Talk:Huns

Archives
1 2

The interesting discusion was hiden/moved/archved here |/

Why Suni

rather she deer ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.244.169 (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

^{Superscript text}

Posibly false intent

• the Wikipedia entry is now :

Recent genetic research[1] shows that many of the great confederations of steppe warriors were not entirely of the same ra:ce, but rather tended to be ethnic mixtures of Eurasian clans. In addition, many clans may have claimed to be Huns simply based on the prestige and fame of the name, or it was attributed to them by outsiders describing their common characteristics, believed place of origin, or reputation.[1]"All we can say safely", says Walter Pohl,"is that the name Huns, in late antiquity, described prestigious ruling groups of steppe warriors".[1]

• as reference to 1 is given:

1. ^ a b c d Walter Pohl (1999), "Huns" in Late Antiquity, editor Peter Brown, p.501-502 ..
   1. further references to F.H Bauml and M. Birnbaum, eds., Atilla: The Man and His Image (1993).
   2. Peter Heather, "The Huns and the End of the Roman Empire in Western Europe," English Historical Review 90 (1995):4-41.
   3. Peter Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire (2005).
   4. Otto Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns (1973). E. de la Vaissière, Huns et Xiongnu "Central Asiatic Journal" 2005-1 pp. 3-26

The question I put: who is referenced as genetic research revelator?

• 1 Otto Maenchen-Helfen 1973 <? he is the most enigmatic writer.
• 2 F.H Bauml and M. Birnbaum 1993,
• 3 Peter Heather 1993,
• 4 Peter Heather 1995,
• 5 Walter Pohl, 1999
  • Or ?

Is it common in 'intuge' research to write so transparently refernces ? To group V position as one ?

Nasz 18:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is just an edition error and should be corrected or reverted.

Walter Pohl is the reference. -- Stbalbach 15:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Huns are the first known turkish state

Huns, are the first known turkish nomads, that has been discovered, why cant you say that? Please reflect History as it is, I hope this is a respectable website, then a political one. If you like to read more and ask for more evidence there is plenty of them!!! Attilla is a turkish name too, turkish has been a culture since 5,000 years, you can still see the turks in central asia such as Uzbeks, kazakhs

• Turkish has been a culture since 5000 years?Maybe they build the pyramids also?And sumeria and china is also originally turkish probably?Funny that turks first are heard off, for about 1500 years ago.I wonder about this evidence.Probably the historical evidence is located in nowadays Turkey.Dont look a the backside of the evidences,probaly there is written made in taiwan there.The huns were of unknown orign,probably a snowball effect over the steppes, a mixed bunch.

• You are an idiot. I am a chinese I know that our historian recorded huns from 300 BC until 220 AD, when the Han dynasty collapsed and new normadic tribes driven the huns out of the mongolian plateau. And Turks came in around 600 AD after united all the normadic tribes in the mongolian steppe. East turkish empire were beaten by the Tang dynasty and driven out of the mongolian steppe by some other normadic tribes, then there comes to the western turkish empire, the later were terminated around 200 years later. Mongolian are the latest tribe that united all the normadics in the mongolian empire in 13 century. Huns, Turks and Mongolian are three out of countless normadic tribes that established great nation and caused the migration of people. However, I don't believe the turk language is similar to the Huns because the Turkish language is not mutually intelligible with the mongolian!

The Biggest Scandal of Wikipedia

The Huns who dress, speak, look a like of 100% old Turks, are shown like the Slavs or Germans in the Huns page of wiki... congratulations to editors and the wiki family for this stupidness u suckz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.233.18.59 (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Where does it say the Huns are Slavs or Germans? -- Stbalbach 18:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying the Huns were 100% Turks is akin to saying the population of the United States is Roman because the title of the ruler president comes from Latin or that the population is Greek since the name of our current president comes from Greek. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

217.12.62.106 22:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)::HUN-GARY. A pretty big scandal, it's true. For a while, there were some partially right usefull remarks on Huns at this place. I self also tried to contribute 2006 with my knowledge about latest development of several old and new trends in the ONLY COUNTRY in the WHOLE WORLD, that in FACT bears the NAME of HUNS, i.e. HUNGARY, where I am living. Who to the hell dares to delete such work?

Herewith I kindly ask all highly stupid nationalistic fanatics to shedup their faces with any foreign so-called projects, since HUNS indeed DID leave their originating Eastern territories (and that at a time when nobody heard a single funny tune about peoples living now there), and after sudden death of Attila their main groups become dissolved in the Carpathian Basin, Central Europe, counting yet some thousand here.

Sure, Huns are neither slavic, nor germanic, but also not turkic. Try to understand, NOT ALL of the possibly some dozen smaller or greater nations originating from West or Central/Inner Asia and then migrating far west, must be "automaticly" turkic, even not, when they dressed likely. Similarly, e.g. also Jesus or Greeks are NOT "turkic", etc. Finaly, we find research on archeology, epigraphics, texts like letters, historiae, annales, mt.DNA, etc.

Thus, the "turkic project" should better include for example kurdic history, I recommend, and leave the Huns in and for Hungary, where they belong to. OK? Anadolu and Turks alone are great in history, they do not need to "rape" other cultures. Salem -Privateer from Hungary

Hi 217.12.62.106. From the main page:

The names "Hun" and "Hungarian" sound alike, but they have different linguistic background (etymology). The name "Hungarian" is derived from a Turkish phrase "onogur" which means "ten tribes", which possibly refers to a tribal covenant between the different Hungarian tribes that moved into the area of today's Hungary at the end of the 9th century.Deniz^T_C 04:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Denizz: Maybe it can be heard one times in Turkey when I repeat: We "Hungarians" are rather Magyars, with some roots and genes(!), i.e DNA of Magyars, some of Huns, Iranian, etc. and then it is us quite equal, if Turks call it "Hungarian" (in English?). On the other side "Onogur" may mean 10 tribes, but unfortunatelly the Huns called theyselves not so, we call ourselves not so, and nobody calls either Huns or Magyars so. Thus, they are in fact not Onogurs. Onogurs were another bulgaro-turkic mixing living in another area, i.e. NOT with Huns or Magyars, and later splitting in early Bulgars, and Turks wandering forth different ways. Privateer from Hungary

Or, the explanation put forth by Benedek Elek: When the Magyars invaded Pannonia, one of the first fortresses they captured was called Ung. In Hungarian, fortress is vár, and the locative case is marked by the suffix -i. Therefore, someone from the fortress of Ung would be an "Ung-vár-i" in Hungarian, which when latinized, became the basis for the word "Hungary." Korossyl 06:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't know. Please check also Hungarian_people#Etymology. If this Benedek Elek is a reliable source, you might want to update those sections. If not, these are just speculations, hearsays, we can't have them. The explanation seems a little bit stretchy. Deniz^T_C 08:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Benedek Elek was a lovely story-teller for the youth, I also loved, but by no means a historian, You can check it on this authentic site: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedek_Elek. His books on Hun(garian) mythology and translations from Grimm Brothers, etc., are very popular today too, however not to use here.

The "Fortress of Ung" etymology is a folk etymology originating back to the Middle Ages. If I recall right, it comes from Simon Kezai's Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Right; Benedek wrote at the beginning of the 20th century, when the Hun-Magyar connection was a given. Wikipedia would not consider him a reputable source; I happen to believe him. I was just showing our nationalist friend that among the foremost minds on the "Huns are Hungarians" side, there is still no proposed etymological connection. Korossyl 17:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said and no one say Huns are Hungarians or vica versa. Sure, Huns were no Turks too. But latest in about 500-400 B.C. meet many peoples of the stepp in North of Black Sea, so Huns and Magyars (and Awars, etc. see also Sauromathia, Khazaria, Kagante) - we can consider following close contacts (mutual actions, genetic mixage, exchange of words) till dead of Western Hun Attila A.D. 435 in his "Hunnic headquarter" the territory of today Hungary (between rivers Duna=Danube and Tisza, with today's memorial)We can also be rather sure by archeology and of written sources, that Magyars were partially and/or occasionally invaded the Carpathian basin in one or two waves "before" final settling there A.D.893.

Thus, some "Hungarians" must be in fact descendant of Hun. Consider too, older sources mention some gens of old world with not true, i.e. other names. We self call ourselves also not "Hungarians", but "Magyars". Besides an important remark toward so-called "Turkic project": No lexica knows anything, or mention any trace about "Turks" before! A.D.600 - quite similar e.g. to "Slaves", evidently by reason of lack of such epigraphics in sources. Therefore Bulgaro-turkic history is another one, having much less, if any at all, to do with Hun-Magyar history in that early period of time. Turkic writer here are unfortunatelly nationalistic blinds, the whole world should be of turkic origin - ridiculous. Privateer from Hungary

nobody wants you to convert turkish. 70 million people is enough for us:) but Huns were one of the biggest Turkic empire in history. its your choice to own this empire. i dont want to say further things about your ancestry. in here its honour to be from Turkic or Turkish, and i dont care whats the meaning of this in europe.--Orkh (talk) 06:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Everbody HUNS=HUNGARİAN thats big nonsense...FOR EXAMPLE: Frenchs are not Germen.But The name of French comes from Germen tribes name.And everbody knows Bulgars were Turk(PROTO-TURKS) Bulgar word also Turkish word.But today they are SLAV.And SLAV .. Slav(SLOVEN) just tribes name But TODAY.And TATARS are TURKİC but Tatar word comes from Mogol tribes name. And Whats meaning of HUN? Tukurgur unogur-Onugur-HUNUGUR . OGUR means=in Turkish ARROW. TEN ARROW. Please everybody can research that and also Byzantine Empire,Sabar Turks,Bulgars,and History of Magyars. And magyars must accept that Turkic tribes were inside Magyars. AND Tell me Who is your Fascist leader ? "KONT PAL TELEKİ" your former prime minister. And He said: We are part of TURAN . He was president of FEDERATİON OF MAGYAR TURAN İF anybody dont know TURAN=PANTURKİSM ........... İf magyars wants to be Turk of course BECAUSE HUNS=TURK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.61.156 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the French people are Germans. Well, mostly a mix of Germans, Celts and Italians. Who are all decisively related anyway. So that isn't a good example to cite when talking about the false belief that Hungarians are Huns.

before being a solid kingdom the european huns conquared hungarian lands and used there as an basement.time by time this land called hungary..magyars and bulgarians are tribes that came from east to current hungarian and bulgarian lands many years after the fall of european hunnic kingdom..through the history they become slavic tribe..so current hungarians are not the grand children of huns..and by the way the huns were a strong and warrior tribe where came from central asia and possibly grand father of the current turks lives on republic of turkey and other nations which races are brother with turkey turkishs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.100.236 (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't know why turkishs want to "enter" in the history of Europe and almost all european countries. It's not just this article, they are in many articles about history and trying to "put down" this theories. As an example above, Bulgars =! Bulgarians. So, Bulgars have a proto-Turkic origin, but Bulgarians are a miscegenation between Bulgars and the Slavs "invaders" who came after. Leonardomio (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We dont need to enter anywhere... only you cant handle your reality... you much rather get related to vikings... because you want to feel so christian and so beatiful about yourself... not that we really care about it in Turkey... but stop tempering with our history for your racial and religious ends... as far as we are concerned you can get related to Eskimos or Gypsies... We are already in the history not only in Europe... all the way to North America (We crossed Berring Channel)and we even have similar words with American indians and Japanese people not to mension the grammar... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.185.107 (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

All the pages about huns, attila and his empire were more accurate before, but it seems some racists cleared all the sentences about hun-turkic origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.173.238.144 (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The "Onoghur" suggestion is merely a suggestion and not a scholarly consensus. The Chinese today even refer to Hungary as "Xiongyali"(匈牙利), bearing the name of the Xiongnu, and there are many Chinese scholars such as Wang Shiping Lin Gan, and Wang Zu (including some Mongolian professors such as Professor Uchiratu) who believe the Hungarians are the descendants of the Huns.

Hungary could also be Hun Oghur, or "Hun tribes", rather than "ten tribes", since after all, Hungary has an H, while Onoghur doesn't.--Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Religion or religions?

