Talk:Xiongnu/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sources in lede

Besides a clear tendency towards CITEKILL, there are problems with several:

Contesting International Society in East Asia doesn't claim the Xiongnu are Turks, and in fact draws a distinction between them

Genome News Network is not itself a valid citation, and doesn't claim that Xiongnu were Turkic - rather, that Turkic peoples may have come from this same section of Mongolia, and at the end of the Xiongnu period at that

Westerners in China: A History of Exploration and Trade is a book on a different subject, and makes a single passing reference to Xiongnu. No reasoning is given for the Turkish claim, and indeed in this case "Turkish", as opposed to Turkic, is inapplicable. A claim of this nature requires a source that is actually about the ethnicity of the Xiongnu, not something that mentions them only as an aside

Shifting to Iranian theories, the Beckwith actually says it's more likely that the Xiongnu were subjects of an Iranian people, not made up of Iranian-language speakers themselves. It should be left for the more specific citations later in the article. Note that the IPs revert actually leads to a claim that suggests the opposite of what's actually in Beckwith

Since it's brought up in the IP's edit summary - the Bloch is more than a century old, and silly to have in the lede, especially when there are more recent sources. If there are specific claims in Bloch that are useful for historical purposes they could be integrated into the proper sections of the body, though note that it's not being used to make any specific claims, and the page references lead not to any particular claim, but are for the entire source.

And once again, CITEKILL. There's no need to clutter up the lede with dueling Iranian/Turkish claims, especially when most of the sources used appear only in the lede, clearly to try to make a point rather than add useful information. If there are going to be citeations in the lead, they should reflect the sources actually used in the article, not be things Googled up for the point of adding more sources. Ergative rlt (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring/disruptive editing IP is blocked user:Yakbul

I have asked for Page Protection. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yakbul makes statements about Harvard University Press and University of Bristol as does the IPs that locate back to The University of Manchester.IP making statements about Harvard University Press and University of Bristol. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: The block evasion, ip-hopping and sockpuppetry are highly possible, and I think we should wait for SPI result (reported by another editor). Plus, Ergative rlt's revision is OK. I don't see any problems. He clarified his edits by providing good edit summaries and starting this discussion. --Zyma (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zyma:, yo can you also tell what's wrong about this resource ? Fairbank, John King (2006). China: A New History, Second Enlarged Edition. United States of America: Harvard University Press. p. 61. ISBN 978-0674116733.--Defenderofthruth (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: what's wrong with writing from U of Manchester,it is one of the best unis in world, not like a small village in iran, are you jealous or something bro ?--Defenderofthruth (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Let' discuss my resources !!!!

Hi Kansas Bear and Ergative rlt, personally i do believe that your edits have nationalistic intentions. Why not discussing the edits instead of entering a edit war ? I would be glad if we could discuss the resources i am trying to add to this article despite your reverts without any counter-argument nor any proper explanation about the content. If you guys are really neutral editors without any bad intentions, i think you can discuss this issue here with me. --Defenderofthruth (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I've discussed my changes both in edit summaries and here in Talk. Your claims that I've made changes "without any counter-argument nor any proper explanation about the content" are patently false. I also find it amusing that you assume that others are editing from "nationalistic intentions" while using various nationalistic/racist slurs, and using deliberately misleading edit summaries (including claiming I was adding Bloch, when in fact I was criticizing it and arguing for its removal). Ergative rlt (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Today, for the first time, you did your edits with explanations, I was just going to celebrate you for that if I didnt't see this "says nothing that Hucker doesn't say as well", honestly man, is it a proper explanation ? Also, i don't see any WP:CITEKILL because, some other claims has already more references, shall I delete them with explaining it as WP:CITEKILL just like you did ?--Defenderofthruth (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Uralic Citations

Hi guys Kansas Bear and Ergative rlt. Reference number [12] given for Uralic proposal doesn't even include the word "Uralic", but far from it, the reference says that "Ces Hiong-nou parlaient le turc", probably you don't know speaking french but here Google Translate is here for you guys, even the name of this reference you guys cited for Uralic connection is "De l'origine des Turcs et en particulier des Osmanlis", I hope you don't need a translation for that too. So may I ask you honestly, do you really believe that your edits are neutral ? --Defenderofthruth (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Besides the fact that neither myself nor Kansas Bear added the Bloch or assigned it to Uralic, the source is over a century old and fragments from Google Translate aren't very good as sources. See below where I already discussed this. Ergative rlt (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Those fragments from Google Translate are not resources, they are translations to help you to understand what resources say.--Defenderofthruth (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Iranian theory ??

Turkic and Mongolic theories are much stronger, also encycloedia iranica is not a reliable resource. --130.88.99.230 (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

ip of long-term abuser User:Tirgil34 and his new case User:Egaplaicesp --2607:F358:21:14C:CA4D:6399:D491:69BC (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not an answer to my question, why are you refusing to discuss ? maybe because of you are afraid to tell the truth... --130.88.99.230 (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The location of the country is in the middle of Turkic or Mongolian areas. There is no logic that Iranian people had a country far East and North than current Persia. The Xiongnu can be Turkic or Mongolian, the Iranian theory is really so stupid. How wikipedia put that theory into the topic? Here, look at the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touman So, wikipedia accepts that the first leader of Xioghnu is a Turkic person, but the country is Iranian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.161.174.174 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not a forum and we don't edit articles based on our personal opinions. We can't remove other theories and referenced content, just because you don't like them or you can't accept them. Iranian does not mean they're from Iran, Persia or whatever. Iranian is equal to Iranian peoples (Iranic, an ethnolinguistic group just like Germanic, Slavic, Turkic and etc) on articles like this. Iranian peoples are not limited to modern Iran. Central Asia was/is one of their homeland. All cited sources (on this article and other similar articles) mention Ancient Iranic peoples not current people of Iran. --Zyma (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zyma:, yo can you also tell what's wrong about this resource ?Fairbank, John King (2006). China: A New History, Second Enlarged Edition. United States of America: Harvard University Press. p. 61. ISBN 978-0674116733.--Defenderofthruth (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xiongnu. 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:

• Added archive https://wayback.archive.org/web/20110427172440/http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7007-8-15.pdf to http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7007-8-15.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xiongnu. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090225053205/http://ludens.elte.hu:80/~briseis/finnugor/egyestort/szamojed.html to http://ludens.elte.hu/~briseis/finnugor/egyestort/szamojed.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mendeley.com/research/settlement-patterns-domestic-economy-xiongnu-khanui-valley-mongolia/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Careful with DNA research

I noted that there are some unverified DNA research on this page. Kindly be careful not to post it until verified. There are a lot of tribes that lived in the areas that the Xiongnu roamed. Not every grave belongs to Xiongnu. There are Turke (Tujue), Khitans (from the Liao Dynasty) and many more. There is also a known living Xiongnu village in Anhui, China. Please do not treat Xiongnu as an extinct people nor erase the existence of their progeny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorisyong (talk • contribs) 08:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The DNA section is clearly in need of a complete revision. First, it is way too detailed. It is not necessary to list every single study that was done on any group related or thought to be related. Likewise, it appears to include original research and is based heavily on primary sources, plus it cites sources poorly, including some authors with no further information (Clisson, Zerjal, Lahermo). Further, the writing itself is repetitive - four successive paragraphs begin: "Another study from 2004 . . .", "Another study of 2006, . . .", "Another 2006 study . . .", "A research study of 2006 . . .". The description of these studies devolves into near-incomprehensibility, and alphabet soup of haplogroups with no coherent narrative. What needs to be done is filter out the important points that are made here and consolidate them into one or two paragraphs that represent the overall conclusion rather than a study-by-study listing. This should come from a secondary source on the genetics of the Xiongnu, if one is available.

