Talk:Tomyris

Massagetae was not Iranian. Tomris name is old turkic.

Herodotus, for couple times, indicated that Massagetae lived on the other side of Aras river. This suggests today's Azerbaijan territories (west of Caspian Sea). Herodotus lived only one century after Tomris killed Cyrus, he could not be wrong in this regard.

Massagetae were type of Sakas, which had numaerous turkic names. Name Tomris is made of word TEMIR (turkic word for metal, steel) and IS, which is Greek suffix added to human names. There was city called Sakasena in Azerbaijan. There is modern day city called Shaki, which was Sakas living aerials.

There is ill-intentioned Iranina progopanda trying to associate sakas, massagetaes and many other proto-turkic nations to Iran.

This will be the 2nd and last time I will ask you to refrain from battleground comments. Further comments regarding any editor's ethnicity or perceived ethnicity will be reported.

As for Massagatae;

• Karasulas, Antony. Mounted Archers Of The Steppe 600 BC-AD 1300 (Elite). Osprey Publishing, 2004, ISBN 184176809X, p. 7.
• Gershevitch, Ilya. The Cambridge History of Iran (Volume II). Cambridge University Press, 1985, ISBN 0-521-20091-1, p. 48.
• Grousset, René. The Empire of the Steppes. Rutgers University Press, 1989, ISBN 0-8135-1304-9, p. 547.
• F. Altheim und R. Stiehl, Geschichte Mittelasiens im Altertum (Berlin, 1970), pp. 127–8

The academics listed above, state the Massagatae are Eastern Iranian.

Whereas you removed reliable secondary sources and replaced them with outdated(Erman,1843) and antiquated(Herodotus) sources. This is the definition of POV pushing.

So, I would say, your information is unreliable as opposed to what modern sources state. Continued edit warring on your part will be seen as disruptive editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Gunner555: All of your activities (edits, comments and edit summaries) are WP:BATTLEGROUND. @Kansas Bear: has clarified why your edits are problematic and disruptive. Iranian is an academic term for a language family (Iranian languages) and an ethno-linguistic group (Iranian peoples). Scholars and academic experts use it in their works. It's not limited to country Iran and people of Iran just like the term "Germanic" which is not limited to Germany and Germans. And your arguments about Massagetae are invalid because:

• Per modern scholary sources, Massagetae inhabited the steppes of Central Asia, north-east of the Caspian Sea (in modern Turkmenistan, western Uzbekistan, and southern Kazakhstan).
• Herodotus' claims: The Massagetae are known primarily from the writings of Herodotus who described the Massagetae as living on a sizeable portion of the great plain east of the Caspian Sea. He several times refers to them as living "beyond the River Araxes", which flows through the Caucasus and into the west Caspian. Scholars have offered various explanations for this anomaly. For example, Herodotus may have confused two or more rivers, as he had limited and frequently indirect knowledge of geography.
• Read Saka and Saka language.
• Mixing your personal opinion with unreliable/outdated stuff = POV
• Removing current cited sources and replacing them with your POV = disruptive edit

Using your main account and dynamic IPs for edit warring [1][2], comments like [3][4][5][6], attacking other editors via the talk pages and your edit summaries, and (nationalistic) POV-pushing sound like WP:NOTHERE. --Wario-Man (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Wario-Man Why you keep beleiving that the 'newer' sources you indicate are proper? Why so sure? Besides, it is not YOUR authority to decide whether a source is outdated or improper. Source is source.

There are new studies and researches of Eurasian historians, which are having difficulties being promoted andpublished. Many of them substantiate Sakas being rleated to Massagetae and their turkic names. I once again ask you to stop threatening with kiddish POV pushing and etc. I provide references and it is vital to include Herodotus citations of Massagetaein Tomryis page. I added them to ensure fairness of views. It is unprofessional to ignore Herodotus, sth that you do. All your referenced scholars use his works. Herodotus lived one century after Tomryis times, he couldn't be wrong for sure. It is not even proved or substantiated properly by those western scholars who beleive Herodotus allegedly make mistake by referring to Araks river. Can you show proper scholar explanation for this? There is none. Thats just theory.

