Talk:Enaree
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
There seems to be a good deal of reverting being done to the article to its original dubious statements. Any editing being done is being done in good faith in order to if anything better support the claims made throughout. If any edits are further done, please explain the reason for editing or reverting of the source. Academia does not have its roots in anecdotes, but in logic and substantial evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.115.108.15 (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Use of terms "cross dressing" and "transvestism"
editAny edits to this page suggesting they were trans women were undone, claiming it's a modern concept, and yet the very contents of this page say the Scythians viewed them as those who changed their sex. Surely there must be a way to describe this in a less outdated/offensive manner...176.228.198.94 (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- gave it a go. hopefully a good compromise 176.228.198.94 (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Origin?
editIn what century did this occur? And in what continent? 98.144.139.81 (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Dubious Sources of Information
editThis article is riddled with claims that are not only sourced almost entirely from non-academic sources, but also extrapolate claims made in the sources. Where certain claims within the source are made state that the Enaree 'may' have engaged in certain activities, this article reads off those statements as fact. Will be doing an enormous amount of clean-up; will likely have to section off any of these claims as "Conjecture" if they even remain at all. 107.115.108.15 (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Cathasaigh23, as I outlined on your talk page, it is not a requirement that sources on Wikipedia be scholarly in nature. I have modified the language to be more circumspect, as this was a fair observation on your part - but you keep just removing chunks of content with no other explanation but that it "isn't scholarly". That's not enough grounds for removal. --AntiDionysius (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)