As to the appeal not to treat them "as an extinct people or erase the existence of their progeny", one has to be very careful in making claims of cultural continuity with ancient peoples. Reliable sourcing is critical, because modern people have a tendency to claim linkages to ancient tribes, whether it is true or not. There are groups that claim to have been where they are for 10,000 years, when archaeological and genetic analysis shows them to have arrived within the previous 1000 years. Thus we want a source that is independent of the people, and preferably scholarly, not just a travel guide or something of the sort. Agricolae (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Agricolae for a long-overdue comment. You may wish to take action on it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xiongnu. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225170056/http://scholar.ilib.cn/A-QCode~yyyfy200502001.html to http://scholar.ilib.cn/A-QCode~yyyfy200502001.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Robbeets, Savelyev source

Per the source:

• "Various hypotheses were put forward during the 20th century, yet the assumption that the Xiongnu, or at least some of them, were affiliated with Turkic-speaking groups has gained the widest acceptance among scholars."
  

I see nothing that supports the first part of the sentence in the article;

• "Some sources say the ruling class was proto-Turkic...",(1st part) followed by ".. and it is the widest acceptance among scholars."(2nd part), which was added by Sazz10.
  

If we are going to use the source for "the ruling class was proto-Turkic", then this part;

• ".. and it is the widest acceptance among scholars"
  

should be removed and;

• "..and their core members were likely Turkic speaking."
  

should be added, which is supported by the source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Kansas Bear Have wrong idea because I left the reference in the wrong place,It's about their language that has wide accaptance among scholarsSazz10 (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC) That's what I wanted to explain I did wrong at first but corrected it Sazz10 (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC) other reference point out many scholars belive that they speak turkic one of them should be usefulSazz10 (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Sazz10 just looks like another sockpuppet. Wait for the result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joohnny braavoo1. I have submitted a new SPI case. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

no I am not! you do not like that that I get the truth! We'll solve this first,after you can call me for what you wantSazz10 (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppet, see my above comment for his case. @Kansas Bear: However, if his provided sources and content are useful, then add them to the article. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

What about the Wusun?

The omission of the Wusun, who were a major ally/subject people of the Xiongnu seems quite glaring here. Grant | Talk 06:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hunnic Link

Just as no serious historian still considers the Hunnic language, at least the one spoken by the elite, to not have been Türkic (see Kim in 2013 putting the matter to rest), what's the consensus on the Xiongnu-Hun link? Isn't it academic consensus that they were "the same"? Challemeinne (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

At one time, yes - today, however, the majority opinion of historians is to differentiate between "western" and "eastern" Huns - if the Hsiung-nu were eastern Huns, there is no conclusive proof at this time, however much it is suspected. As for the western Huns speaking a Turkic dialect, the only evidence existent (a few names and words) suggests that they did!204.116.19.90 (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Xiongnu Q1b - Indo Europeans

User AsadalEditor left the following reason for reverting my edits:

yDNA Q1a is not linked to Indo-Europeans or Iranians. This is also not mentioned. The study say that some individuals in Western Asia and Europe have this haplogroup. Note: SOME, not the majority. Saka have predominantly R1a

1.) None of my edits ever attempted to establish a link between Y-DNA Q1a and Indo-Iranians/Scythians.

2.) Y-DNA Q1b [Q-M378] was found in the tombs, along with Y-DNA Q1a. Y-DNA Q1b [Q-M378] is of Indo European origin:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274458422_Clarification_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroup_Q1b_Phylogenetic_Structure_Based_on_Y-Chromosome_Full_Sequencing

The presence of Q-M378 and Q-Y1150 beyond the circumscribed area may be connected  with migrations of Indo-European populations in  the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE toward India and West Asia or else explained by a wide  presence of Elamite-Dravidian groups in these  areas. Historical data make the former hypothesis appear more reasonable.

Due to the reasons explained above, we  cannot claim our understanding of correlation  between specific subclades and archaeological  cultures/ethnic groups of different historical periods to be conclusive. Nevertheless, the thesis stated in Gurianov et al. (2014b) regarding the  origins of Q-M378 and Q-Y1150 in pre-historic Indo-European autochthonous population of  Central and Southern Asia, correlates with the  new data presented in this article.

3.) The claim that Saka have majority R1a is unsourced and in fact impossible to source due to the paucity of evidence. Some Saka samples are loaded with R1a, others have G, J2, etc. And yet Q1b is the proposed Y-DNA haplogroup of the Tian Shan Saka:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274458422_Clarification_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroup_Q1b_Phylogenetic_Structure_Based_on_Y-Chromosome_Full_Sequencing

The historical record has it that “the Yuezhi  originally lived in Dunhuang, and conflicts broke  out among them” and also that the ancient no- madic tribes settled and used to reside for gen- erations in the Tian Shan until conflicts hap- pened in their midst. Dunhuang mentioned in  the document still exists on the map as the  name of the area in the eastern Tian Shan.  Therefore, the geographical footprint of Q2b  matches the area of the Yuezhi origin quite  well.

A more in-depth typing of the mentioned

paleo-DNA samples may establish a relation between the people of the Tian Shan foothills who populated the area in the 2nd-1st century BCE and modern populations with the footprints

of Q1b haplogroup.

Furthermore, extensive linguistic research links the Xiongnu to Indo-Iranians which is already mentioned on the article, including a UNESCO source. So the notion that Q1b [itself linked to migrations of Indo-Europeans in the 2nd millennium] is not at all controversial, as the consensus is that Xiongnu were of Indo European origins, at least at the elite level.

Hunan201p (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

At first the given sources say: "One of the peculiar features of Q-M378 sub-clade is a relatively wide area of its distribution (connected with migrations of ancestral popula-tions of the Indo-European language family) and an extremely low percentage in almost all popu-lations (modern ethnic groups), where it has been reported by now. The exception is the Jew-ish Diaspora (primarily Ashkenazi Jews), where Q-M378 subclade share reaches 5.2 to 7 percent. Therefore, Q-M378 locality is often associated with the Middle East." and "The presence of Q-M378 and Q-Y1150 be-yond the circumscribed area may be connected with migrations of Indo-European populations in the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE toward India and West Asia or else explained by a wide presence of Elamite-Dravidian groups in these areas. Historical data make the former hypoth-esis appear more reasonable." --> yDNA is never linked to Indo_Iranians, but to Indo-European migration. This is possibly because Indo-European nomads assimilated the Paleo-Siberian populations that carried Q. Q originated in southern Central-Siberia. Possibly east of the Altai-mountains. Do you claim that Indo-Europeans originated there?! Q is a very small minority in Indo-Europeans and likely the reslut of assimilation of former inhabidants. It is not originaly Indo-European at all. Also your source say a Dravidian connection seems possible. All two are nonesens. Q is linked to various Native Siberians that are mostly all "Mongoloid". Do you now claim that original Indo-Europeans are Mongoloid? Indo-European is linked to R1a and R1b. Q is never linked to original Indo-European.