Does anyone know what religion or religions they practiced? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twslandlord (talk • contribs) 16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Twslandlord 16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

They practiced shamanism, like most steppe nomads ie: Turkic nomads.

"Hun" is general term applied to many different peoples who had different languages and different religions. Sometimes, Central Asian invaders simply called themselvs "Huns" to intimidate their enemies. The European Huns (under Attila) were not related to the "White Huns", and these "White & Red Huns" were not related to the Yiiongnu, probably the "original Huns".

The classical "Siberian Huns" were most likely akin to other Altaic nomads and practiced all kinds of Shamanist cults, just like later Turks and Mongols. Others that had contacts to the population of the Himalayas probably also practiced Buddhism. Others, such as the Xionites and hephthalites - called "Huns", "White Huns" or "Red Huns" in some sources - were most likely of Iranian origin, and there are traces of Zoroastrism, Manichaeism, and Hinduism. Tājik 14:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

HUNS=TURKS, TURKS=HUNS

Huns were the original Asian Turkic nomads!!! i didnt see their ethinicy in the page, where are the editors, are they sleeping? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.101.253.75 (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Everything about Huns in wikipedia is completely FALSE.Just check the maps.Huns have never been in area near the Baltic sea.Since the ice age, the eastern part of it is populated by Baltic tribes.Who wrote all this nonsense ?

didnt the huns attack some of the baltic tribes??? im probably completely wrong, but i thought they did.67.177.121.141 (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)SK

'Hunai' are 'guniai/ganiai' Baltic people. This name gunai/guniai/pogonia(the herald of Lithuania and Gudia-Belorussia) means people riding horses and hunting/catching/sheparding herds. JUST CHECK THEIR NAMES. Atila (Eitila or Vaidila means the chief ruler or chief priest), Rugila (a rye), Uldinas (Gulbinas means a male swan), Dengizikas (Danguzhiukas means a child who belongs to heavens), Irnik (Stirniukas means a little roe), Hernak (Sherniukas means a little boar), Ellac (Elniukas means a little deer), Nedava (not giving), Sava (ours), Margus (pied/varicoloured), Bleda (Briedis means a male moose) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.173.120 (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Just check the names" is a main method of the folk etymology. 94.21.155.224 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Real and true map with finno-ugric, baltic and other tribes.

http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbutas/figure-36.jpg

As you see, Huns have populated at least 4 times smaller regions, far to east, never in Europe.

• This figure depicts a singe time preriod (of when?), showing movemets of the hun tribes.

Therefore it's non usable to judging of where huns live in other times. 94.21.155.224 (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Turkey?

Is this article really within the scope of WikiProject Turkey? The article doesn't even mention them, except as part of a citation. I suppose there's no harm; if it attracts more editors, that can only be good, right? Still, I could see a case made for Hungary, or Bulgaria, or say Rome, but... Turkey? Neither does the List of Turkey-related topics mention the Huns. Korossyl 17:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's up to the members of the Turkey project to include any article they want in their project. -- Stbalbach 12:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

turkish are the grand children of the huns..or we can say relative races.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.100.236 (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Huns in India

During 6th century AD, huns (commonly believed to be tribes from the current nothern China) attacked the then Indian king Skandagupta of the Gupta dynasty. Huns lost and went back and did not launch another attack for nearly half a century. However, the second attack seems to have met with greater success than the first one. The second attack hastened the end of Gupta dynasty.

I wonder whether these huns are in any way related to the huns that are under discussion in this article. If anyone can throw more light on this sub-topic it would be good.

As far I know from recent chinese sources the ancient, oldest Huns were Xiungnu in North China no doubt, perhaps I millenia B.C. Chinese began to build The Great Wall against their attacks. By conflicts of expanding China Huns wandered westward splitted in West Huns to the Black Sea, and White huns also called Hephthalites, they went to south (Parthia/Iran) about 106 A.D.(?) and India... Privateer from Hungary

hi i m from Pakistan, i belong to Islamabad, my SUB CAST IS HUN, we called hun, name of our village is hun, some our relatives live in other villages near Taxila, these our relatives also called hun, interesting is in taxila history museum there are some hints that there were some conqurers in this area who called THE HUNS, i still wonder, that my cast is HUN, name of my village is HUN, and all our relatives living around taxila are called HUNS, if we are also HUN AND WHAT IS OUR ORIGIN? I m looking some literature about this, at the moment this little information might help to increase knowledge about HUNS in this particular area. KHAN SHABBIR HUN, VILLAGE HUN ISLAMABAD

78.151.173.120 (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)your Huns actualy are Hans and has nothing to do neither with Hanz family in Germany nor real Huns or hunters in Eangland. These Huns are Baltic tribes called themselves Gunai/Ganiai or herds drovers. However your family name got this name due to Indo-European origin and are originated from hunters78.151.173.120 (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this map of the huns acurate?

As I know right, also the list below, but those periods are not shown on this map. I think to have a better map of Huns, it must be scanned then I'll upload. Privateer of Hungary 20:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• File:Http://felszerelesek.lovasijaszat.hu/userspace/felszerelesek/nepcsoportok/hunok.jpg

• This 'hunok.jpg' is unfinished/unusable. It has disfigured borderlines, and 7 colors in the legend but only 1 in the picture. 94.21.155.224 (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The map in the article is inaccurate. As someone mentioned, the huns never occupied up to the baltic. They might have raided the area, but their base was limited to area of hungary to black sea Hxseek 12:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

-But is the map I posted more accurate? (N33 06:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

Appearance

From the article: "The Huns were Turanian/Mongoloid in appearance according to Roman writers." I removed this because do we know that the Romans knew what a Mongoloid person looked like? Moreover, Turanian is not an anthropological type. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. I believe, if we should do so, we can restore Mongoloid appearance without any WP:SYN (comparing Priscus' description to Mongoloids). Also why did you remove Turkic? Please read sections below for Turkic. [1] Deniz^T_C 19:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it wasn't there originally and such debatable topics don't need to be stated as fact in the introduction. The topic regarding Hunnic language is talked about further down in this article and in the Hunnic language article. Also, the addition of "Turkic-speaking" to the intro line doesn't fit in with the note on the same line. Given the nature of such confederations and the sparse amount of linguistic data for the Huns it isn't easy to make the claim that all Huns spoke a Turkic language. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 18:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hakozen please provide references for your additions that you want in this article: [2] --Vonones 19:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe references are necessary because the edits are inappropriate in their location to begin with. The topic of language is dealt with in greater detail elsewhere in the article without the need to bias the very first line. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 19:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think this line can also be removed from the intro:

The only extant description of Attila's appearance is that of Priscus: "short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with gray; and he had a flat nose and a swarthy complexion, showing the evidences of his origin."

It describes Attila, not the Huns in general and sticks out rather superfluously. I think this info can be incorporated another way into the article though. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 19:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, this is not the description by Priscus but rather that by Jordanes. Both can be found on the medieval sourcebook. [3] - KB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.222.34 (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

78.151.173.120 (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Turanians only indicates that these people were Balts, cause 'Tauras' is an ancient extinct animal similar to cow which lived at these times in Lithuania and was bigger than a bison.78.151.173.120 (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Straightforwardness for the Hun bow

In the text of this article, under the heading “European Huns”, 2nd paragraph, 3rd line, the sentence “by using superior weaponry such as the Hun bow” drew my attention. So I clicked, only to find, hocus-pocus!, that a completely different page “Composite bow” opened wide to show a weapon whose invention seems to lie dark in the night of times, much before the Huns left their first traces on the face of the Earth.

So as to fix this, I tried to simply substitute the link Composite bow for Hun bow here, perhaps eventually detailing that the Huns made some important development of the composite bow (but not properly its invention, according to the same article “Composite bow”). As “Huns” is now protected, I obviously could not. But I suggest this to be done. Or something like this, if there has been any link forgering here (beware that I say “if “, please).

I must recognize the possibility that the Huns did in fact invent a new type of bow, but if this were the case all this stuff is getting wrong from the very beginning. For example, there should be an individual article entitled “Hun bow”, duly referenced like the already existing Korean bow and Mongol bow.

Cheers, Zack Holly Venturi 20:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

After a couple of months with no comment, I restore a direct link to Composite bow as such. Should anybody know what a "Hun bow" is, please explain here in the discussion.

Thanks, Zack Holly Venturi 17:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly the Hun bow was asymmetric, having a longer limb on the top than on the bottom. It would have functioned much like a Japanese yumi bow. Also supposedly this is known from grave finds, but unfortunately I couldn't give you any sources for this information. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 20:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Only just noticed this bit, but I hope that all is now clear in the article on Composite bow. The Hunnic invasions of Europe coincide approximately with the use of grip laths in the handles of composite bows. In other respects the bows were not obviously different and in particular I've never heard of any serious evidence that the newer bows were any better as weapons. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

White Huns

I corrected the Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia reference about the White Huns. The discussion on White Huns should go to the White Huns article as already stated in the article. Regards. E104421 01:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

White Huns were Iranian (Aryan Caucasian) Huns —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.157.56 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources please

I'm very interested in what's the source for these statements:

In the west, Ostrogoths came in contact with the Huns in AD 358 ... The Romans invited the Huns east of Ukraine to settle Pannonia in 361, and in 372 they pushed west led by their king Balimir, and defeated the Alans.

Where do these seemingly precise dates come from? Also I've not seen elsewhere that the Romans should've had contact with the Huns as early as 361. (Peter Heather also consider Balamber/Balamir only attested from Jordanes to be identical of the 5th century Gothic king Valamer. Fornadan (t) 18:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Huns were no Turks

White Huns were Iranian (Aryan Caucasian) Huns. Asian Huns were Yenisseyan People with Germanians and Sarmatians. Asian Huns were NOT Turks. About origin of Huns see Michael Schmauder: http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/31/0,1872,2137247,00.html

These are obscure claims made by an obscure pseudo-historian. It is generally accepted by serious historians that Huns, or at least their ruling elite, were probably of Turkic origin. Also firm statements like 'Huns were NO Turks' also require definite and proofs(archeological, linguistic etc). If you tend to think contrary to widely-accepted view, without such proofs, it is better to express your doubts and not make absolute statements.78.191.88.172 (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Irrespectively of the above source, that you wrote is right about the probability, it is accepted, but probability is not fact. The Turk and Hun identification is not proven yet, never was, it's just a theory, what the article desribes as well, under its Turkic theory section. (If I'm thinking better into it, I can't even say on what facts it based on.) a good relevant sentence from the discussion here below: "Huns didn't have a Turkic aristocracy. That 'aristocracy' was the Huns themselves." Moreover the historical sources definitely differentiate them, they speak of Huns and of Turks separately, as different nations, in sources of the Greeks and Persians, and also the Chinese, for i.e. Procopius, and the Gothic (like Jordanes) and other German sources never claimed that the Huns were Turks, nor the Chineses that the Hiungnus were, moreover they didn't even contact them as the same, but they write for i.e.: in the 6. century AD, the Turks battled with the Hepthalites (Eu Avars) from East!!, they crushed them, so the Avars migrated westwards, and in Byzantine alliance (the Avar language was the same as that of the Huns) CONQUERED the Hunnic remnants (Utrigurs, Kutrigurs, Sabirs, etc.) lived in the Scythian steppes after Attila's empire collapsed in the rebellions of the subjugated Germanic tribes and Byzantine campaigns against his sons, and only after the Avars headed towards to the Carpathian basin (Hungary) from their pursuing Turkic eneimes, and their domination decreased in the east (present Ukraine) came the Turks from the East again and it was this time when about half of the eastern Hunnic tribes became subjugated to the Turk Khaganate. Hence, and from this time they have been called as Turks by the Persians, but the Greeks historians of that century definitely scribe that the Persians call the Huns north of Black Sea as Turks, because they lived under Turk rule, so it is alone a proof that they cannot be the same. under the Turk rule some of the Huns began some form of Turkification, like before the proto-Turks began "Xiongnuzating", these terms are like the Sinization (but I can't find better words momentarily:) of the Xiongnu remnants (Southern Xiongnus) in China after the emperor Helian Bobo's Xia empire collapsed and the Xiongnu rule in China along with it. By the way, accurately after this began the Turks ever acting independently as separate entity what will lead to that point mentioned above, when they'll rebel against the Rouran rule and invades the White Huns, and establish the Turk Khaganate (the first). these are facts that cannot be gainsaid, so this is another proof). so back to the eastern Huns ("Turks"), whom lived under the rule of the real Turks, these people had later became known as the Bulgarians (in the Volga-Bulgaria) and Onogurs (in the Ukrainan steppe region)), after the Turk Khaganate (the second) collapsed again, in this process the newly independent tribes began to form the new confederations of the above two (which were consist of white Huns, western Hun remnants, (later the Avars), Turkicized Huns and some little Turkic clans independent from the main horde). And the third, what is more, it is likely that in the near future it will be scientifically proven as false by acclaimed academicians not fresh graduates like me. See Xiongnu article's Current Research section, the opinion of Chinese scholars and other specialists, and the data on the first scientific International Hun Conference. That is (and will be) what generally accepted by serious historians. And the matter did not stop here, I haven't even spoken of the Scythians yet (the Scythian-Huns, the another theory, what is, already at the first glance, is much more provable, almost prima facie, yet the Hun article didn't even mention them). Anyway, in my opinion, the subject is open for discussion henceforward. In here and in the academic world too. If I made any errors sry. Dzsoker (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

=

The recent archaelogical findings in Mongolia gave evidence to the old Chinese historical record that the Huns were a mostly Mongoloid people with some Tocharian allies. Huns and ancestors of Turkic people lived side-by-side for few hundred years, and they were not the same people. They were like Iranian people with Tocharian people, related but not the same.