If you check pages dedicated to Iranian people, there pan-Iranist edutors even include Turkic people (!) in the list of Iranian peoples, which is totally improper and shows their intention.Gunner555 (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Gunner555, above are a lot of academic sources, that confirm Massagetae were Iranian people. Please read Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines and stop pushing POV here. Thank you. --Jingiby

According to Gunner555:

• "Why you keep beleiving that the 'newer' sources you indicate are proper? Why so sure?"

Actually, the Georg Adolf Erman source is written by a physicist. Erman had no academic specialization in the field of history, therefore, that source is not reliable for history.

• "Besides, it is not YOUR authority to decide whether a source is outdated or improper. Source is source."

And yet, you removed references that supported a term you did not like. Appears you think you have the authority to write articles however you see fit! --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Kansas Bear Apparently, you and Wario-Man have agreement to 'press' turkic sources and most things in their favor. You are forgetting that Turkic people have been dominant power in entire history of Eurasia. Whatever you research in this territories you will face Turkic heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunner555 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparently when shown academic sources, you have no response but to attempt some illegible personal attack.

• "You are forgetting that Turkic people have been dominant power in entire history of Eurasia."

Odd how you can not bring modern sources to prove your opinion.

• "Whatever you research in this territories you will face Turkic heritage."

And still nothing but your own personal opinion. Since you are incapable of doing proper research then I would suggest taking your agenda driven POV elsewhere. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Kansas Bear Beleive me, I am not impressed by your references of 70s and 80s. Western world has limited knowledge of Eurasian history including yourselves. Go read local historians books to have alternative views instead of relying on those researchers who haven't even visited these soils for hands-on studies but claiming theories remotely. Gunner555 (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Funny that you complain so much about "outdated sources" from the 70s and 80s, yet you use Herodotus, a "source" from 2500 years ago, that is known for lying and exaggerating, this is the same guy that claimed the Achaemenid Persian army had 3 million soldiers in it. But funnily enough, if you're using Herodotus as a source, I can point out that he claimed the Scythians and the Persians would speak to each other without the use of a translator, meaning that he claimed that Scythians and Persians had similar languages. Your attempt to link "Tomyris" with "Temur" a ridiculous attempt at WP:Original Research, two words sounding vaguely similar to each other doesn't make them part of the same language. Very typical pan-turkist lies, attempting to make everything turk. You're no different than the people who claim Sumerians and Elamites were turk.

Qahramani44 (talk) 08 August 2018

There needs to be some sort of protection by Wikipedia of articles related to the ancient Iranian peoples because it is constantly invaded by individuals which attempt to vandalize the article to achieve what others call their "Pan-Turk agenda". I have visited so many articles from Babak Khorramdin to Nezami to even the Safavid kings having pages vandalized and called "Turkic" and "Turko-Mongol". There is without a doubt that the Eastern Iranian peoples were of the Iranian language family, culture and race. The bodies that have been uncovered from that period show genetic proof of their race. I don't believe what Herodotus said about the Scythians and Persians talking to each other without a translator because Old Persian was a Western Iranian language while the Scythian language was Eastern Iranian. This already highlights a difference due to them being apart of different branches of the same family, but, due to them being apart of the same family they might've been able to communicate with one another to a certain extent. Similar to today's Iranian peoples which can communicate with each other to a certain extent. E.g. Iraqi Kurd which speaks Sorani can communicate to an extent with a Pakistani Baloch very well. Migboy123 (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

However, Herodotus's credibility as a source should be questioned due to the very biased and basically incorrect statements he's made but unfortunately, I think, he is our only source from that era.Migboy123 (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Tahmirih?