"as the consensus is that Xiongnu were of Indo European origins, at least at the elite level." WHAT? there are only old sources that support your claim, while most recent sources support a multi-linguistic or Yeniseian origin. Yeniseian is linked to the elite group or the ruling clan. Indo-Iranian influence is found in western parts mostly. There is no consensus of an Indo-European origin of Xiongnu at all. That is at best WP:OR. Your sources does not support your content. Q is linked by one study to Indo-European migrations. This does not mean that Indo-Europeans carried this haplogroup. They likely assimilated the carriers of Q. Q is not found in ancient Indo-European samples. Ancient Indo-European samples are mostly subtypes of R, J and sometimes G. --AsadalEditor (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, autochthonous Indo-European populations in Southern Asia? Is this Hindutva propaganda as well? Your soucres contradict with most other researches about ancient Indo-Europeans and the history of Central-Asia. One/two sources against a big number of others is WP:WEIGHT. Also your icluded linguistic material should be in the linguistic section, not in the genetic section. --AsadalEditor (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Here a summary from "Eupedia" about Q1b: "Q1b1 was probably not one of the original lineages of Proto-Indo-European speakers of the Pontic-Caspian Steppe since it is almost completely absent from Balto-Slavic and Germanic countries. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that Q1b1 was indigenous to the Ural mountains or Central Asia and was absorbed by the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-Europeans there during the Bronze Age, either during the Sintashta or Andronovo culture, then spread with the Indo-Aryans to India, Iran and the Near East. Q1b1 probably settled in the Levant at the same time as R1a-Z93, as both lineages are found among the Jews and the Lebanese and in places historically colonised by the Phoenicians. Autosomal analyses have confirmed that all Levantine people (Jews, Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrians) possess about 0.5% of Northeast Asian (Mongoloid) admixture. Since these populations lack Mongoloid mtDNA, the presence of Northeast Asian admixture can only be explained by the 2% of Q1b1 among Levantine men, the only paternal lineage of Mongoloid origin in the region." --AsadalEditor (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I am going to have to ask you to stop reverting my Wikipedia edits. None of what you are saying is relevant to my edits, and the only source you refer to (an individual named "Maciamo" and his personal website, Eupedia) is not only not valid, but does not specifically contradict anything I have said. What we can say with relative confidence is that the spread of Q1b-M378 is linked to Indo-European (Indo Iranian) migrations:

https://www.academia.edu/5642170/Phylogenetic_Structure_of_Q-M378_Subclade_Based_On_Full_Y-Chromosome_Sequencing

The research also confirmed connection of Q-M378 subclade distribution with migration ofIndo-European language carriers from Central Asia via Afghanistan

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274458422_Clarification_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroup_Q1b_Phylogenetic_Structure_Based_on_Y-Chromosome_Full_Sequencing

Therefore, the geographical footprint of Q2b  matches the area of the Yuezhi origin quite  well.

A more in-depth typing of the mentioned paleo-DNA samples may establish a relation between the people of the Tian Shan foothills who populated the area in the 2nd-1st century BCE and modern populations with the footprints of Q1b haplogroup.

Note that I never said anything about Q1b being a "Proto-Indo-European" lineage. You are now putting words in to my mouth that weren't even present in my edits.

Hunan201p (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Your write this: "The high frequency of Y-DNA haplogroup Q1b possibly links the Xiongnu host individuals to Indo European, Indo-Iranian or Saka people" This is WP:OR and not supported by the source. As you said: it is linked to the migration, not the people themself. Q carriers were assimilated and this should be mentioned as it is. "I am going to have to ask you to stop reverting my Wikipedia edits." I can say the same to you. Please stop adding misinterpreted content into this articel. Thank you. --AsadalEditor (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Also your cited sources say in the conclusion: " That being said, the amount of materials at the researchers' disposal at the moment is not enough to form an entire picture of the mentioned migration processes. The specified task can be resolved in the near future, while statistically significant da-ta is being accumulated." and thus the claim it is proven is wrong.--AsadalEditor (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: could you please take a look at the recent contribution of @Hunan201p:. What do you think about his edit. I think he misinterprets the research but we need another opinion here. Thank you. --AsadalEditor (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I will stop to revert him for now, he is starting and edit-war and actively resists to talk on the talk page...--AsadalEditor (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Asadal editor said:

This is WP:OR and not supported by the source. As you said: it is linked to the migration, not the people themself

I disagree. Did you read the source I posted? Q1b in the Xiongnu tombs is linked to the indo-european Yuezhi people:

In search for evidence that could confirm  this hypothesis, the authors of the current work  have been concentrating on interpreting the  results of Y-DNA analysis for male lineages.  First of all, the distribution of Q1a* haplogroup  and its derivative sub-groups widespread in the  north of the Asian Continent coincides with the  boundaries of the Xiongnu migration area  across the Eurasian steppe plains. Secondly,  among the persons identified as members of  the Q1a* group there were both victims andhosts of the tombs.

This is totally in accord with  the already cited historic notes on the Yuezhi:  “they were strong at the time and paid no at- tention to the neighbouring Xiongnu tribes, who  meanwhile were uniting and growing stronger”  as well as on the Xiongnu, who “grew powerful,  declared a war against the Yuezhi, and defeated  them.”  It was, apparently, during the wars that the  social position and status of the population car- rying the Q1a* haplogroup changed, and this  was the population that had migrated from the  northern regions of Asia. Yet so far we have  not been able to establish the full, straightfor- ward chronology of the burials, and therefore  we cannot confidently conclude that the carriers  of Q1a* haplogroup were weakened and had to  retreat. 

The historical record has it that “the Yuezhi  originally lived in Dunhuang, and conflicts broke  out among them” and also that the ancient no- madic tribes settled and used to reside for gen- erations in the Tian Shan until conflicts hap- pened in their midst. Dunhuang mentioned in  the document still exists on the map as the  name of the area in the eastern Tian Shan.  Therefore, the geographical footprint of Q2b  matches the area of the Yuezhi origin quite  well.  1. Upon their defeat in the war with the  Xiongnu, the Yuezhi had to run for their lives  starting a mass migration west, in the direction  toward Central Asia. Therefore, Q1b haplogroup  can also be traced amidst the modern peoples  of Central Asia

You are advised to stop your edit warring. Edit warring is defined as reverting the edits of others without adding content. My edits contain a wealth of content, which you are consistently endeavoring to censor. Hunan201p (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• @AsadalEditor and Hunan201p: Both of you should avoid WP:OR or adding your personal analysis/commentary to article. Also consider Wikipedia:Citation overkill, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. Hunan201p, the definition of edit warring is not what you think. Edit warring includes any kind of content dispute and continuous reverting (except vandalism and disruptive cases) without bringing your concerns to talk page. When you open a section on talk page, you should stop editing the article even if you think your edits are legit. Also use Wikipedia:Indentation and format your comments in a proper way for readability. AsadalEditor, take this issue to WP:DRR. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: At your request, I attempted to improve the citation and to cut the edit down to a level where I think no one can accuse me of violating any of those guidelines.