Karolus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.252.142 (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's true. According to Chinese sources and research, Huns are NOT Turks, and also not Mongols. The Huns built their empire much earlier before splitting into two groups, North and South. North tribes invaded Europe and settled in Hungary (which Chinese call Xiongyali after Xiongnu, pronounced originally as "hong nu") while the Southern tribes settled in Shaanxi Province, China. No Turks or Mongols split off from there. Hundreds of years later, the Gokturks built an empire and invaded China before they were defeated by the Tang dynasty. The Huns being much more ancient than other groups influenced them linguistically and culturally. They are not the same.

Someone wrote that the Huns in Europe were a loosely organized coalition, consisting of mostly Turks... Who says they were loosely organized, and according to what source are they mostly Turks? That does not make sense at all. Also, more credibility should be given to Chinese sources since they had contact with the Huns for so long, and have written records about them from 2000 years ago. Although the Romans also wrote some things, you can see a stark contrast in the writings--Chinese didn't say that they never dismounted their horses, even mating on horseback and sewing their clothes from rat skins like the Romans said. I am unaware of any English translations of Chinese sources, but would gladly give the names of some authors, scholars, books, etc. for anyone who can read Chinese.

--218.20.118.252 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

ancient dna tells tales from the grave

by nancy touchette

july 25, 2003

dna from a 2,000-year-old burial site in mongolia has revealed new information about the xiongnu, a nomadic tribe that once reigned in central asia. researchers in france studied dna from more than 62 skeletons to reconstruct the history and social organization of a long-forgotten culture.

ancient grave in the egyin gol necropolis. courtesy e. crubezy, université paul sabatier, toulouse, france

the researchers found that interbreeding between europeans and asians occurred much earlier than previously thought. they also found dna sequences similar to those in present-day turks, supporting the idea that some of the turkish people originated in mongolia.

the research also provides glimpses into the xiongnu culture. elaborate burials were reserved for the elite members of society, who were often buried with sacrificial animals and humans at the time of burial. and relatives were often buried next to each other.

this is the first time that a complete view of the social organization of an ancient cemetery based on genetic data was obtained, says christine keyser-tracqui of the ınstitut de médecine légale in strasbourg, france. ıt also helps us understand the history of contacts between the asiatic and european populations more than 2,000 years ago.

the necropolis, or burial site, was discovered in 1943 by a joint mongolian-russian expedition in a region known as the egyin gol valley of mongolia. skeletons in the site were well preserved because of the dry, cold climate. the researchers estimated that the site was used from the 3rd century b.c. to the 2nd century a.d.

the researchers were able to figure out how various skeletons may have been related by analyzing three different types of dna. they used mitochondrial dna, which is inherited only from the mother, y-chromosome dna, which is passed from father to son, and autosomal dna (that is, everything but the x and y chromosomes), which is inherited from both mother and father.

most scientists had previously thought that people from asia mixed with europeans sometime after the 13th century, when ghengis khan conquered most of asia and parts of the persian empire. however, keyser-tracqui and her coworkers detected dna sequences from europeans in the xiongnu skeletons.

this suggests that interbreeding between the european and asian people in this part of the world occurred before the rise of the xiongnu culture, says keyser-tracqui.

the oldest section of the burial site contained many double graves. this may reflect the ancient practice of sacrificing and burying a concubine of the deceased along with horses and other animals. this practice, reserved for the more privileged members of society, was apparently abandoned later sections of burial site revealed no double graves.

the most recent sector of the necropolis contained only the remains of related males, a burial grouping that had never been seen before.

skeletons from the most recent graves also contained dna sequences similar to those in people from present-day turkey. this supports other studies indicating that turkish tribes originated at least in part in mongolia at the end of the xiongnu period

© 2003 american journal of genetics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/xiongnu

The cited text doesn't even mention the Huns, so what exactly is your point in posting it here? Not to mention that it misrepresents the purported "turkish connection", reversing its direction as described in the original study. --Latebird (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

So what happened to the Huns after Atilla's death?

Did they disolve amongst the European farmers, as the Dutch version of this article says? Did they go back eastwards? Where they all killed? Or a combination? Are there ANY archologic evidences of their presence in (Western) Europe? Would like to read a decent article about this, as i never seen any of this. Theyre all too vague...--N33 (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Avars (7th century- not Caucasian Avars) were Huns and On-Ogurs were Huns. Akatziris (Ağaçeri) were Huns, Volga Bulgar people were Huns too. But yes, all of they dissolved amongst Germanic and Slavic peoples.--F.Mehmet (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

All but magyars of course.

Only Western or European Huns dissolved. Asian Huns continued as various Turkic peoples.78.191.88.172 (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

After Attila's death, some of the Huns settled in Europe/Western Asia, however others attempted to continue his dream of attacking China and spread Eastwards towards the great wall, with little semblance of being a unified nation. By the time they reached China they were too weak and divided to mount a serious attack and thus separated into many smaller, family based tribes. The people that spread Eastwards would soon dissolve their culture with that of the few nomadic Mongol people (Who were also known as Hsiung-Nu) be the Chinese and eventually be united again under Genghis Khan as the Mongols —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpson3883 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Finnic Huns"?

Orkh is claiming that there were Finnic Huns aka Huns speaking Finnic languages. While there is some 19th and early 20th century stories about that, they are not to be taken seriously. "Finnics as aboriginals of Rome", hah. Unless someone finds reliable and recent information about how Finnics would have wandered to Asia and joined the Huns, I think mention about Finnics should be removed.

I don't want to cross 3RR, so somebody having post-ww2 knowledge about the matter should take care of that.

Wikinist (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. The sentence is talking about "great confederations of steppe warriors" and not the Huns specifically. It has been a source of contention in the past and I tried one time to fix it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Huns&oldid=171542169 I take exception to the naming of "Ural" and "Altaic" or "Ural-Altaic" in the sentence since those terms are exclusionary and are not supported by history (ie. Scythians, Saka, Cimmerians) --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I should add, I'd like to hear from Orkh regarding which Finnic groups were members of a confederation of steppe warriors. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Me too, I've never heard of peoples speaking Finnic languages being steppe warriors.

Wikinist (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

thank you Bordosy,

theres two .pdf in these pages, those are from from "the new york times"; -http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E0CE7DB153BE233A25752C2A9679D946496D6CF -http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F07E7DE1139EF34BC4E52DFB266838F669FDE

By the way historical evidence supports that SOME of the Sakas,Scythians, etc were Ural-Altaic. for example there was found a Saka furnace with turkic inscription near Almaty in 80's.78.191.88.172 (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

click the "view full article" button and open the pdf. these articles about northern Turanian tribes called Finno-Ugrics. and yes Finns were also in that confederation. it shouldnt be a surprise because theres not so many nation living in early Hunnic lands.--Orkh (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

and i forget, here is the map of distribition of Finnic people. i didnt know they are still living in South Ural Mountains. so dear Wikinist, you should be more polite and calm i think. respects.--Orkh (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralic_peoples

Has it occurred to you that they are still living there because they never became steppe nomads and migrated like the Magyars did? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow are those old! From 1915 and 1874 respectively. The only Finnic group I know of that could somewhat qualify would be the southern Mari, where they sit at the edge of a cultural border with the Tatars and thus have similar music as Hungarians. But current knowledge on the subject supports the idea that Finnic groups remained as "Forest People" while the southern Ugrics (Magyars and possibly other extinct groups) joined steppe nomad confederations. That is supposedly why there is a split between Finnics and Ugrics to begin with. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. You know your sources are far too old, still pushing disinformation based to just them. I would be proud if my ancestors were some ultimate Hunnic super-warriors you so admire, but that's not the truth. Or maybe I should put a note on blacks that they are inferior, since same era sources "prove" that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sources#Reliable_sources:

"Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them."

And that's what your "Turanian" point of view nowadays is. You should:

a) Create an article about how history was written a hundred years ago, or

b) make a "Turanian" wiki with fellow believers.

And a Happy New Year! (There's the politity part)

Wikinist (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Create an article about history was written a hundred years ago? That's what supporters of the Ugrian theory for Hungarian should do. Look up why exactly that theory was created (Hint: Nationalism in Europe which led to WW1). Don't forget to make a wiki with fellow believers! --218.20.118.252 (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

protecting the page

second source about Finnic Nomads. http://www.imninalu.net/Huns.htm what do you want from page dear "Wikinist"? i think you want to show your stupid pan-aryan face, but you are at the wrong page. you may stop me, but you cant stop sources. --Orkh (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not a valid source showing that a "Finnic" tribe was a member of a "confederation of steppe warriors". Searching that page only shows two matches for "Finnic".

Descendants of the Hurrites are credited as the founders of the Central Asian kingdom of Khwarezm, which is considered by some scholars as the original land of the Finnic and Altaic peoples, and that is in some way related to the Székely, one of the Hungarian tribes that will be mentioned later in this chapter.

and

Their heritage has been transferred to many Eurasian peoples, including the Uyghurs of Western China and several Turkic and Ugro-Finnic tribes.

I'm sorry, Orkh, but "Finno-Ugric" or "Ugro-Finnic" is not the same thing as a "Finnic" tribe. Neither is Khwarezm a "confederation of steppe warriors". --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Iranian problem again

Sbordosy claim that iranians were the part of huns. the term "iranian" is not so old, and being saka or alan is not the same of being iranian, as being hun is not the same as being turkish. so iranian part in identity should be remove i think.--Orkh (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm LMAO. Orkh has reading comprehension issues. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's review the disputed sentence yet again. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent genetic research shows that each of the great confederations of steppe warriors were not ethnically homogeneous, but rather unions of multiple ethnicities that could have been Turkic, Tungusic, Mongolic, Finno-Ugric, Iranic, etc.

I'm not happy that Orkh removes my above comment and citation of the disputed sentence (not once, but twice) when I'm trying to elicit discussion about it in order to get it improved. I see his actions as highly uncivil. Moreover, I've tried to point out several times in above discussion that the disputed sentence is general and is not a specific reference to the Huns, but I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall at this point. How much more explicit can I get? The sentence says "each of the great confederations" not "the Hun confederation". Additionally, I'm not familiar with the Walter Pohl citation or the claim that the result is due to a recent genetic research (what research?) so I think there is still much room for improvement. But such improvement I think cannot come at the cost of continued unsourced claims by Orkh. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced claims get removed. That part's pretty easy. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing "Iranic" to a separate sentence and adding "Ural-Altaic" absolutely does not work because the evidence does not support this claim. There are two main logic problems with it:

1. Scythians, Sarmatians, et al. were not limited to the Caucases.
2. Finno-Ugric languages did not obtain loanwords from the Iranian languages in the Caucases.