The source for the name's etymology states it was Tahm-Rayiš and someone changed it to Tahmirih without providing any source for this. It needs to be corrected. 102.115.150.244 (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It was changed[7] by @Ogress:. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I can see that. And that new etymology added still contradicts the source linked and has no other valid source to back it up. 102.116.105.105 (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

The word "Tomyris" is directly related with "Temir/Demir" in all modern and historical Turkic languages and is directly connected with Tomyris' Turkic/Scythian roots. Please add that info. 212.252.139.110 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No, this is historical revisionism, something this article is constantly a target of, hence why it got protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofIran (talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Please remember to set the edit request template's answer parameter to yes when you have answered an edit request. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

History revision

Your history revision based on the delusional premise of saying and even mentioning "azeris" dont prove the Tomyris, who ruled over "Iranian Sakas" was "a turkic queen because we found this on my dictionary"

Tomyris and the land she ruled back at that time was in fact inhabited by east iranians and left mostly intact even after the turkic invasions until the destruction of those cities and states under the hands of mongols and tatars which eventually lead to the creation of the mordern turkic states of "turkemenistan, uzbekistan" and others

(Which also makes me want to mention about how turks call other persians turks, despite the fact that there is no persian in the mordern age with a turkic name and many turks with persian names)

The prove of what i said above is the fact that there is no ancient city create in central asia that has turkic names and if turks were at such large numbers and did inhabit those areas, why did they all eventually became persianised?

Why is it only after the mongol invasions that name of "bukhara" became assiociated with turks? And even Turan which is mentioned in the persian epic as one of the sons of feraydun as tur? 2A02:CE0:2000:17D5:98DD:7538:ABBA:FCFC (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@IP; Please take a deep breath for a second and look who actually reverted you (yours truly). You're clearly confusing me with one or multiple people. Nowhere does this article state that Tomyris was a Turk. What you're doing is overkill, it's already clear enough that she was an Iranian Massagetae, you dont have to shove it down the readers throats. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Its not overkill to clearify the identity of the queen, every historical character has their ethnicity mentioned, its not overkill to say who she was and from she was especially when turks make fake documentary claiming her to be otherwise.

It needs to be clear, just like how cyrus the greats page and baburs page mention how one was a persian and the other turko mogolic. 2A02:CE0:2000:17D5:98DD:7538:ABBA:FCFC (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Except the lede of Cyrus the Great doesn't say that he was Persian in a throat-shoving way, since its already pretty obvious, just like it is that Tomyris was Massagatean. Image saying in the lede of Cyrus the Great "was the Persian founder of the Achaemenid Empire, the first Persian empire." Can you see how that silly that sounds? That's the exact same thing you've done in this article. Also, refer someone as "Turk" (or any other ethnicity in such a negative way) instead of their username [8], and I won't hestitate to report you for your behaviour. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@2A02:CE0:2000:17D5:98DD:7538:ABBA:FCFC: Are you going to reply? You sure were fast in reverting. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Was she even real?

Other than Herodotus's lavish account in order to give Cyrus a theatrical death, what other historicity that wasn't copied off of Herodotus's original account do we have? We have, I believe, four other accounts pertaining to Cyrus's death?

This article seems to regard her as factually existing.

She has no beginning other than being a foil to Cyrus and no aftermath. You'd imagine a figure like this would have other corroborating sources. Everything is "unknown" about her but yet Herodotus writes the dialogue and exchanges between these characters as if he were there.

I think the article needs to present itself similar to Achille's article. It may be considered mythology or legend, or perhaps there was a historical personality that was or inspired the character, similar to how the Amazons were invented through Scythian transfer. 142.198.101.242 (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

No, given the date and context, I wouldn't "imagine a figure like this would have other corroborating sources". What other literary sources do we have for this region at the time? Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

For other persons how about Hammurabi? Ashurbanipal? Ramses? Cyrus? Figures even older than the Classical period have accounts and we can attest to their existence through other histography from both foreign and domestic attestations.

I don't really get what you're trying to say. Tomyris has literally one source, and it's foreign and not even a contemporary. Are there any coins? Stone reliefs? I'm not specifically looking for another text, although one would be welcome, but anything to corroborate this figure's existence. At least her potential successor has a relief on his page to attest to an existence corroborated by another group, but even that page isn't sure of it. 142.198.101.242 (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)