My point is the origin of Xiongnu is uncertain per cited sources and scholars' opinions. So giving too much weight to one probable origin and ignoring the others harm the neutral tone of article. In your case, if you think IE/Iranian origin is stronger than the others, then you should find enough good number of academic sources to support it. And it's better that each source has its own unique content. e.g. instead of citing 10 sources with similar POV, cite 2 sources with different or unique POV. For the Genetics, what sources say matter. We can't say haplogroup XYZ is only IE/non-IE. Or haplogroup ABC can't be IE/non-IE. If a reliable source associate a specific haplogroup with some ethnolinguistic groups or it says that haplogroup exists among some groups, then we can add it to article. No original research, no personal analysis/commentary. That's all. Consider this case: R1b exists in Central Africa. It only shows a back migration from Eurasia to Africa. We can't say the ancestors of those Central Africans were IE or whatever unless a reliable source proves it. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Even then, care is needed. One reliable source, particularly a primary source, still may be just one person's opinion or pet theory, however qualified they might be to hold it. When that 'reliable source' is a journal of lesser quality, such as the Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy (currently cited here), then one could all the more question the propriety of including it. I guess I am arguing that not only should we not go beyond what reliable sources explicitly say, but that we should be aiming at what is generally accepted and not trying to incorporate every pet theory or personal speculation that has appeared in print. Agricolae (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Agricolae: I agree with you and that's my point too. WP:WEIGHT matters. Adding a bunch of random sources or self-published stuff just damages the quality and NPOV tone of an article. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of genetics section

User AsadalEditor has added a factual accuracy disclaimer to the genetics section, which is apparently in regards to the Gurianov et. al paper I left as a reference, which hypothesizes that the Q1b-haplotyped remains found in the high-status tombs of Heigouliang are of Yuezhi origin. However, AsadslEditor is unable to present any studies which critique this paper, which I did not present as a definitive proof that the Q1b came from the Yuezhi, but clearly as a hypothesis. I have searched extensively for alternate hypotheses on the Q1b presence at Heigouliang, and have found nothing. I have also searched extensively for other papers documenting Q1b among Xiongnu burials, and have come up with nothing. Heigouliang is the only Xiongnu tomb so far to yield Q1b members, and the original research had indeed indicated that there was genetic and social-status dissimilarity between them and the Q1a remains. Extensive examination of every paper on Q1b's spread out of central Asia in the late 2nd century identifies a consensus of its association with Indo-European migrations.

I see no legitimate reason for a factual accuracy disclaimer to be be plastered on to the Genetics section and I view this as AsadalEditor's passive-aggressive attempt to "get the last say" after it was revealed he had no actual papers of his own to dispute this specific hypothesis by Gurianov, which is based not just on genetic but historical and anthropological evidence.Hunan201p (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I do. That a so-called journal received the Gurianov paper and accepted it within three days tells me they don't have a serious review process - a real journal will have a managing editor who has to receive it and add it to their data flow, select an editor to supervise its review and send it to that editor, who will then read over the paper to ensure that it meets the minimum standards of the journal, and then select reviewers, send it to them, they will have to read it and write a formal review that they will then send back to the editor, who will then have to read all of the reviews and reach her own conclusion and write a formal decision letter, then send it back to the managing editor to process the decision, which isn't all going to happen between Wednesday and Saturday, particularly given that neither the editor nor the reviewers are sitting at their computers just waiting for the next submission to arrive, plus the vast majority of papers sent to serious journals are not accepted outright, but require some level of revision by the submitting author before full acceptance. The suggestion that a three day period can encompass serious review is a laugh, and the suggestion that this is a reliable source is thus dubious. The whole article structure, with an addendum thrown on the end that has little at all to do with the body of the article, and even appears to have a completely different author, drawing conclusions that none of the main authors have the expertise to be able to draw, raises all kinds of red flags, as do some formatting and citation issues that should not have escaped a proper review process. This is not a serious 'journal', and its content should not be accepted as representative of an established scholarly consensus of the type that is supposed to underpin scientific articles on Wikipedia, so yes, as long as that material is included, it merits an accuracy tag - this material should be removed. Agricolae (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It's usually hard to find studies critiquing a paper that no one in the field takes seriously... Agree with Agricolae.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't get to decide what a real journal is based on peer review process duration. What you refer to as a "real journal" is more accurately described as an inefficient journal. The peer-review process should only take a few days:

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-inefficient-scientific-peer-months-average.html

Smits: "This poses a dilemma for science. The publication process based on peer review is vital for the quality of science, but in its present form it is largely based on good will. Consequently, a process that is effectively just a few days' work often takes several months or more in practice."

Infact, the RJGG has a publishing frequency that does indeed permit a 3 day peer review. The process you describe is more typical of journals with a lot of incoming traffic. Talk about "data flow": http://oaji.net/journal-detail.html?number=1865 The onus is on Ermenrich to prove no one in the field takes the paper seriously.Hunan201p (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow, some news website says that science journals could publish things in a day. Guess it must be true then! Your assertion is laughable: no respected journal could perform a peer-review in three days.

And actually we do get to decide whether a journal is real or not, by using Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where I have just asked for input.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can put the word 'Journal' in the title of their online publication, but this word does not have a special power to imbue what appears below it with inherent reliability. What does this is the process of expert review the content undergoes. The actual work involved does indeed take just a few days, nobody is sitting at their computer avidly awaiting the next paper to review - and this is a feature, not a bug. A reviewer who is worth having as a reviewer is busy pursuing the activities that give them their qualifying expertise, and reviewing a paper for the Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy should not be on the top of their priority list. There is a big difference between a stringent scholarly review and the type of superficial review you are bound to get in a three-day process, and this makes a big difference with regard to reliability. There are several of these genetic genealogy pseudo-journals, run by amateurs or as pet projects of single scholars, and catering to both amateurs and scholars that want to bulk up their resume with impressive-looking entries without having to undergo the ordinary stringency of actual scholarly journals. In general, these so-called journals are ignored by the at-large scholarly community.

This paper clearly did not undergo a stringent review process, as is evident not only from the rapid turnaround time but from the flawed structure of the paper, with this randomly affixed addendum from a different author (at least that appears to be the case) written for some other venue (at least that appears to be the case) stuck at the end of an article that is only extremely remotely related, written by authors with no basis for expertise in archaeology that the claims made would seem to require.

Setting aside the flawed demand that someone prove a negative, it is not a legitimate or reasonable standard that anything that appears online (even on the site of a so-called journal) is presumed an accurate representation of scholarly consensus unless or until an actual expert wastes her time refuting it. Papers are shown to be taken seriously by their citation and the repetition of their results by other scientists, not by dead silence. This should be deleted. Full stop. Agricolae (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

As the noticeboard is being very slow: there is a clear consensus against this article being included and I'm removing it, unless the reliable source noticeboard tells us its reliable.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted the previous edit and removed the dispute tag. No consensus was offered at the Noticeboard nor was there any input other than Ermenrich and Agricolae's echo chamber, in which they said nothing of merit. The reference comes from a paper authored by a respected geneticist (Vladimir Gurianov) with international fellowship, whose research (including the paper at hand) has been cited at least twice in BMC Evolutionary Biology. This paper is considered the definitive phylogeny of Y-DNA hg Q. More to the point, the reference is clearly presented as a hypothesis and not a discovery. Bias is the primary motivation for the obstruction by Ermenrich and Agricolae. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5333174/ (citation 47)

https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-018-0622-4 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vladimir_M_GurianovHunan201p (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

There is clear consensus here from several editors against the inclusion of this paper. You are editing against consensus by including it, and your assertions about reliability of a paper accepted three days after submission are absolutely absurd. I have no idea why no one has posted anything at the reliable sources board - apparently Xiongnu genetics doesn't attract as much attention as whether or not Fox News is a reliable source - but it's absolutely obvious that this journal is a sham.

Furthermore, if you're going to include this sham paper, the reliability tag is absolutely going to remain there.