And there is a third logic problem with it related to paragraph integrity:

1. The first sentence is about "each of the great confederations of steppe warriors" while the second sentence is referencing a specific point in time (ie. when the Huns were active).

--Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been attempting good faith edits when changing around the paragraph and explicitly adding a list of example steppe confederations meant in the sentence in order to clarify the situation. Instead Orkh feels justified to revert those edits without discussion or even comment. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have seen this before. Fundamentalists like him do anything to get their fringe-theories shown. They have so strong beliefs that they deny all counter-evidences, even if they would outweight their belief in superior manner. It's basically just same with holocaust deniers, fundamentalist christians/islamists, extreme left, etc. They want to say holocaust/gulag/evolution theory/all the history from past 50 years is false propaganda by an evil organisation. It's really sad that there are peoples honestly believing that way, but that's how strongly adopted information sticks, even if incorrect.

Too often has "consensus" been made between scientific consensus and fringe-theories. This is one fault with wiki-format.

Finnics were connected to Huns in order to make them inferior, but this individual is using the same formula to make them superior, Turanian overmen. That is almost cute, but not cute enough to be put in Wikipedia.

Err, "dear Wikinist, you should be more polite and calm", yet he also enlightens us by saying

"your stupid pan-aryan face"

(personal attacks redacted)

(filth redacted)

Wow... I mean... this is too great. It's just... wow.

Wikinist (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, but i cant find any source about Iranic identity found in Hungary, or somewhere else...--Orkh (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Let's not reduplicate Orkh's filth; if Orkh does it again he will be banned. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Finno-Ugric Clans of Huns and never lived Persians in the Empire

in my sources, there are not any evidence about Iranian/Persian existence in the great hunnic empire. so, Sbordosy where are your sources. and wikinist if there were not Finno-Ugric living in the empire so where were these people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_peoples come from. so why dont we create a new empire, that iranians live and finno-ugrics out. we may call it Wikinist empire or something like that? i think its a good idea, but please live the page in peace--Orkh (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

by the way, wikinist still claiming about finno-ugric is a "linguistic" not racial. but sources says: Finnic tribes were living in north Hunnic empire and todays south Ural mountain. by the way being finno-ugric is more racial than being Uralic.--Orkh (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is NOT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HUNS. No one here is claiming that there were Iranics in the Hun empire. Please improve your English reading comprehension. And learn to spell my name. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Finno-Ugric language spread to Finns' genetical ancestors probably from Comb Ceramic culture 4200-2000 BC. Irish swithed their language to English easily, as did countless of other peoples. I have no idea what keeps populations from changing their language and culture. Moreover, I don't understand how Turkish-looking people would have become European-looking in less than 1500 years. It's impossible. And no, Finno-Ugric nor Uralic was not a racial or ethnic group by that time. Some Finnics were conquered by Huns, just like some Slavs. Were Slavs Huns then? Those are just bad arguments, or in fact just personal attacks.

Wikinist (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is ridiculous, this has been going on since December 27th. Where is everyone? I'm asking for RfC on this issue because of the length of time. I've never asked for RfC before so hopefully I'm doing this correctly. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Ethnic composition illustrative sentence

This RfC is regarding a single sentence that illustrates the possible ethnic composition of the Huns. There has been a revert war going on regarding this single sentence since December 27th. This is far too long. The dispute revolves around a single sentence in Huns#Origin_and_identity which has served as a front for other revert wars in the past. Which version of the sentence should be used or rather is the sentence about the Huns or not?

The modern opinion[7] is that each of the large confederations of steppe warriors (such as the Scythians, Xiongnu, Huns, Avars, Khazars, Cumans, Mongols, etc.) were not ethnically homogeneous, but rather unions of multiple ethnicities such as Turkic, Tungusic, Ugric, Iranic, and Mongolic peoples.

Or

A genetic research[7] states that each of the large confederations of steppe warriors were not ethnically homogeneous, but rather unions of multiple ethnicities of Uralic and Altaic clans such as Turkic, Tungusic, Finnic, Ugric and Mongolic peoples.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• The sentence is attempting to illustrate the point that the Hun ethnic identity is complicated by the fact that confederations of steppe warriors tend to have been composed of multiple ethnicities and then goes on to list historic ethnicities that have been involved in such confederations. I feel like I've tried multiple times to point out to Orkh that the sentence is not a list of the ethnic composition of the Huns but he keeps reverting the page and making claims that it is. I've also tried to improve the context of the sentence by moving it to a place in the section where it would make more sense, but this also got reverted. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I'm trying to decrease time used to this, so I just quote myself:

I don't know whatever to laugh or cry with you. I haven't claimed of attacks to my user page or threatened with admins, and I don't know who is "humanisticus", but oh yes will I fix your claims.

Orkh believs evil Aryans (Indo-Europeans) are blinding us from the true history, while 19th century race theories are true, so he uses them as sources.

He said to me:

"im not a nationalist, but i think you should search about your history again. your nation has lived with russian, sweden, and nazi domination(who were all aryan peoples). of course your history changed. the fact that you read your history in "european union" books, in EU mind. sorry but they are too far from the original point. its so bitter to see that a guy want to destroy his/her own history.

go to turania.com and read original texts from non-european sources and non-european people. respects--Orkh (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)"

www.Turania.com is pretty much like Flat Earth Society, a group of fanatic believers collectivily denying basic knowledge. I guess all having studied history knows absurdness of most 19th century theories, but oh wait, they're Aryan propaganda, I forgot.

So, do we want to believe revivals of racistic race-theories, or present modern historians' and scientists' views? I have wasted enough my time with this Turkis nationalist. I would be happy if Finnics had a history as mighty warriors, but its a factual error, what I have taken to my burden. An admin is needed to cool things down, I've grown bored to this.

Wikinist (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Core of this is about Finnics' role, which I haven't seen being present in any proper source. Also, Orkh rejects sources saying Indo-European Iranics might have something to do with steppe warriors.

I don't really like using time to this, but I think claims like that makes Wikipedia a joke. If I just saw modern and trustfull experts with authority addressing those things, knowing it's probably true, I could throw this matter into a trash can and go sleep.

Wikinist (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• User:Orkh is clearly pushing his original research, inspired by some well-known hypothetical theories. He has provided no sources for the changes and has added his theories to other articles as well (all concerning the issues, perhaps a bit over 10 articles). It is hard for us normal editors to keep eye on all those articles and participate in edit wars because of him. As he hasn't shown any sign of cooperation or using references, I support a block since Wikipedia does not do own research. --Pudeo⺮ 14:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I only revert "Origins and Identity" part of the page. and ive never called any race as "devil" or something like that. Wikinist has personal problems with me. as you see above, after my sources, he changed his opinion interestingly. as he claimed before, there were no Finnic people living in the Hunnic Empire, but now he talk about the existence of Finnic slaves. (the sources show that Finic people were one of the the main power in the empire). by the way, you see at the top, (last years event) Sbordosy also claimed that there were no Turks living in the empire. but after Hakozen showed the sources the page become completely different. Sbordosy was also played a big role of Hakozen's ban. so, admins must be careful about blocks. truths are punishing in here.--Orkh (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is some sort of English communication problem going on here. In how many different ways can I say it? Domak Hunnung imperiyazıda churtaar chonlar dugayında sögleveyn turar. (The sentence is not talking about peoples who lived in the Hun empire.) --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"but now he talk about the existence of Finnic slaves", I said Slavs. Some Mordvics might well have co-operated with Huns like some Indo-Europeans did. Still, calling them "steppe riders" seems out of place.

Wikinist (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Slavs or Mordvics, you'd still need a source supporting claim that rather than a vague association from a source that names Finnic people as Turanians. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Flat Earth Society? but new york times doesnt say so ; -http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E0CE7DB153BE233A25752C2A9679D946496D6CF -http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F07E7DE1139EF34BC4E52DFB266838F669FDE

by the way, i dont want you to go turania.com, because im not sure about their hospitality for who may claim Finns are the descends of socrates or alfred nobel. its more healty for you to stay at home and watching finnish sci-fiction movies. but please dont forget to visit here because in other sites you cant find anybody who claims non Turk hunnic empire or maybe non italian roman empire --Orkh (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Limit your Straw man usage. Your imaginary friend might have talked about Socrates or Turks, and you have confused him with me. And about New York Times' comments, even Encyclopedia Britannica itself said "Mentally the negro is inferior to the white... the arrest or even deterioration of mental development [after adolescence] is no doubt very largely due to the fact that after puberty sexual matters take the first place in the negro's life and thoughts.

Lets run and add that to articles conserning to them! Seriously, all these writings are just racistic White Supremacy stuff. I have no idea why a Turkish wants to even spit to these.

Wikinist (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an easy answer. Turanism is a theory looking for evidence to support it instead of finding evidence to _formulate_ a theory. Besides, the sources Orkh provides don't say anything explicitly about Finnics being a member tribe in the Hun confederation. All they say is Finnics are Turanians. So he's doing original research by making the association himself. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Include the parenthetical - it's the only difference between the two sentences, and it adds useful information. I don't see any problem with it. MilesAgain (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Facts vs theories - pls remove from "WikiProject Turkey"

The main issue with this article is that it states (briefly) Huns were PROBABLY of Turkic origin, however, we have to face the fact that WE DO NOT KNOW for sure. So putting this to "WikiProject Turkey" is not corresponding to science.

• They had a vast empire, and the capital was not in Turkey
• We have absolutely no idea of their language, not even of its kind (only theory!)
• Argueing that Attila is derived from Turkish "Atil", can be easily counterattacked by any other languages
• Argueing they dress like Turkic people is not an arguement, other horseriding ethnics had similar clothing

I have information that in Armenia they have found a Hunnic writing, it is now under investigation if it is genuine. It is not Turkish.

So please, with respect to all Turkish people, (especially to those extreme-nationalists), remove this article from this Project. Abdulka (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Huns are even more ancient than Turks, Mongols, etc. I think you hit the nail on the head on this one. I second that motion

--Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Something to ponder

What's the relation between Huns and Hans (Chinese)? They both are spelled the same way, aren't they? Bennylin (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Koreans call themselves "Han" too i think. So i dont think those words are related...--N33 (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Something to think on

"Cebimde elma var" do any Hungarian friend understand this Türkish sentence that means i have apple in my pocket —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolga-temur (talk • contribs) 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

=

roflol.. thanks for the humor..

no mention of what happened to the huns or if any are still around

This article doesn't even tell what happened to the Huns or if there are any still around.--4.244.33.80 (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Huns didn't have a Turkic aristocracy. That 'aristocracy' was Huns themselves. Thus Huns were Turkic, and the rest were just client tribes.

