actually contradicts that and suggests that the two words are virtually synonymous:
Thus the Behistun inscription mentions four divisions of Scythians,
Of these, the Saka tigraxauda were the Saka proper. The Saka paradraya were the western Scythians or Sarmatians, the Saka haumavarga and Saka para Sugudam were likely Scythian tribes associated with or split-of from the original Saka.
In which case, I would point out that at least some of the historical peoples concerned clearly equated Scythian, in both the generic and "proper" senses, with Saka.
Consequently, Saka therefore seems to breach the WP guideline against forking/splitting similar material, since the articles appear to be about synonyms (as if, e.g., we had full-length articles about both India and Bhārata.)
Therefore, should a vote be held, I would support the merger of Scythians and Saka. Grant | Talk 10:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The Sanskrit name is शक which should be transliterated as śaka or shaka, not simply saka. mahaabaala ( talk) 17:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The current paragraph on language refers to Iranian - this appears to be vandalism. These people were not Persian or Iranian. 72.166.122.60 ( talk) 02:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a very condensed article. I think it could use a little more infrastructure and some expansion. It reminds me of 1911 to some degree. It wouldn't hurt to do an Internet search on some of the phrases just to make sure the writing is in fact distinct from its sources. There is a huge note in it. I would expand that area, breaking the big note up into smaller ones. It is, so to speak, a note for text not yet in the article. Why not put it in? Thanks. Dave ( talk) 13:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The scythians spanned all over eurasia as did the turks, russians and british. So why is a "history of Afghanistan" timeline put on there? Are the Scythians exclusively Afghan history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.90.213 ( talk) 05:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I started trying to do some minor edits today (italicising book titles, adding citation needed tags, toning down excessive claims, etc.) but soon realised some major work needs to be done to make (in particular) the section on Plato and note 23 not only grammatically correct but more accurate. The identification of the Kambojas with groups mentioned in Western Classical sources is by no means generally accepted and the article, I believe, should indicate this. However, I have little time to spare at the moment. Is there someone else who could take on this task, please? John Hill ( talk) 22:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I have tagged quite a lot of this article. We simply cannot say things such as "Various accounts agree", without giving at least some indication of what those accounts are, nor can we use the likes of Herodotus without at least some support from a modern secondary source. The article was recently mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Races_as_described_by_Megasthenes. - Sitush ( talk) 10:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
it is obvious if Saka people were proto Turkic people, this article says if Turks appeared from no where! unfortunately there are a lot of anti Turkic propaganda in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.164.109.112 ( talk) 11:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
You are right but to be honest so many historians did proved that saka people were actually a Turkic tribe . wikipedia has been used as a political tool to discredit saka and turkic history but this is because of vandalism and ignorance . may be this is why wikipedia is not allowed as a reserch metarial in high schools and universities . Anyways , saka people are turkic people . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.46.146 ( talk) 02:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
This is very romantic and cool and all but only a small percentage of any people are warriors and even they spend most of their time not as warriors but as people. 65.79.173.135 ( talk) 20:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Will in New Haven
Seriously I'm questioning that. According to Encyclopædia Iranica every nations which lived nearby Iran are Iranians and that's really annoying, nationalist crap. There are people who call themselves Saka in modern world and everybody know that they are Turkic people yet, we are using Encyclopædia Iranica as source and call ancient Sakas as Iranian. User without username ( talk) 17:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is reliable, and by the way, you're opinion counts as nothing, the same goes with everyone's opinions in these cases. -- Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust ( talk) 18:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I state: Anglo-Saxons, quintessential "Western Europeans", DO NOT anciently bear ANY relation to the SACARAUCAE. Moreover, SACARAUCAE is NOT corrupted Chinese for Tocharian-kindred antecessor "pre-Westerners" - reemphasizing, SACARAUCAE and SAKARAULOI are NOT cognate ethnonyms. NOT. Saxon tribal origins lie NOT THEREABOUTS.
Wu-sun Alan ethnic nuclei enjoy NO ROLE of FORMATIVE CREATION in Saxon origins - above all, Saxon is not related to Sistan, Iran. Sistan was NEVER named SAKESTAN after the then-dominant tribal group ruling - NEVER.
Or: Key-most perhaps, Odin is NOT related to Central Asian, Trans-Caucasian regional lands. Odin is from an Evolian alter-verse of the North Pole, simply dropping down to earth through an unexplained space-time tear.