Lastly: what is the point of those three links? It doesn't matter if he has a job or published papers elsewhere or has "international fellowship". If the paper isn't peer-reviewed by a respected journal, it isn't a reliable source, end of story. I have no idea what "bias" my insisting on this WP:SCIRS guideline is supposed to represent.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Every time I have taken something to RSN, the response has been similar - silence, to the degree that telling someone 'if you want to challenge a source, go get a consensus at RSN' pretty much equates with 'go pound sand and leave my content alone'. Agricolae (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no justification for calling editors who have never interacted with each other 'clanish' simply because they both happen to disagree with you, nor is it an 'echo chamber' when two people express similar opinions. Ermenrich merits no credit whatsoever for helping me form my conclusions, and had Ermenrich concluded differently, I would have disagreed with Ermenrich just as much as I am disagreeing with Hunan. My position in not based on bias, but an understanding from decades of experience of what makes a scientific paper (and its journal) more reliable and what makes it less reliable. Neither appeals to authority ('he is a famous scientist' - Kery Mullis had a Nobel Prize when he made some lamentable ill-considered statements about HIV) or self-citation improve a paper's standing. It is valueless to claim that the Gurianov paper is reliable because another Gurianov paper cites it, particularly when it is cited solely to support the statement, "Our study was initiated by a citizen researcher", not for any of the scientific findings of the paper. As to the other citation, there is no follow-through effect such that citing one paper makes the conclusions of another paper reliable.

Only one person wants material retained, and more than one want it removed. That may not be a strong consensus for removal, but it certainly can't be rationally viewed as favoring retention. Agricolae (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Per above, the Gurianov reference needs to be removed and to stay removed. Additionally, the entire genetics section is, at best, so ill-written as to be useless to the typical encyclopaedic reader. How many of our readers know what Q-MEH2 (Q1a) or Q-M378 (Q1b) are? Let alone what they mean - what might these findings mean for our understanding of the Xiongnu? The sources are happy to speculate but do not provide good evidence for these speculations. Until these questions can be answered from good sources - based on more than a trivial number of genomes - we should not make more than a passing remark on these preliminary findings. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that the section about "Genetics" should be rewritten with accurate references, I hope I have time to look into this.--AsadalEditor (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

As the degree of consensus seems to be a matter of dispute, I add my *vote - while thusfar I have been most critical of the Gurianov result's inclusion, I agree that the whole genetics section needs rewritten with less jargon and less attention paid to speculation. Agricolae (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe the whole genetics section currently violates WP:SCIRS anyway, as "However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead."--Ermenrich (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't think that was there the last time I looked through SCIRS, which admittedly was many moons ago. That couldn't be more clear. Agricolae (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

By policy, I think the section should just be removed unless someone can find sources satisfying WP:SCIRS.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to Ermenrich for doing that. Long overdue. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Xiongnu is Turkic

Why admins deleted Harvard source about Xiongnu? Is Harvard bad source? PapazaTaklaAttıranİmam (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Because of WP:WEIGHT & WP:POV. You didn't read the 3rd paragraph of lead section and Xiongnu#Ethnolinguistic origins, do you? You better become familiar with WP rules and guidelines. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• OrdosAncientCeremonialBronzeFinialWithStandingHorse.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Damgaard 2018

I recently removed sentences from this article which included the following statement: "The authors of the study suggested that the Huns emerged through a westward expansion of the Xiongnu which led the disappearance of the Sakas and Scythians and an increase of East Asian paternal ancestry in Central Asia."

In fact Damgaard. et al. say nothing about "East Asian paternal ancestry". What they refer to is an increase in autosomal ancestry in Central Saka which was, according to their calculations, male-mediated. There's a huge difference between "East Asian paternal ancestry" (such as haplogroups) and autosomal ancestry. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I have gone farther. These are all primary sources, and as discussed above, the Wikipedia policy WP:SCIRS says "However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead." Separately, if we are going to summarize genetics for a peoples we should present a synthesis of the current understanding, not a timeline of individual papers that address the subject, each in its own paragraph beginning with the same formulaic "A genetic study published in the {journal name} in {date year}. . . ." Such a presentation makes it about papers, not about knowledge. Agricolae (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:SCIRS is an essay, not a policy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The statements in WP:SCIRS were endorsed by an RfC supermajority, so they are consensus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=862831707#RfC:Genetics_references - Hunan201p (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't change the status of an essay to policy, let alone a guideline. A few editors don't get to make that decision. You'll have to go thru the appropriate process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.5.65 (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Han Civilisation.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Read

Excuse me @HistoryofIran why you deleted my references? My name has eaten (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I explained that in my edit summary, please click the link. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Etymologically related names? Peoples speaking genetically related languages? Ethnicity?

The lead currently includes this text:

The name Xiongnu may be cognate with that of the Huns or the Huna, although this is disputed. Other linguistic links ... proposed by scholars include [Language Group A], [Language Group B], [Language Group C], [Language Group D], [Language Group E], [Language Group F] or multi-ethnic.

This is obviously problematic for a number of reasons (are we talking about the etymology of the name Xiongnu, the language they spoke, or their ethnicity?), but can't be easily changed because of the massive number of WP:LEDECITEs present throughout the text in question. This should be addressed, but I'm not sure if I have the time for it at the moment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation of 匈

In the section ethnolinguistic origins, 匈 in Old Chinese is said to be pronounced as /sŋoŋ/ > /ŋ̊oŋ/, which is then contradicted almost immediately after, should we change the chart or even just delete it? Henry Wong ts (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Han Civilisation.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Western Eurasian Steppe people

"Attempts to identify the Xiongnu with later groups of the western Eurasian Steppe remain controversial. Scythians and Sarmatians were concurrently to the west." This statement is without citation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Bactrian_Kingdom#/media/File:Greco-BactrianKingdomMap.jpg This map shows Scythia where Western European maps would show Grand Tartaria. Not to the west. Theres a linguistic similarity between the word Han and Hun like japanese Gen, Yen, and Jin. or Ki and Chi. I think this is the Manchu, the Han and modern day peoples of Harbin, Heilongjiang. Beginning with corded ware culture. Even the Greek symbol for Monad is the same as the oracle bone script for sun. Hence why Manchu and Xiongnu teaming up leaped trade routes all the way west to the Borders of Rome called the silk road and why some maps refer to China as Chinese Tartaria. If Attila the Hun was a Gaul and a Tartar, then Vikings are Tartars. We wuz vikings. We wuz Han Chinese. We wuz Mongols. I will throat sing you the songs of my peoples. To notice this there would be higher rates of Lactose Tolerance amongst the people of Harbin from genetic admixture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C6:1200:7585:A9E1:6090:D59D (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeniseian theories

The "Yeniseian theories" section expands far too much in to the minor details of the Yeniseian theory, which is not the most widely accepted theory. This is supposed to be a cursory encyclopedia article, not a bully pulpit for every theory in the world. And yet this section repeatedly uses primary sources from the same author (Vovin), and it also uses certain unreliable sources, as well.

Quoting the current "Yeniseian theories" section: "The Haplogroup Q can also be found in Xiongnu, which is also found in the Ket people, at approximately 94% of the population.[146]"

The publisher of this source [146] (Serials Publications Pvt Ltd) is listed as a predatory publisher by Beall's List. It does not make a coherent argument linking the Yeniseian theory to genetic haplogroups, and is a primary source.

Also present in this section is a very lengthy "proposed cognates" chart. In addition to extending an already massive article with unnecessarily specific details of the theory, this chart again contains a primary source citation [198] from the very same blacklisted publisher (Serials Publications Pvt Ltd).

I am not aware of any high quality secondary sources supporting the Yeniseian theory.

For example, Early nomads of the Eastern Steppe and their tentative connections in the West, Cambridge University Press (2020):

Our linguistic analysis finds evidence for a Yeniseian affiliation of the Xiongnu, or a part of them, unconvincing; nor is the Yeniseian hypothesis supported by population genetics.