Can there be a semantic error in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brsh (talk • contribs) 17:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OF COURSE HUNS(MAGYARS) WERE TOTALLY FULL OF TURKS, BUT PAN-ARYANS AND ULTRA-CHRISTIANS ARE CONVERTED THEM TO A NEW NATION CALLED HUNGARIANS. AND EVERYBODY BELIEVE THAT STORY. EVEN MANY WIKI ADMINS ALSO SUPPORT THIS FASCHIST IDEA. ALSO MANY EUROPEANS ARE STILL FASCIST AND EXTRIMIST CHRISTIANS. PAPA WOULD BE MORE FAIR THEN THESE STUPID ARYANS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.9.35 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Germans and Huns

The German/Hun connection concerning WWI is plain wrong. The link to Wilhelm II shows his speech during the Boxer Rebellion, where he said: "Just as the Huns under their king Etzel created for themselves a thousand years ago a name which men still respect, you should give the name of German such cause to be remembered in China for a thousand years ..." [2] Since he compared the German soldiers himself to the Huns, the name stuck in WW I. It has nothing to do with the pickelhaube which has no hunnish connection whatsoever, nor with the belt buckle of the German soldiers. Since the article is incorrect, please change it.Ultraferret (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

He may have referred to the connection of the Germans to the Huns in Attila's time, since in that time Attila was king over a part of the German people and in his army were many of them. See for example the Niebelung Saga. And this may connect to the American saying of the great wars, when they referred to the soldiers of the German and Austro-Hungarian Empire as the 'wild Huns'. Dzsoker (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Latebird, I understand your point when reverting. I do not accept to revert the complete edit. You could have "soften" maybe the edit by informing it is THEORY, yes, it's true. The citations are from various sources which I have collected, and which are not publicly "adverted" or cited in the popular books. This is not cherry picking sorry, as the original Latin text is also cited! Abdulka (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe cherry picking is the wrong word in this case, but what you wrote was Original synthesis based on primary sources. Such materail is not accepted in Wikipedia. You need secondary sources to cite the analysis from. If a theory has a reasonable following in published sources, then it may well be mentioned. But in this case, it was your theory, which clearly doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Latebird (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Xiongnu and Huns

Hi. Good day. Pls explain why try to destruct works based on referenced, scientific data, all the time? I remember it was You, who deleted my addition to the Xiongnu article too, regards the Bulg. king list, sourced from O. Pritsak, who was a professor of 3 universities, incl. Harvard University. And now in the case of Hun article, you deleting data regarding more that a thousand years old traditions, and quotes based on 800 years old historical sources and works of acclaimed historians? So we can maybe make a consensus. Thx. Yours sincerely Dzsoker (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I think it was a good, well written addition, including many striking quotes, to the Huns article, explaining many important things, and thousands of characters (around one third of the original) of new information. Dzsoker (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for communicating. I hope that in the Hun article I left the Hungarian traditions where they belong, that is among mediaeval and later stories, and at the relevant length for a historical article, that is, rather short. I suppose the contemporary analogy within my own nationalist traditions would be King Arthur, but I wouldn't state mediaeval traditions as fact in that article either. The sources are indeed old, but they are about seven centuries after the actual events, and they are at best very dubious sources. I did leave links to articles on the manuscripts you mention. And the Xiongnu material belongs, if anywhere, in the article of that name. It is also very verbose and full of detail, personal names and so on, which does not belong in an encyclopedia.

Would you like to start an article on Hungarian traditions of national origin? This might be an appropriate place for them to be discussed at length.

Rather than simply revert your edits, I will copy this to the [Talk:Huns] discussion page and we will hope for a consensus of opinion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanx, you've made great contribution. But besides your and another writer POV, my works did not get contrary reaction from the community so far, so I may start an edit war. You should join to the Flat Earth Society, I think. P.S. King Arthur was a Sarmatian knight, so he has nothing to do with your nationalist traditions. not regards Dzsoker (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

On the personal names: if they werent there it will be deleted as unsourced material. Dzsoker (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There's already the Hungarian prehistory article that deals somewhat with Hungarian traditions... I agree that there can be a tendency to write too much about a subject. I saw it happen in the Hungarian prehistory article where editors started digressing about the population of Transylvania at the time of Honfoglalas and the points of debate on that subject and who advocated which theory, etc. It started to become a mess until everyone agreed that the subject was being best handled in other pre-existing articles and that there was no need to duplicate the information. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I thanx too. Ok, It's a good idea to discuss it on Hun talk page. But I've written those stuff, because those are the Huns' and Attila's effects on events centuries later (like in the case of Charlemagne Avar campaign revenge for Attila, and Hungarians reaction to this), and relevant events that help to make sense some of the European historical events, and if not of Hungary's traditions relevant on Huns, who else?? And the other thing, those were not just trads, these were based on all opinions of the nations of that age of 9-10th centuries, as we can see in German, Italic, Frank, Hungarian, Slav, Greek chronicles, only I hadn't the time to contribute that informations also. I hoped someone will, but instead all my work was deleted without a single disproof.:( Anyway in a couple of days I'll scribe that sources and quotes, in a few more sentences, to the article, the data of: Annales Fuldenses, Annales Alemannici, Liutprand's Antapodosis, Regino of Prüm's chronicle, the mentioned Gesta Hunnorums, Nestor's chronicles, Constantine's De Administrando Imperioso, his father's: Tactics, and so on. I think it will be good one then. Dzsoker (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't think that any of those things belong in the Hun article. In articles about Hungarian history, traditions, modern myths, or prehistory, maybe wider European traditions relating to the Huns, but not, at any significant length, under Huns. Opinions please... Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Look, I wrote these after I read in this talk page, After Attila they just disappeared in no time??, what happaned to them?? So I responded this with writing a new section of about some sentences related to their after story, since the article hasn't any words on it. And I think it is very important, moreover the most important thing in Hunnic and European history, the Migration Period, and the afterwards. As one Chinese research said: "The Huns played an important role in the world history, especially in the shaping of the European nationalities and the development of European history,", Lin Gan, a professor specializing in the study of Huns at the Inner Mongolian University. So I thought it deserves a few words what happened to them, its not at significant length. Futhermore what happened with Attila's lands and empire, after it collapsed is belongs to here too. But in another opinion: Wikipeida, is an online encylopedia, not a lexicon, so it can (I think: must) be extensive, if not exhaustive on any issue. (And on wiki there are articles that ten times longer than this. You should contribute to , and not delete from it, I think. Dzsoker (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A few more things: "The sources are indeed old, ... and they are at best very dubious sources." Ok maybe they are (there are some errors in them, but noting, that they were chroniclers of the kings of Hungary, and I think kings knew who they were), that's why I mentioned many more (all are from independent to the previous and these are from the 5-10th centuries, so much closer to the actual events). And I've tried to bring forward the dark and fearful mood and memory of this era and nation. My few futher additions will be at the exact point, regarding the 3-6th centuries period. Dzsoker (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, what happened to them? The point is that we don't know. Presumably the people formed parts of new groups under new names, but the sources that describe this are not contemporary, nor even close; even at the time they were written down, they were national myths not history, and they are covered in other articles.

As for the Xiongnu, their connection with European Huns is a fair guess, but not certain, and they have their own article. That article needs a much-abbreviated bit about the current Chinese project (which is interesting, thanks). This article doesn't. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What happened to them can be exactly known from the sources I mentoined, mainly from Procopius' writings, and from other Byzantine historians of that age, I will put these too, so when I am ready this article will be more interesting than now. And of the Xiongnu connection: is not a guess, but has been proved, and generally accepted among scholars. Anyway, my opinon and suggestion is that we wait a couple of months to see the community's reaction and contributions to these issues and overall, then we will see and get back to it. Dzsoker (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do NOT use primary sources directly. We can't take the writings of Byzantine historians at face value, because they didn't follow modern scientific methods, and much of what they wrote is heresay, rumours, or even simply made up because it served their masters. We need modern secondary sources to interpret their works. Relying on primary sources alone is original synthesis and not acceptable on Wikipedia. --Latebird (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that way too. The methodology I intended to use is some original quotes with source citation and their modern scientific interpretations based on cited works of acedemicians, scholars and university coursebooks. Dzsoker (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I recommend to start with the secondary sources, and only add primary sources where needed to support their conclusions. I haven't checked systematically, but so far you mostly seem to have done it the other way round, which is problematic. --Latebird (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not in agreement with Dzsoker's recent edits. Most of the new stuff he's added to the article is actually about the Xiongnu. I was under the impression that Wikipedia keeps a distinction between the Xiongnu and the Huns because otherwise it seems like a form of POV pushing. The link between the two groups is mostly theoretical and based upon slim data. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but Dzsoker has asked for a little time to make his changes and it seems reasonable to give it to him/her. I propose to avoid editing this page for a week or two more, then rewrite (and abbreviate quite a lot) and ask for comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Most of the new stuff he's added to the article is actually about the Xiongnu." I've only added Xiongnu material where it belongs: in the relations to the origins of Huns: their ancestors and Origin and identity section. For example, it's interesting to see, that the indication of Huns being of Turkic origin (thus a much later ethnical group of the 6th century, so completely illogical, and what theory was always mentioned in the publications as a possibilty and was never proven but disputed from the very beginning among scholars) doesn't get even one sentence of criticism, but mentioning the Xiongnu origin (which only the Chinese writing (in English) of the word Hun, for example Hungary in English is Xiongyali in Chinese (Xiongs' country)) and their connection to the Huns what is contained in every scientific works from the past decades and perfectly logical, got such negative opposite reacting. Anyway, I shall continue to tend myself to (as I did in the past) not writing any of my own conclusions but sticking to the guidelines of Wikipedia:Sources and mentoining only University and Academic level material (not just 19th century level fossilized views) on the scientific theories, and focusing on content: See Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Focus_on_content "Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.", that's what I do: I leave the original, older views and theories (even when I know it is already a complete nonsense and wrong and unscientific, and became disproofed (there are many in the articles) in academic world but I don't want to participate in heavy controversy) and proportionately extending them with the new informations from the Univeristy press material. So if you disagree and challenge one or other statement and have sources supporting your view you sould put tags like disputed or whatever and adding the new text based on your source to the article too. It's the way to improve it and of resolving disputes Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Anyway, I'm standing up looking forward your explanations and contributions. After all, we all know that the Earth is flat, don't we? I don't think so. kind regards Dzsoker (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

One more word regarding the "I am not in agreement with Dzsoker's recent edits."..."pushing POV". What, where? I think "Your agreement..." can also be a kind of POV, when it's without supporting material. My agreement is that this arcticle got much better and scientifical so far. See also my words below Ftjrwrites' comment. Thx. Dzsoker (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll follow what Richard Keatinge wrote above regarding giving you some time and then we'll work from there. One thing though, I don't understand what you mean by "Original Hunnic Theory" for a section title. It needs a better title because the current one is highly ambiguous. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I had been thinking on it too but I didn't find a better word, I meaned something like autonomous, or separate, meaning they language was neither Turkic nor Mongolian or whatever, but Hun, as I've tried writing on the theory's point: "...linguists began to agree in that there was an autonomous Hunnic language, and it isn't derived from but was the basis of the most Eurasian steppe languages...". So I maybe rewrite it to Autonomous. Dzsoker (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You may be looking for the phrase [Language isolate]]? Or for one of those ideas that link a wide variety of languages such as Nostratic languages?Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

But on the other thing. You should not wait to work on the article, I think. The next thing I invented to do is handling with the extending their antropology, origin, and archaeology data (so not on a big scale) that I've already tried to start, but little later with small additions in a time of about a couple of weeks and months, not momentarily, so I again propose you not wait for it. P.S. on the thing "The link between the two groups is mostly theoretical and based upon slim data." You may read after it, I'v read that this theory has become accepted almost universally among the researchers and scholars. so standing by Dzsoker (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite at [[4]]

Thanks Dzsoker for the invitation to comment on your hard work. You may note that I have tried to improve the style in many areas, and I hope that those edits at least meet with your approval. I have also removed the bit about Xiongnu entirely; even if everything in it is correct I am confident it belongs in the Xiongnu article, and there only.

You may be less pleased with my removal, or reclassification under Traditions or Successor nations, the various bold assertions about Hungarians being Hunnic in some sense, and the "history" that is produced to support this idea. The sources were inadequate and to the extent that they exist appear to be supporting a mythologised version of Hungarian history. For example, I don't know where you got the ideas about Attila's well-organized taxation system from, and of course he must have had some transfer of resources analogous to taxation even before he started robbing the Romans, but I don't think that any good secondary sources support your idea. That may be what Ftjrwrites complains about, below. The sources that might possibly have supported some of the assertions acceptably were in Hungarian, of which I don't know a single word, and as this is the English Wikipedia we would do well to stick to the scholarly consensus expressed in English. That is, as pointed out, that we can only make reasonable guesses about Hunnic language and origins, that the Hunnic empire broke up rather quickly, and that their cultural and genetic influence was soon dispersed.

Before making grand statements, perhaps we should consider definitions. What is the definition of a Hun to begin with? Would we include only the prestigious clans, or all their subject peoples and allies? At the time of Attila's death, or at some other point, or over a period? How would we tell the difference between "Hunnic" and "Scythian" culture, with similar lifestyles, or how assign a given group to one name or the other, or to both? What would count as cultural continuity from "the Huns" and how would it be evidenced? What about genetic continuity? Or political?