When Snorri wrote "TYRKLAND" and "ASALAND" and "ASGARD" as identical to "TROY OF PRIAMUS", and such idiocy, we must simply realize the Edda and Snorri etc. are schizophrenic. Saxons and all Western Nordic and Nordic-affiliated folk are mysteriously autochthonous, simple as that without question...
The article serves nicely in omitting the Gokturk, Sogdian "MONGOL" runes - fratricide between Western and Eastern Aryans is judicious, RASSENKAMPF inevitable: blood-race difference is essentialist, is the main idea - Westerners and Easterners should be murderously engaged in warfare per present-day Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-American and Judeo-Zionist interests (I assume identical to Wiki-interests, right?)... Gumplowiczian sociological science knows RASSENKAMPF is unavoidable, racial division is foreordained, etc. This Hebrew maestro of sociology is given no credit today, oddly. "DER RASSENKAMPF" should be required reading for all Israelis and Americans and those not of Amalekite-Canaanite bastardy and subhuman genome.
The Saxon olden matrix is NOT related to Sangsar or Sag(a)sar, the modern Persian (Iranian/"Aryan") area: Saxons originated NOT as distant cousins of Irano-Parthian "ORIENTAL SWARTS" - etc. The omissions and scholarly duplicity here are sublime!
The Wu-Sun, the Shakya groupuscles etc. - belong only in Sinology. NOT related to the initial formative nuclei of "Saxon" blood - EMPHATICALLY.
AGAIN: NO RELATION BETWEEN IRANIAN PARTHIAN-affiliated clannish entities and the purely West-born, grandly Caucasian Saxon breed, the Weberian "ideal-type" "Caucasian"... Well, second to the true Israeli Jewish of COHEN MODAL HAPLO-TYPE, I correct myself...
Wikipedia, march on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:7D57:797D:B38E:2C64 ( talk) 05:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
John Milton, we all know, is one of the most famous morons and doltish brainless scammers in European literary history. I find the following words of Milton TOTALLY MEANINGLESS and corroborates the...Wiki-reality...about the UTTER ALIENAGE and VOID NIHILITY of relation betwixt the "true Sacae/Sakai/Saka" (EXTRA-EUROPEANS, ORIENTALS SIMPLY, INARGUABLY, EXCLUSIVELY!) and those other strangely UNRELATED folks whose ancestry they have now forgotten as "Westerners":
http://d.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/text/milton-history-of-britain
The Saxons were a barbarous and heathen Nation ... They were a people thought by good Writers, to be descended of the Sacæ, a kind of Scythian in the North of Asia, thence call'd Sacasons or Sons of Sacæ, who with a Flood of other Northern nations came into Europe, toward the declining of the Roman Empire...
WHAT A MADMAN! Any one ready for Pliny, Ptolemy, etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:7D57:797D:B38E:2C64 ( talk) 08:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
PericlesofAthens Hello, PericlesofAthens. I see you've been working quite a bit on the article. I'm not here to comment on the content of the article. Instead, I thought I'd ask you about the formatting of the lead. I see the second paragraph is indented. The indentation makes it look like the second paragraph is a block quote, which would be unusual in a lead section. Since I didn't look at your edits closely, I do not know if you indented that paragraph or not, but I thought I'd point it out rather than interfere in your on-going work on the article. If that paragraph is not a block quote, then it shouldn't be indented from the left margin. Best regards, – Corinne ( talk) 14:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
And now, in that way almost all of Epirus, Hellada, the Peloponnese and Macedonia have also been settled by the Skiti-Slavs. (from Strabonos Epitomathus) C.Muller, geographi graeci minores, Paris 1882 p574. 89.205.59.137 ( talk) 20:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@ SureshK 67: Could you explain what's the point of these edits? [2] [3] [4] And how your cited book support your claim? [5] -- Wario-Man ( talk) 11:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
There is no mention of saka denoting a race exist in pali canon. Just download Pali canon from here [6] and search saka (सक) or saaka (साक) and you will get 0 results. Why publish something that exists only in theory as true fact? SureshK 67 ( talk) 12:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
FYI SureshK 67 has been blocked for 36 hours as they have also been engaged in an edit war on https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mount_Kailash&action=history Teishin ( talk) 19:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Teishin's points. Per this diff, it seems SureshK 67 still does not know what 3RR and edit warring are. Plus Special:Contributions/SureshK_67 proves it too. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 19:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)