The genetic profile of published Xiongnu individuals speaks against the Yeniseian hypothesis, assuming that modern Yeniseian speakers (i.e. Kets) are representative of the ancestry components in the historical Yeniseian speaking groups in southern Siberia. In contrast to the Iron Age populations listed in Table 2, Kets do not have the Iranian-related ancestry component but harbour a strong genetic affinity with Samoyedic-speaking neighbours, such as Selkups (Jeong et al., Reference Jeong, Wilkin, Amgalantugs, Bouwman, Taylor, Hagan and Warinner2018, Reference Jeong, Balanovsky, Lukianova, Kahbatkyzy, Flegontov, Zaporozhchenko and Krause2019).

Based on the Cambridge paper's conclusion that the Yeniseian theory is contradicted by the genetic and linguistic evidence, versus the unreliable and heavily primary sources, I've decided to trim down and add balance to the "Yeniseian theories" section, by removing the unreliable sources, condensing the Vovin references, and adding secondary sources that actually analyze the theory rather than blatantly advocate for it.

I would also like to point out that a notorious sockmaster, WorldCreaterFighter, has recently been shilling the Yeniseian theory on this article. It's a very bad day to be the Yeniseian theory as of 27 December 2021. -- Hunan201p (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This article contains a reference to the so-called "Silk Road Foundation", also known as "Silk Road". It's an online publisher.

The website can be found here:

https://www.silkroadfoundation.org

This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with Silk Road Journal Online, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

The Silk Road Journal in question is based primarily around Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by researchers who appear to mostly hail from Russia and China. The sole editor of the publication, an American man named Daniel Waugh, has candidly stated that it has no formal peer review:

http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf

From the outset, there has been no formal process of peer review, such as one expects in the standard academic journals. We still solicit articles (a task which largely has devolved on me over the years), though we also receive (but have not been overwhelmed by) unsolicited submissions. Decisions on what to publish (as with any journal) ultimately rest with the editor, who in this case, for better or worse, has acted as the peer reviewer. I often see what I think is gold in material that could never find its way into a standard academic publication. But the perils of rarely seeking outside opinions may mean things slip through without acknowledgement that a subject has been thoroughly treated elsewhere.

The lack of formal peer review does have the unfortunate consequence that junior scholars hoping to advance in their profession may avoid us, since their promotion will depend in the first instance on peer reviewed publication, however excellent (and widely cited) a piece might be which we would publish. Yet in some cases where there is a premium for academics in other countries to publish in a respected journal in English, we have been able to provide just such an opportunity. Many of the senior scholars we have solicited for contributions have politely refused to write for us, since they are already over-committed [...]

So, the Silk Road Foundation is a speedy publishing mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "'gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication'". A lot of researchers don't want to be published by Silk Road Foundation, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals.

To my mind, this is very near to the definition of predatory publishing, with the exception that the Silk Road Foundation does not even provide the benefits of high-end predatory publishers, like DOI. It's really more like an internet blog.

The Silk Road Foundation is cited on various ethnical and archaeological articles on Wikipedia, often advancing pet theories, which is out of touch with WP:RS, which says that Wikipedia should prioritize high-quality, peer reviewed secondary research over this kind of stuff.

The reference used in this article pertains to the "Iranian theories" section, where it used to demonstrate that people seen on an a carpet are "Yuezhi":

"Men in Iranian dress depicted on an embroidered rug from the Xiongnu Noin-Ula burial site. Note on the far right Zoroastrian fire altar and fungal haoma offering [1] The figures are generally considered to be Yuezhi. 1st century BC - 1st century AD. [2] [3]"

I'm not aware that the associated Russian links are reliable either, and I'm not seeing where it is claimed that the people on the carpet are Yuezhi.

I am also unsure exactly how long that image will remain on Wikipedia commons. It appears to be sourced with a Pinterest link. Hunan201p (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The question abour the The Silk Road has been already answered in a nutshell by @Headbomb in RSN, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_341#The_Silk_Road. This kind of topic requires scholarly peer-reviewed sources, following WP:HISTRS. –Austronesier (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Article too heavy

This article is much too heavy in size. It takes me 10-20 seconds to refresh the page, and I have a moderately high speed internet connection.

The problem seems to be the massive number of images and extremely lengthy sections, sometimes going much too far in to the minutia of minoritarian theories.

I would argue some images need to be trimmed or somehow reduced in file size. The good news is that the article is still loaded with primary sources and unreliable sources that don't really belong here, meaning we should be able to reduce the size of this article while improving it at the same time. Hunan201p (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE recommends 100kB as approximate limit, the current version has 144kB. Before considering a size-split, some of the material here might be trimmed, especially if poorly sourced. Oh, and please try to keep also this talk page within the limit of easily loadable pages. Oversize posts and engaging with banned editors might not stimulate the kind sober discussion that is needed here. –Austronesier (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Blond-haired blue-eyed Mongolian Xiongnu

This quote from Gžard & Wong's A Global History of War: From Assyria to the Twenty-First Century p. 121.:

Although Chinese chronicles describe the Xiongnu as Mongolian, they also describe warriors with blond hair and blue eyes, who practiced a religious cult involving a sky god called Tengri, with whom the shamans interceded

is merely a bare assertion in the book. I had to find other sources (Su Shi's poem, Songshu, Jiu Tangshu, Xin Tangshu) to back it up. I also fail to see how relevant the phenotypes of (Proto- & Para-)Mongolic-speakers are in this section about whether the Xiongnu spoke (Proto- and/or Para-)Mongolic (at least partially) or not. I tried to remove these stuffs about phenotypes yet somebody reverted my edit, & I was not willing to engage in an edit war so I decided to leave them here in this article. Any thought on whether they should be kept or removed?Erminwin (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The quote doesn't make any sense. It references Records of the Grand Historians, but Mongols did not exist during the time it was written. Mongolians did not exist during the time of the Xiongnu and their ethnogenesis postdates the Xiongnu. The source is probably trying to avoid the word "Mongoloid" and used Mongolian as a replacement to describe someone with east asian phenotype. Qiushufang (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

There is enough specialized literature about the Xiongnu, so we don't have to take information from a "Global History of War". And yes, it is not even related to the matter that is discussed in the section where it is cited. Hair-color doesn't talk. This only makes sense in the parallel universe of people obsessed with phenotype. Scrap it. –Austronesier (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Original research and off topic content, including outdated racialist terms, added by recent edits

A recent user added large amount of content about previous "Caucasoid", "Europid" people and possible inhabitants, Tarim mummies , and Yamnaya culture. This seems to be clearly off topic per WP:TOPIC and also a violation of WP:Weight and WP:RS/WP:OR. What does Tarim mummies or Yamnaya have to do with the Xiongnu? The Tarim mummies were not even Indo-Europeans. Furthermore, such racialist terms are outdated and WP:Fringe. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xiongnu&type=revision&diff=1061856088&oldid=1061485801 The content should be checked per WP:Cleanup. Racialist and fringe off topic content should not be given such weight full appearance. Also no secondary sources for topics related to human race.2001:4BC9:924:6152:DDE3:6173:B15F:F959 (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

There are indeed some dubious additions and changes. I will tag the page for now.RobertoY20 (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@RobertoY20: I've just finished reading the section, claims by पाटलिपुत्र's were sourced and worded carefully so as not to conflate Indo-European-speaking nomads who preceded the Xiongnu with the Xiongnu, who arrived later:

The territories associated with the Xiongnu in historical sources were previously occupied by nomadic cultures such as the Afanasevo culture (3500-2500 BC), which resulted from the eastward migration of the Yamnaya culture, originally based in the Pontic steppe north of the Caucasus Mountains. Their probable descendants, the Yuezhi, 'were displaced by the Xiongnu expansion in the 2nd century BC, and had to migrate to Central and Southern Asia. Their probable descendants, the Yuezhi, were displaced by the Xiongnu expansion in the 2nd century BC, and had to migrate to Central and Southern Asia. In the southern part of that territory, the Tarim mummies, dated to circa 2000 BC, testify to the presence of Caucasoid populations on the eastern edge of the Tarim basin.