I hope this helps. Perhaps we could all discuss this particular edit for a couple of days and try to come to a consensus before we do any more editing? If no consensus emerges, we can take it to a RfC.Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There was never a "Hun Empire." :)) What can I say to this level of discussion. The claims about its size and great organization are patently absurd. The "latest scientific discoveries" language is a cover for a substandard fringe source. Ftjrwrites (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"There was never a "Hun Empire" :)) What can I say to this level of discussion. That's where I get out from this quaility of conversation. And yet my contributions was qualified to unscientific. I'm trying to contribute (but without deleting older and other views) with the most up-to-date scientific data based on University sources and works of professors and data of the most recent international scientific conferences to improve the quality of the encyclopedia from 19th century type information. See WP:SOURCES: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." Dzsoker (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"There was never a "Hun Empire" :)) What can I say to this level of discussion..." Okay, Dzsoker is no scientist. Are the other ones? I support Dzsoker full... It is really ridiculous, absolutelly not true, that Hunnic Empire would be even outside of scholastic disscussion, but true, it is widely recognized history and thus an accepted fact. I find also ridiculous any pro or contra statements about language and linguistical relationships of Huns above, coincidentally with the true statements, we do not know anything about their language - no one letter of them was discovered until now as I know. And so on. These remarks do not tangent other problems of genetical relationships and disappearing of Huns, or if Hungarians are - at least partially - descendants of Huns/Scythians or not. Fact is however, huge indoeuropean historiography rules the world, and this in multiple cases fails, simply by reason of history and present interests. Fact is moreover, two third of 1000 year Hungary's territory was truncated by Trianon 1919 to states being since antihungarian motivated by bad nationalism, and on their present territories many new founds were made in last decades claiming now their own. Besides other founds belonging to Huns or Scythians come from South Russia former camp of Huns, and Hungarians. Nobody knows how many contemporary artefacts and scripts with important meaning hitherto are slummering in archives of foreign states up to RF, GB, etc., not yet studied and if then not published, 'cause not interested in, to the contrary counterinterested... We can find the whole scholastic history full of great lies, why not the one of Huns? Think of it and qualm down. 81.183.109.113 (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)privateer of Hungary

I find accusations of political bias by an entire field of study to be a large hindrance to moving forward on any meaningful discussion. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Pardon. Although it is also factual, I deleted one word, "unlawfully", by this reason. All other ones are merely facts with direct influence to present stage of history and research in this field. 84.0.74.139 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)privateer

OBRUSÁNSZKY Borbála Source

Dzsoker, I recommend that you don't use the OBRUSÁNSZKY Borbála source. It won't stand up to source criticism. It is published in a newsletter targeted at Magyar expats in Holland. The article reads like someone's term paper ("flagium dei?!") and doesn't even include a bibliography. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That article was not originally published in that, just copied to it so nothing to do with it, only its the one that I found online available. (It's not the full text, but only a summary of a much longer not available online in English.) It is a text of Dr. Obrusanszky, a historian and orientologist (Ulanbataar Mongolian University attendant and associate of the Hungarian Science Academy), that summarize the current international views of the past decade results of the Hunnic research, presented on a Hun Conference in Holland, as the article mentions it also: paper presented at University of Amsterdam, 8 October 2007. I'll try to find bibliography. I'm also waiting for many publications to summarize data. So sometime I will contribute with those. Dzsoker (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to reputable mainstream sources. In the meantime I have reverted to my edit earlier today, not because I think it's the best possible version but because I would like to get some consensus on whether it's an improvement on the previous one. We will see. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Dzsoker, is this your site? http://hunsarecoming.oxyhost.com/ --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

not exactly, it's something like (just started few weeks ago, so will be) a student researcher ring on the subjects of history and archaeology of Scythians, Huns and Xiongnu, and the like, for publications for local language books and publications and university material to be availabe to anyone in English (Wiki also writes about the usage of not English material, it can be used for sources and be translated by Wikipedians if providing the source to be verifiable.) It will contains hundreds of articles as far as I know. I'm just a translator and an admin and coder of the tech part of it. but why, how it connects to the debate?

P.s. Sborsody, borsody sounds like Hungarian or Slovakian, are you connected to or speaking any? Dzsoker (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus thing

ok, I think over it, and will react. will not revert it, but on my last edit, it is nothing to do with the source thing. But read my last edition on the source mentoined, and cited in Turkic theory section. It was written that Otto Maenchen-Helfen's research supports it. I've read this source, and it supports just the opposite, so I arranged it to a new section, read it before you delete.

Other theories

The Turkic theory of Hunnic language, that appeared in 19th century was debated from the very beginnig and is far from solution. A good summary of this comes from the words of Otto Maenchen-Helfen:

"Few scholars would care to risk their reputation in taking on the monumental task of straightening out misconceptions about the Huns. Hatred and fear distorted the picture of the Huns from the moment they appeared on the lower Danube. Unless this tendentiousness is fully understood — and it rarely is — the literary evidence is bound to be misread. The present study begins, therefore, with its reexamination... All we know of the language of the Huns are names. Our sources do not give the meaning of any of them... Only by a careful study of the literary context in which the names appear can we hope to bring the problem of the Hunnish language closer to its solution. Attempts to force all Hunnic names into one linguistic group are a priori doomed to failure. In addition to the objective difficulties, subjective ones bedevil some scholars. Turkologists are likely to find Turks everywhere; convinced that all proto-Bulgarians spoke Turkish, Németh offered an attractive Turkish etymology of Asparuch; other Turkologists explained the name in a different, perhaps less convincing way. Now it has turned out that Asparuch is an Iranian name... Scholars of profound erudition were sometimes biased by Pan-Turkism... These names have been studied for more than a century and a half... The thesis that the Huns spoke a Turkish language has a long history behind it... The formal analysis of Turkish-sounding Hunnic names requires utmost caution...", but all we can say "The number of Hun names which are certainly or most probably Turkish is small." Where it is supports that the language of the Huns are Turkic, it stands that "The number of Hun names which are certainly or most probably Turkish is small". So it stands the opposite. And the bias of the past 150 years of reserach, by hate on one-, a pan-turkism on the other side, should be noted as well, I think.

and on the sentence: "Some recent linguistic studies connecting their language to that of the Xiongnu, suggesting there was an isolate, autonomous Hunnic language". Wiki quidelines writes that the so-called protoscience (meaning new theories of established professors), if it is published in university press material, sources can be presented, but not so long, and its based on essays coming from Inner Mongolia University Press, Hohhot, and Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, so I think it deserves one sentence. And the Xiongnu ancestry link, it links to the Norther Xiongnu became the Huns section of the Xiongnu article, I think this should be left in the article too. Again on the thing before this: I'll not revert but think over and get back to it, goodbye till Dzsoker (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

P.s. on the Hungarian sources thing you were right, I have tons of it, mainly on Hunnic archaeology, and on artefacts from all over in Hungary in local museums' publications (maybe I will translate them), but I also waiting for publications in English. Dzsoker (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC, comments on this diff please

Revision for encyclopedic style and omitting hyperbole and nationalistic ideas, or irresponsible removal of large amounts of valuable and referenced work? Editors cannot agree, please comment on this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Huns&diff=257284072&oldid=257168717

Dzoker, as has already been pointed out by all other participants in this discussion, your use of sources is neither scientifically nor encyclopedically sound. It seems that you didn't want to write about the "real" Huns. It rather looks like you were trying to collect every myth that has ever been created about them. I'm sure there is room somewhere for that, but probably not in an encyclopedia. --Latebird (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

nothing was already pointed out I think, moreover they haven't cited a single sentence from a source. say one myth please. Dzsoker (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

noting that my works were quotes from a Mongolian, a Chinese, and a Jewish historian, I didn't write even a single word of it. Dzsoker (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Dzsoker, changing my text is not appropriate behaviour. Please avoid doing this in future.

You may want to know that I have no interest in any form of nationalism in relation to this article. The talk page already contains multiple comments from people who want to claim the Huns as Turks, Balts, and Hungarians on a more or less dubious basis; all I want is encyclopedic style and good use of evidence. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I know, that changing text is not appropriate behaviour, but those you are basing your side on are lies. And I think you are a disruptive editor, only deleting all times. And if you are not interested why did also remove the dubious tag from the article. You even don't read the sources, nor provide any, don't take the disscussions of the others into consideration at all, not contribute anything useful to tha article, just pushing your mantra again and again and deleting. For i.e my contribution with the recent research on the Xiongnu article was there for almost a year, not disturbs anyone, until you just deleted with some nonsense POV of yours on what Wiki should be. And in case of that article, was exactly me who made the article neutral from pan-whatever pushing when to my request of admin help it became protected. (You can see it here too, I put the Turkic or Xiongnu phrase, and in five minutes it was next to it: possible Turkic too.)

So on your deleting thing, I think exactly the opposite. If I'd like a short article on something, I got to the British lexikon from the shelf instead, not Wikipedia. Rather I'd like to see as many views as possible (this is a goal of Wikipedia, I suppose. See the guidelines), if those were published in university like material. and finally I am totally not interested in what you're thinking about your "encyclopediating" or whatever deleting and shortening behavior. It particularly disrupts me for example. And with this type of work you go against wikipedia policy: see Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing "Editors often post minority views to articles. This fits within Wikipedia's mission so long as the contributions are verifiable and do not give undue weight." and "Verifiable and noteworthy viewpoints include protoscience as published through reputable peer-reviewed journals. Editors may reasonably present active public disputes or controversies which are documented by reliable sources." That's excactly what I've included into the Xiongnu and into this article: the most up-to-date data of pure science informations on active public international results of the recent researches, but with not deleting any othe views, what I've also mentioned above days ago, seem for nothing. So to summarize, you are ruining the main goal of Wikipedia, and make it worser not better, I think. so not regards Dzsoker (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

p.s. And what can I do when the researchers come up with such scientific results. I am not written any word of POV, just quoted professors of Universities. Dzsoker (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

From the edit:

• who had established a great empire in Eurasia,
• and had been ruling Asia and Europe for centuries.
• They played important role in the world history, especially in the shaping of the European nationalities and the development of European history.
• The dreaded Huns were the trigger force behind the Great Migration that led to the collapse of the Roman Empire, thus opening the way to the independent historical developing of European nations.

These are quite exceptional claims. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. www.china.org.cn quoting some unknown professor is far from an exceptional source. The Roman Empire collapsed for many reasons. The Huns were just one of them. Additionally, words like "great" and "dreaded" are POV and hyperbole. They don't have a place in the article. As for the rest of the editing conflict that is going on, I've been trying to verify the sources Dzsoker is using. One of them is available online from a newsletter for Hungarian expats in Holland, which in the same issue has published other fringe theory stuff like about Hungarian-Sumerian language connections. This aspect of it makes verifying the credibility difficult. I'd prefer to see such sources published in the appropriate international trade journals where they may obtain the benefit of proper peer-review. Anyone can write a paper at University or publish a book. That doesn't make source criticism any easier. It seems that these sources Dzsoker is using are just too new (2007). I think it entirely appropriate to let these sources age a bit before use on Wikipedia. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

On the other fringe theory newsletter thing I can only repeat myself (see above): "That article was not originally published in that, just copied to it by the editors, so has nothing to do with it, only it's the only one that I found online available. (It's not the full text, but only a summary of a much longer not available online in English.)... Dzsoker (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)."

Not connecting to strictly here but in the defense of that newspaper I must mention that those Sumerian connection things were published there, mentioned and declared as fringe theories by you, were the theories of Rawlinson, Oppert, Lenormant and others, as you can see yourself what was the academic consensus of that age in the 9-10th edition of Britannica, so I don't know how much can these regarded as fringe scientists. You can say of course that it was a century old, but the Turkic theory of the Huns is even older than that. So please don't use such harsh markers.

But the essence is:

On the Hungarian related debate of here: I was thinking on it, and I accept your viewpoint mainly for the reasoning of Latebird, who wrote that this article should be stuck to "the real Huns" and their historical period, not to the earlier or the later times or people, which have separate articles, and reasoning of Sborsody who wrote that "my sources seem just too new (2007) and thinks it entirely appropriate to let these sources age a bit before use on Wikipedia", so I suspending my dispute status for a couple of months or years, to wait and see more publications on the new scientific results, and then will get back to it. Dzsoker (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dzoker, using a large number of sources doesn't make you a good editor. It's the quality of the sources that matters.

The goal of Wikipedia is not to show "as many views as possible". Wikipedia is not an indicriminate collection of information. The goal is to only show the relevant and notable views, as referenced by reliable sources.

