This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Philosophy: Philosophers / Ancient Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Ancient philosophy Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Greece Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. History This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article quotes 'a modern scholar' as considering the French fictional account of Anacharsis "the encyclopedia of the new cult of the antique", but it does not say who said it.

That quote seems to have come from this page: http://www.whoosh.org/issue56/rich1.html which attributes the remark to "Klemperer". Among the persons of any note with that last name, the most likely is Victor Klemperer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripsitinka (talk • contribs) 13:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herodotus says nothing about the Scythians killing him because they were "patriarchal". There is nothing there in any way related to gender. It pretty strongly implies that they didn't like Cybele because she was foreign. That would also correspond with the way the classical Greeks in general, and Herodotus in particular, saw the Scythians.

Abu America (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've twice now had to restore the statement in this page that the letters of Anacharsis are fictitious. Since the page also states that the letters probably date from the 3rd century BC - this is, I know, a fairly obvious and banale point to make, but I'm baffled why anyone would want to delete it. I originally thought that User:LycianFelix first removed the line perhaps because it might be a bit redundant, but the second time he/she removed it the reason was "Improper Citation," which I don't understand. It may be that I've made a mistake in the wording, so I'm sure we can come up with a compromise reading which everyone will be happy with. Singinglemon (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]