The Pazyryk culture (6th-3rd century BC) immediately preceeded the arrival of the Xiongnus. A Scythian culture, it was identified by excavated artifacts and mummified humans, such as the Siberian Ice Princess, found in the Siberian permafrost, in the Altay Mountains, Kazakhstan and nearby Mongolia. To the south, the Ordos culture had developed in the Ordos Loop (modern Inner Mongolia, China) during the Bronze and early Iron Age from the 6th to 2nd centuries BC, and is thought to represent the easternmost extension of Indo-European Eurasian nomads.

(Boldface mine)

The issue with said section is how relevant it is to this article about the Xiongnu.

Still, the statement:

In the southern part of that territory, the Tarim mummies, dated to circa 2000 BC, testify to the presence of Caucasoid populations on the eastern edge of the Tarim basin.

uses the obsolete and highly problematic racial term "Caucasoid" which belongs to a now-disproven theory about biological races, so that term will be edited out.

Lastly, 2001:4BC9:924:6152:DDE3:6173:B15F:F959 (talk)'s claim "The Tarim mummies were not even Indo-Europeans" is partly inaccurate. According to a A 2021 study by Fan Zhang et al.:

although Tocharian [an extinct branch of the Indo-European language family/phylum] may have been plausibly introduced to the Dzungarian Basin by Afanasievo migrants during the Early Bronze Age, we find that the earliest Tarim Basin cultures appear to have arisen from a genetically isolated local population" of Ancient North Eurasian origin.

Erminwin (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits, I had no time to check the references yesterday. The Zhang paper seems to not support an Indo-European affinity, stating that Indo-European like Afanasievo ancestry arrived later and is not found among the Tarim mummies:

"Using qpAdm, we modelled the Tarim Basin individuals as a mixture of two ancient autochthonous Asian genetic groups: the ANE, represented by an Upper Palaeolithic individual from the Afontova Gora site in the upper Yenisei River region of Siberia (AG3) (about 72%), and ancient Northeast Asians, represented by Baikal_EBA (about 28%) (Supplementary Data 1E and Fig. 3a). Tarim_EMBA2 from Beifang can also be modelled as a mixture of Tarim_EMBA1 (about 89%) and Baikal_EBA (about 11%)."

"For both Tarim groups, admixture models unanimously fail when using the Afanasievo or IAMC/BMAC groups as a western Eurasian source (Supplementary Data 1E), thus rejecting a western Eurasian genetic contribution from nearby groups with herding and/or farming economies."

"While the arrival and admixture of Afanasievo populations in the Dzungarian Basin of northern Xinjiang around 3000 BC may have plausibly introduced Indo-European languages to the region, the material culture and genetic profile of the Tarim mummies from around 2100 BC onwards call into question simplistic assumptions about the link between genetics, culture and language and leave unanswered the question of whether the Bronze Age Tarim populations spoke a form of proto-Tocharian."

For me it seems more like that they are questioning the possibility of an Indo-European association. But so far, it seems fine.RobertoY20 (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I was WP:Bold now and have removed outdated paragraphs about Mongoloid and Caucasoid affinities. Hope this is acceptable for everyone.RobertoY20 (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

NOTE: User:RobertoY20 has been confirmed as WorldCresterFighter sock. The IP address "User:2001:4BC9...." who launched this thread also appears to be related [1]. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the IP is obviously related. But we should do something about the racializing terminology (not because of the sock concerns, that's just an act; they have messed up with this page for many years and never have bothered about it before). If this terminology is attributed in-text to scholarship that still operated in these obsolete terms (e.g. Maenchen-Helfen), it's fine, but it is not when Harrison uses these terms in quotes whereas the plagiarized sentence in Wikivoice does not (Well-preserved bodies in Xiongnu and pre-Xiongnu tombs in the Mongolian Republic and southern Siberia show both Mongoloid and Caucasian features). Dito the text based on Tumen, which essentially shows what a mixed bunch the Xiongnu were, and certainly can be rephrased so people living in the 2020s who are familiar with the state of modern anthropology don't get a cringe about the racializing terminology. Or does anyone explicitly endorse to have such terminology in this article when wide consensus on WP is against it (echoing scientific consensus, see Race (human categorization) and talk page)? –Austronesier (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: Instead of wasting time with banned editors, can you still take a look what I am suggesting here? You have restored quite problematic stuff with your revert, even the plagiarized sentence with the purged quotation marks. –Austronesier (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with what you're saying, Austro. We have to find some kind of solution to replace these terms, and the plagiarized quote is a no-go. I kind of just wanted to lure an Austrian IP out of its hole. Some newer authors like Hyun Jin Kim are still using the terms but we do have to do whatever the consensus is. Also a lot these references are primary regardless and trimming them would greatly reduce the massive size of the article. -- Hunan201p (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The recent changes by Hunan201p(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xiongnu&type=revision&diff=1062280886&oldid=1062278708), who is obviously the same racialist as WCF, only on the opposite side, has included WP:OR in his recent edit, claiming high Iranian ancestry among Xiongnu. But the study he cited says:

"Specifically, individuals from Iron Age steppe and Xiongnu have an ancestry related to present-day and ancient Iranian/Caucasus/Turan populations in addition to the ancestry components derived from the Late Bronze Age populations. We estimate that they derive between 5 and 25% of their ancestry from this new source, with 18% for Xiongnu (Table 2). We speculate that the introduction of this new western Eurasian ancestry may be linked to the Iranian elements in the Xiongnu linguistic material, while the Turkic-related component may be brought by their eastern Eurasian genetic substratum."

So the claim made by Hunan201p is as disruptive and misleading as the outdated racialist claims, linked to white supremacism. Previous edits of him in these topics were as misleading, and also noted by several users. Honestly speaking, Hunan201p sounds and acts like WCF but in an opposing agenda (played or not). Making a inclusion regarding genetics or linguistics, and than larger edits about something else of the same article. 2001:4BC9:920:2636:8C6A:F1C7:7A24:D0FB (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