So far, you haven't shown why your sources should be considered reliable. You also haven't shown why your additions should be considered relevant. Until you do that, any fringe theories you introduce must be considered to have been given undue weight (you cite that term from guidelines above yourself, but don't seem to understand how it applies to the situation).

The sources you actually use are randomly picked from the web. The guidelines ask for "reputable peer-reviewed journals" (cited by you above), but what you really cite is entirely unscientific. You can't just pick a few words from the guidelines and ignore those that contradict your own opinions. And if you continue to your personal attacks against other editors, while ignoring their arguments and misrepresenting their words, you may get blocked from editing Wikipedia faster than you might expect. --Latebird (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the personal attacks thing, but I was who was attacked personally with false accusations based on lies by him, and I just mentioned I am not in agreement his deleting style regardless of whose writings. And he was, who has ignored my replies, and crookedly blamed me.

Anyway Sborsody is maybe right about these theories or thoughts maybe just too new and recent and not well-known besides the scientific elite, but my top intentions were to spread new knowledge among the public, as see WP:RS "Because Wikipedia not only aims to be accurate, but also useful, it tries to explain the theories and empirical justification for each school of thought, with reference to published sources. Editors must not, however, create arguments themselves in favor of, or against, any particular theory or position."

And you'd created argument in favor of a particlar theory (namely the Turkic) against another, the Hungarian related thing, by deleting only my quotes and editions and the disputed statement of it.

Anyway, I would presenting with a few sentences (not just one, like at here, in the main article) an expanded review of the mentioned Xiongnu related isolate Hunnic language theory of that professor and linguist specialist, in the Hunnic language article if you don't mind.

And on the other things, as I will have more published and more reliable source material, I would reedit this article, but anyway until then this dispute will be resolved, I think I have thoughts to design a new article to summarize and present the history, the theories, and the historical sources of Hunnic and Xiongnu related research of the past 200 years. From the begginnig, from the works of Joseph de Guignes of 18th century, through works of for ie. O. Pritsak and others, to the before mentioned post 2000s results like the reports on results of conferences, and like the Chinese govermental report of the most recent archaeological excavations in long-ago Xiongnu territory. If you don't have plea against it. because I don't want to invest my time, if someone would delete it with just one mouse-click like as it was happened with this article.

P.S. And I think your opinions may are behind times, odl schools of thought. But I think my additions were true from the start sentence to the last (I didn't intended to present false information.), and finally I also think that the time will prove me. You will see. Regards Dzsoker (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think another thing I should mention, I felt there's too much Xiongnu stuff Dzsoker was adding to this article. Sure, I agree that Dzsoker has mostly only added it in the article in appropriate places, but I still feel it was too verbose. It is enough to make mention of scholarly controversy and the different origin theories without going into details of the controversy. Please see above where I gave an example of this on the Hungarian Prehistory article and the subject of the Transylvanian population at the time of Honfoglalas. Additionally, Wikipedia maintains separate Xiongnu and Hun articles. This is no different from maintaining separate Kalmyk, Mongol, Xianbei and Donghu articles, or Tingling and Tuvan articles, or even Swedes, Norwegians, and Norsemen. There are significant differences between the groups even though there's a scholarly recognition of succession or continuity. It wouldn't do the Kalmyk article any good if someone started adding Donghu information to it. I see this situation as similar. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You had some right, but noone wanted merging the two, nor anyone should. Dzsoker (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

History Section Improvement

I noticed last night something very humorous to me. While doing some copyediting I realized that the History section, which should be the main meat of this article, is written more like a mere afterthought. Most editors appear to focus so much on Hun origins and other peripheral issues and properly cite sources while the main narrative remains as a relatively small little section. I'll try to get some improvement going from my copy of E.A. Thompson "The Huns"... --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! As you say this is what this article needs. My impression is that there is disappointingly little information, as almost nothing written by the steppe cultures has survived, and their neighbours mention them mainly as enemies. Let's use what is available. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is simply inappropriate to relate Huns to Turkic for the reason stated by dzsoker - Turkic is later ethnic group.perhaps referto as a possible proto-Turkic link . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooknomad (talk • contribs) 18:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Xiongnu status

First, what kind of people the Xiongnu were is not the topic of this article. Historians discuss about a dozen different possibilities of their ancestry and relationships, and none of them are even remotely proven. There is no justification to specifically emphasize in this article that they "might have ben turkic". Doing so gives undue weight to that minority view. Just because they happen to be mentioned in the same sentence as turkic peoples doesn't change anything about that. --Latebird (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Leave the Xiongnu info in the Xiongnu article. Also, the phrasing "core of aristocracy" sounds really strange and awkward. It makes it sound like the Huns had an aristocracy that was only partially Hun when I suspect what is meant is that the Huns formed the ruling class. Does anyone have a suggestion for this? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Rereading the line, I see that saying "Turkic or Xiongnu core of aristocracy" could also be giving undue weight. The whole line is somewhat problematic. I think the numerous sources cited in this line need verification. I mean, "Pictish Sourcebook" as source for information on Huns? C'mon... --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

They possibly had a Turkic or a Xiongnu core of aristocracy

Let's look at what this line is saying. "They possibly had a Turkic or a Xiongnu core of aristocracy." It does not say that the Huns were Turkic or Xiongnu but that these were characteristics of their ruling class. So sources need to support this properly. The Pictish Sourcebook is out. Notwithstanding the laughable idea that it is a valid reference text on the subject of the Huns, it contains a single line saying "Turkic-speaking nomads from Asia". It says nothing about the Hunnic ruling class. The other sources need to be evaluated similarly. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a semantic misunderstanding here. Don't you think that "ruling class" was Huns themselves and that the rest were conquered/subjugated client tribes?

It matters not what I think. It matters what verifiable sources say. As I wrote above, the line "core of aristocracy" is not clear about what is meant. Is it meant to be talking about a subgroup, a core, of the ruling class or the ruling class itself? My assumption is that the original author is trying to draw a parallel to Herodotus talking about the "Royal Scyths" of the Scythians. Either way, the sources cited on this line need to be verified to see if they properly address the subject they are supposed to be citing (i.e., the ruling class) regardless of how they define "ruling class". --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the problematic sentence entirely. None of the sources talked about the Hunnic ruling class. Both of the following sources referred to the Xiongnu as Huns and didn't appear to draw any distinctions.

• Actes du sixième Congrès international des orientalistes, tenu en 1883 à Leide [5]
• Histoire générale des Huns, des Turcs, des Mongols et des autres Tartares [6]

As for the rest of the sources...

• History of the Mongols By Henry Hoyle Howorth [7] didn't appear to even mention the Huns
• Linguistic Minorities in Central and Eastern Europe By Christina Bratt Paulston, Donald Peckham [8] has a single line about the earliest Turkic-speaking tribes to arrive in the Caucases WITH the Huns.
• Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective By Robert L. Canfield [9] had only mention of a Turkic-speaking ruling class of the Chionites and Hephthalites, not the European Huns this article is about.
• Two Thousand Years Ago: The World at the Time of Jesus By Charles A. Frazee [10] similarly one mentions Huns in passing as Turkic-speaking. It doesn't say anything about their ruling class.

Sources are good to have and all these books appear to be fine reading, but Wikipedia authors need to utilize sources properly. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A possible suggestion. It may be the best if we make a note in the opening paragraph to the Xiongnu, like: They possibly descended from the Xiongnu., because it is an important and the most significant viewpoint, referring with the original source of Joseph de Guignes, let the Turkic debate to that article, and anyway we can't mention such name on them what didn't even exist in Hun's age, but appeared first time in the Chinese sources after 542 AD, and since the language paragraph also begins with the Turkic theory. I put that sentence and we will see. Dzsoker (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to look into the history of how that line came to be. This edit from almost exactly a year ago added "of turkic origin, as their language is turkic." to the end of the first sentence of the article. This edit changed that to "with a Turkic speaking aristocracy." Both edits were not properly sourced claims. Then someone added those numerous sources I detailed above in this edit. At some point the statement got moved. The original intent was to try to define the Hunnic origin in the lead sentence and someone changed that to talk about the Hunnic ruling class instead. *shrug* It seems to me the sentence Dzsoker added is fair since the theory of Xiongnu-Hun continuity is a widely accepted one. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Purported linguistic Xiongnu Hun connection

I've reverted that short paragraph again.

From the hunnic language, only names (of unknown meaning) and three words are preserved. From the Xiongnu language, only names and titles, and only in phonetic transliteration in Chinese are preserved. In both cases, there is no scientific consensus even to what type of language they spoke. I don't quite understand how under such circumstances, "recent research" can "connect" two items that are largely unknown, while still following established scientific principles. It seems that this is merely the speculation of just one individual of unknown qualification. It will need independent confirmation by other researchers (who actually agree with him, not just report "he said so") before it makes sense to mention it in the article. --Latebird (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning and questions, but what you asked is exactly the point, that in these recent linguistic studies it was pointed out that those Hunnic words thought of Turkic origin so far have been found in Mongolian language too, along with a part of those words known from the Xiongnu language, and from these Turko-Mongolic linguistic relations it was figured out that those common words in both languages are of common origin from an another, separate language of a time that preceding that of the Huns, and also considering the other known Hunnic and Xiongnu words of unknown origin that aren't in either of the above languages, in lingustic terms, it can have only one explanation, that this common ancestor language of these words could be only the autonomous Xiongnu language from which the Hunnic descended (in the terms used by you, these "two unknown languages" are the same). Tough I know, but it's the science :). Have you even read the sources I mentioned? Those are reviewed academic (Routledge Academic Publisher, see Academic publishing) and university (Inner Mongolian University and Eötvös Loránd University Presses) sources based on works of a number of professors and scholars and each one has its own bibliography of references in it, so not just "one said so" type of things and thus I thougth that these are verifiable and reliable sources suiting the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability and presenting such a very important school of thought what deserve one sentence (if not more) of mention in the article, and one sentence is not undue weight. Dzsoker (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just read the interview with prof. Uchiraltu. While the translation (in horrible English) always uses the word "Huns", what Uchiraltu is talking bout are almost exclusively the Xiongnu. This makes the text extremely confusing to read, and gives a very false impression to someone who isn't aware of the difference (or doesn't care about it). The only time when he explicitly speaks about the "real" (European) Huns that this article is about, he simply admits that hardly anything is known about their language.

What he really did in his research, was to compare Xiongnu words with Göktürk inscriptions, and to a much larger extent Mongolian with Hungarian words. If that interview is any indication, then the Hunnic language doesn't really enter the picture, other than by pure conjecture. Even for the Xiongnu, he says that he can't decide whether their language was closer to Turkic or Mongolic.

If anything, then this is ongoing and unfinished research, and as such not suitable material for an Encyclopedia. --Latebird (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why did you insert your reply above my second comment? It specifically addresses some of your "arguments". Firstly, the research is about Xiongnu words, and only marginally if at all about Hunnic ones (there are only 3 (three) hunnic words known that would be useful for comparison). It is really annoying how Hungarian sources use the word "Huns" for both, as if they tried to deliberately confuse the matter.

Secondly, just because something was printed by an "academic publisher" doesn't mean it reflects established knowledge. In fact, it is one of the purposes of such publishers to also print unconfirmed research theories, because other researchers need to be able to learn and comment about them. This is in contrast to Wikipedia, which explicitly avoids that and only includes what is established knowledge.