And I am not linked to WCF, who originally edited from an English and HK IP, there are even WCF associated accounts fighting with each other, so what kind should that be? Its obvious that several users are linked to one master account here, and Hunan201p may be one of these. There was even the suggestion that he may be related to Tirgil34, another similar sock master, pushing this white supremacist agenda. Look at the early WCF edits there is clearly a difference between several accounts. The reinclusion of racialist content should already ring a alarm bell among serious Wikipedia editors.2001:4BC9:920:2636:8C6A:F1C7:7A24:D0FB (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The SPI history for WorldCreaterFighter is admittedly in some parts a clusterfuck, but the Austrian IP is obviously identical to Satoshi Kondo, AsadalEditor, Kang Sung-Tae, Ape-huchi and many other abusively used accounts. Not being the "original" WorldCreaterFighter is a lame excuse for this endless CIR-disruption. –Austronesier (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Above non-anonymous contributor is clearly WorldCreaterFighter, I would suggest this article and others like it be locked as he is clearly reaching boiling temperature and has already made clear his agenda to minimize the "West Eurasian-ness" of Xiongnu and other groups. Hunan201p (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hunan201p(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AHunan201p), I am citing inline citations, which are what the study really says, and not your West-Eurasian supremacist agenda. This is obviously looking at your edits. Do you know] causality, action and reaction. Your white supremacist agenda will result in reaction. "Minimize West-Eurasian-ness", is the most absurd thing I have heard so far.2001:4BC9:920:2636:8C6A:F1C7:7A24:D0FB (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually you haven't cited anything, but more importantly, you haven't understood anything, either. Thank you for admitting that you are WorldCreaterFighter. Hunan201p (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I have cited the only mention of Iranian genetic components among the Xiongnu, which the authors model at 18%. Instead you have not cited anything, only linked the study. Provide a inline citation, or your claim is nothing more than racialist motivated WP:OR. And I am not WCF.2001:4BC9:920:2636:8C6A:F1C7:7A24:D0FB (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree Hunan is a racialist or white supremacist of some kind. He was banned for three months arguing over the physical appearance of Genghis Khan in May 2020 and is also known for propagating pseudo-science. See the discussion on "blonde god" in Talk:Yellow_Emperor#Hemiauchenia_-_Hunan201p_discussion_re:_blond_God. Basically he deletes any content that goes against the idea of x people looking like European blonde white people. Qiushufang (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

See his previous permalink to ANI thread. on account of massive deletion of academic publication calling them "fraud" Qiushufang (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: Please show me where in this article I have pushed a white supremacist or white-washing agenda. I literally brought to balance the only white-washed theory in the Xiongnu article (Yeniseian theory). The material I posted at the Huangdi article (blond God) which you call "pseudoscience" was written by Tsung-Tung Chang and published by Victor H. Mair -- not pseudoscientists. Please note that libellous allegations of racism are not the way to constructively contribute to talk pages. Hunan201p (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Mair is the editor of the Sino-Platonic Papers, an activity that doesn't quite locate him in the mainstream. –Austronesier (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 3 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kevin Tian06.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

History of İran

user history of iran withdraws my editing even though I have shown my references that are trusted by WP.and not writing the reason why he got it back

Same, user HistoryofIran keeps deleting other edits. Obvious vandalism and edit warring. He deleted the research of Cambridge University without giving any reason at all. Hsynylmztr (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The section in this article under archeological origin has a repeated paragraph.

The section in this article under archeological origin has a repeated paragraph. 173.9.106.241 (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Beckwith reference (Yeniseian connection)

I've edited the Beckwith reference: it originally cited pages 51-52 and 404-405, when its actually referring to end notes 51-52 on pages 404-405. (I'm not sure if I've used the correct formatting though, so that may need correcting). More importantly though, I'm not sure that this is the best source for the claim being made. The book doesn't actually make any arguments for or against a Yenesian connection, just stating that such a connection has been claimed and citing sources: "The case has been made for the Hsiung-nu having been Iranians (Bailey 1985: 25 et seq.), Kets (Pulleyblank 2000; Vovin 2000), or others". Surely it would be better to cite those sources, rather than Beckwith's reporting of them? (I'd update the reference myself, but I don't have the sources to check what they actually say. Iapetus (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

In fact I've just noticed that one of Beckwith's citations (Vovin 2000) is already used as a reference for the same statement, and other works by Pulleyblank are used as sources later on, so the Beckwith reference is probably redundant (at least for supporting the Yeniseian/Ket connection). Iapetus (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually prefers secondary sources over primary sources (or at least in addition to primary sources), as they show that a hypothesis appearing in a primary source has been deemed noteworthy enough to merit mention by independent scholars, as opposed to being a failed trial balloon that is subsequently ignored by the rest of the field. It keeps Wikipedia more grounded in general scholarly consensus and less 'bleeding edge'. Agricolae (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hunnu dynasty

This is not true. The Hunnu dynasty is the ancestor of the Mongols. China was scared 59.153.87.184 (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

What... two very conflicting sources about Turks and Mongols

This article says:

"Skeletons from the most recent graves also contained DNA sequences similar to Anatolian Turks from present-day Turkey. This supports other studies indicating that Turkic tribes originated in Xiongnu or at least in the late period of Xiongnu."

The paper listed as source [222] also says:

"The main result of our study was the genetic similarity observed among Mongolian samples from different periods and geographic areas. This result supports the hypothesis that the succession over time of different Turkic and Mongolian tribes in the current territory of Mongolia resulted in cultural rather than genetic exchanges. Furthermore, it appears that the Yakuts probably did not find their origin among the Xiongnu tribes, as we previously hypothesized."

So, there's actually stronger evidence here that Turkic peoples did not originate in Xiongnu. Why is this article saying otherwise.

159.146.13.220 (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Removed, it was WP:OR as it wasn't verifiable in the cited references.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Korean connection

I believe this paper http://contents.nahf.or.kr/directory/downloadItemFile.do?fileName=jn_009_0010.pdf&levelId=jn_009_0010 may help to explain or suggest a possible connection that Koreans were allies or part of them were members of the Xiongnu Confederation 138.36.44.72 (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The link doesn't work (connection timed out). Ratata6789 (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

i know im late but i think this could work :v http://contents.nahf.or.kr/directory/downloadItemFile.do?fileName=jn_009_0010.pdf

i noticed the link didnt work in PC when i posted it, but when i opened it in my phone it worked and dowloaded the pdf, it should work now

hope you see this 138.255.51.11 (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The link still doesn't work on my PC (in French : "Sans titre")

Rishāringânu 16:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Order of ethnolinguistic origins (theories)

• Huns, Turkic, Mongolic, Yeniseian, Iranian, Multiple ethnicities, Language isolate

Does the order represent the strongest theory to the weakest one? For example, Mongolic theories >> Yeniseian theories? Or Iranian theories >> Multiple ethnicities? Or it's just random placed headings? --Mann Mann (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mann Mann: The old order was surreptitiously changed months ago by a known article defacer. The current descending ranking does not reflect scholarly consensus on probability. This part of the article should be reverted to the pre-troll state. Happy holidays. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The section and its sub-sections should not violate WP:WEIGHT, and the order of theories should not be something random. Thank you, happy holidays to you too! --Mann Mann (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Genetics section clutter

Is the genetics section cluttered? I believe it is. Huge paragraphs are dedicated to primary source material about haplogroups such as R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 and such encyclopedic and digestible language as "early/Xiongnu_west" related to Scythians, "early/Xiongnu_rest" with more Northeastern Asian ancestry and "late/Xiongnu". IMO, this section could use organizing, condensing, and more reliance on secondary sources, rather than a card catalogue of primaries describing individual specimen haplogroups. Very little will be fully understood by laypeople from the current genetics section. - Hunan201p (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

"A genetic study published in the American Journal of Human Genetics in July 2003 examined the remains of 62 individuals buried [...] at the Xiongnu necropolis at Egyin Gol in northern Mongolia.[221] The examined individuals were found to be primarily of East Asian ancestry.[222]"

Yeah, no. This refers to mtDNA haplogroups only, not autosomal or combined uniparental ancestry. If the quote in the inline didn't make that clear enough, here is a secondary source: "The genetic analysis performed by Keyser-Tracqui et al. (2003a, 2003b) found that the majority of the Xiongnu mtDNA sequences belong to predominately Asian haplogroups, however a few (11%) belong to predominately Europeans haplogroups." - Hunan201p (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)