And third, just comparing a number of words between languages does not prove that they have a common origin. Compare the Altaic languages, where the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic branches were at times thought to be genetically related, because they have many common words and even similar grammars. However, as of today, this theory has largely been rejected, for a varitey of reasons. Finding common words between Xiongnu and Altaic languages is simply to be expected, because they lived in the same geographical region. It needs a lot more to prove a connection that goes beyond that. --Latebird (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a note. The Altaic theory has most definitely not been largely rejected. You've made it sound like Altaic has gone the way of the old Ural-Altaic theory, but that is a vast oversimplification of the state of Altaic as a language family. Linguists still recognize some sort of relationship, especially between the "micro-Altaic" group (Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic). The devil is in the details. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course the Altaic languages are related "somehow". But I don't think there are many people who still propose a genetic relationship even between those in the micro-Altaic group. --Latebird (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Just reading the interview of Uchiraltu in more detail... It seems to me that Prof. Uchiraltu is a Mongolian interested in finding proof of Mongolian descent from the Xiongnu. This is why in the interview he talks about Mongolian and Hungarian words and the Xiongnu language being similar to early Mongol. It looks like yet another perfect example of confirmation bias where evidence that doesn't support one's theory is avoided. There is no talk about Chinese sources identifying the Mongols as descendants of the Donghu nor is there talk about how the Hungarian words that are cognate with Mongolian words are loans from an r-Turkic language. Uchiraltu even goes so far as to appear in the interview to completely ignore the history of the Hungarian words he is researching. This is because this evidence doesn't support Uchiraltu's theory of Xiongnu-Mongol continuity and Prof. Uchiraltu apparently has no arguments against that evidence. Disappointing scholarship. And I was looking forward to some good new information on this subject. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Latebird:

Because I wrote that before your second comment. The professor used the word Huns in that interview not the Hungarian sources, they use the word hun for Hun and hiungnu for Xiongnu. But not the interview is important here but the linguistic studies published by him and the others. From your statements I ascertained you didn`t read either of the sources, or any of the mentioned studies, just speculating. This is not the way of dispute. I think we shouldn't involve ourselves in disproofing published works of linguist experts with our own thoughts, this would be original research. I can't even imagine that Wikipedia prohibits mentioning published recent studies and researches of experts. This is the main question here, not what we think about one thing or other.

So I disagree, but please lets reverse the direction of this dispute and focus on the content: Please explain which policies of Wikipedia does that sentence violate? If it violates any it should be removed, but if none it shouldn't, I think.

P.S. The current article is full of obvious errors even with nonsense sentences. Dzsoker (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Reply to Sborsody:

I think you may have missed the point and chronology of his research. He states that based on his 15 years of research he considered so far the Mongolian to the most related to the language of the Xiongnu. He knows very well that the Mongolians were the Xianbei (Donghu). (Before he got acquainted with the Hungarian language material, but it was just in 2006, so he could only make some quick overviews and begin the research with this new data.)

And it makes some sense, because he goes with the chronology of history, and consider the succession order in political meaning as the Xiongnu, Xianbei (Mongols), Huns, Turks. The Xianbei and the Turk were the subjects of the Xiongnu, and after the Xiongnu migrated westwards to became Huns, the Turks were the subjects of the Rouran and Touba, these last two are of Xianbei. And the point lies here, that those separate words of Hunnic and Xiongnu considered Turkic so far are in the Mongolian too and the proto-Turks were Xianbei subjects for almost five hundred years, so those dignity titles couldn't come from Turkic to Mongolian, only from the Xiongnu/Hun. And the Xiongnu words he has reconstructed from the ancient Chinese chronicles are connected more to Mongolian than to Turkic. What is logical also, because he considers the Mongolians much older people than the Turks as such, what is also true. And thus the Mongolians connect more to the Xiongnu than the Turks. And from these he has pointed out that the Xiongnu language and so also the Hunnic could not be Turkic for sure, and because of the other reconstructed words and from the Touba-Chinese dictionaries and other informations of the Chinese chronincles we can know that the Touba were Mongolian and their language was not Xiongnu, so it has only one explanation: that the Xiongnu also had an original language (and it was that of the Huns also).

And on the Hungarian words, he doesn't ignore the history of the Hungarian words he is researching at all, becase he considers a number of those were Xiongnu words too (but he just started the research with these as I mentioned above), from what they went to Turkic. And with his new Hungarian colleagues they have also found even such Xiongnu words in Hungarian with exact meanings and layouts which aren't either in Turkic or Mongolian and maybe such Hungarian words also which are not in the Turkish, only in Touba and both of those type of words have unknown etymologies in the established Uralic theory of the Hungarian language. But these new Hungarian related findings are not connected to his original Xiongnu/Hunnic theory, and on these there aren't much info in his book what collects his studies of the past 15 years of research which were published in the Inner Mongolian University Press from the second half of the 1990s.

"And I was looking forward to some good new information on this subject." you may should start with the other source I supported: from the interpreter of Uchiraltu book Dr.O.B. interview "for example Angela Marcantonio linguist, the professor of Cambridge University attracted the attention to a recent published summarywork. Therein Schönig writes at the chapter of Turkic-Mongolian collocations, that their common progenitors may had been the Huns or the post-Hunnic people" and in this article also a thorough critical overview of Altaic thing can be found "Generally, the more carefully the areal factor has been investigated, the smaller the size of the residue open to the genetic explanation has tended to become. According to many scholars it only comprises a small number of monosyllabic lexical roots, including the personal pronouns and a few other deictic and auxiliary items. For these, other possible explanations have also been proposed. Most importantly, the 'Altaic' languages do not seem to share a common basic vocabulary of the type normally present in cases of genetic relationship..." (pg. 403). Schönig, Claus. 2003. "Turko-Mongolic Relations," The Mongolic Languages. Ed. Juha Janhunen. Routledge. Pages 403-419.

P.S.: So I think this new school of thought can be mentioned in the article for as we can see from this conversation also, it provides important new informations on researches of specialists to the wide public. Dzsoker (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. As I said, this is the impression I got from reading the interview unfortunately without having read the book. Additionally, I urge you to look more into Angela Marcantonio, specifically other linguists' review of her work. It makes grown men cry. [11] (Note User:Ante Aikio) and [12] At least in Altaics the proponents and opponents have been constructive to each other with their criticism where work like Marcantonio's just hinders progress in Uralics. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I knew those things) I've already read the second review you wrote, but what's your opinion about Claus Schönig and his article on Turko-Mongolic relations? Dzsoker (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll let you know when I find a copy to read. :) --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

STOP Sborsody

this guy want to remove Hun's Turkic identity, he also once claimed that Huns were Iranian tribe!!!: damn!!! those were the days my friend--195.174.23.184 (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Good joke, anonymous! And if it were true that I once claimed Huns were Iranian, prove it instead of spreading false rumors. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OH! Hi Orkh! It was you who first said that I was claiming Huns were Iranians in Talk:Huns#Iranian_problem_again. You couldn't prove it then and you can't prove it now. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

hi, Borsody, you again back on job, i wish you ll be in the way, but destroying the Turkic roots in the first paraghraph is not the solution. it cant be removed. how could it be destroying Norse roots of Vikings? right? its the same, brother.--195.174.23.184 (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

To you it may be the same. The difference is that the Norse roots of the Vikings is supported by direct evidence whereas such evidence is found to be greatly lacking for the Huns. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Another problematic sentence

"Many clans may also have claimed to be Huns..." Saying "many clans" is somewhat weaselish. We should be able to say which clans. Does anyone have the Walter Pohl source? The preview on books.google doesn't display all the pages. Even worse, this line may be a direct copy from that source. It must be checked. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a tendency to avoid the term, Turkic, in the first paragraph?

The man who associated (European) Huns with Xiongnu (Asian Huns), Joseph de Guignes, said both people were Turkic. Why is there a tendency to give a wrong impression?--Mttll (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Mttll, because they dont want to see Turkic civilation texts in here wikipedia. because they are fascist pan-aryan losers. and also see the Xiongnu page. they re-write and fulled the page with tons of bullshit. everybody knows the Xiongnu (Doğu Hun) were proto-Turks but they removed sources and nobody take care about it. --195.174.23.184 (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem has always been with the wording. Writers such as Orkh (195.174.23.184 above) wrote in absolutes with regards to the Turkic characteristics of the Huns when the debate by scholars on this is still ongoing, despite what De Guignes wrote so long ago. Thompson (1996) doesn't even really go into the subject of whether they were Turkic or not and instead focuses on the Huns themselves, starting their history at the point when they enter Roman sources. It seems like every time mention is made of the possibility of the Huns being Turkic, some writer gets offended and tries to change the meaning to be absolute one way or another. Or weird sentences are made like "core of aristocracy". This is also true of the Xiongnu article where scholarly debate on the Xiongnu being Turkic is also still ongoing. Orkh would be surprised to learn that I personally believe the Huns were Turkic, but he sees in me instead some sort of pan-aryan facsist because he is unable to divorce his own personal opinion from the goals of Wikipedia to provide well-research encyclopedic NPOV articles. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but if wikipedia was the collective of very fair and open minded people, i wouldnt react like that.. see Xiongnu page and see what does Wikipedia mean for!--195.174.23.184 (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is because Xiongnu were not Turks. They came much earlier in history than the Gokturks, who created an empire during Tang dynasty in China. Xiongnu split into two tribes, north and south. Northern migrated westward (into Europe) and the Southern stayed and settled in Shaanxi province in northern central China. Turks are Turks, Mongols are Mongols, and Xiongnu are neither. They are much more ancient, and as a result, most likely influenced Turks, Mongols, and others who did not establish empires until much later or even have any unification among their tribes. Even Gokturks were not the original group of Turks(e.g. Uighur, Kyrgyz, and some others were not part of them). Turkish nationalists and extremists like to make such claims although it has nothing to do with their history.

I think the section about the bid for a "Hun minority" in Hungary should be removed, as it was several years ago that a group of crackpots came up with this idea to try to avoid paying taxes, nothing else. This has nothing relevent to do with Hun identity or culture. If there is a section for this, there should be one about Turkish Gray Wolves and other nationalists who like to claim descent from the Huns as well...--218.20.120.78 (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Should it be that 'Turkic' people are 'Hunnic' people's rather than the other way around? 'Hun' (or Xiongnu which was pronounce 'Huni') preceded the name 'Turk' (Tujue) by a few hundred years according to Chinese history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.185.78 (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, assuming that they were the same people, however that's part of the basis for refuting the assertion that Turks are descended from Huns. They were not. The Huns created an empire much earlier than the Turks, who took over hundreds of years after the Huns left. Many Turkish nationalists even try to claim that Native Americans are Turks. Tibetans also lived as steppe nomads before adopting Buddhism, and Koreans were originally nomads from Siberia as well. No one tries to claim them as being Turkic/Mongolic/Tungusic. They are separate people, as were the Huns. Yes, it is entirely possible that the Altaic branch is bigger than just the 3 aforementioned groups. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

---

In terms of the citizens per se, the Xiongnu were a confederacy of tribes, unified under a single governing military system, somewhat an umbrella term maybe? like how Central Asians were called Mongols in the 12-13th century, whereas today Mongol only means those from Mongolia (though it could have possibly largely also referenced Altaic-speakers which in my strong opinion is correct - given there is hardly historically any other common languages in the Ordos/Altai regions other than Altaic or Sinic (vastly much fewer Yinesian or Indo-European). The question probably just is how closely related the ruling class of the Huns in Europe, were to the rulers of Xiongnu. Were the European Huns rulers direct descendants, unrelated, or descendants of a remote second cousin once removed. Likely, they were culturally the same but with only distant common ancestry (i.e. both likely turkic). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.154.193 (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Language of the Huns

In the article itself, Otto Maenchen-Helfen's reference is used where it is said that supposedly the number of Turkish words in the Hunnic language was very small...in the same reference if the conclusions page is observed it says otherwise...so if someone could please re-edit the language of the Hun's it would be more appropriate for Wikipedia. Here is the link http://www.kroraina.com/huns/mh/mh_11.html. Cheers. 190.26.88.84 (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, that seems like an oversimplification of the conclusion, which says, "To judge by the tribal names, a great part of the Huns must have spoken a Turkish language.... The personal names give a different picture." --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree in that it is a little simplified but in the wikipedia article it says completely the opposite saying that the names and words in Turkish were very small but if the whole Otto Maenchen-Helfen's study is analysed even in the conclusion it is possible to observe that the number of names in Turkish is greater than the names in other languages in addition to the tribal names. In the article the the only mention of Maenchen-Helfen's work says 'The number of Hun names which are certainly or most probably Turkish is small' whereas the the whole section about tribal names and the results that show most of names appear to be Turkish is not even mentioned and if wikipedia is supposed to be a successful encyclopedia all relevant and significant information should be included. Thanks. 190.26.88.84 (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Its Turkic, not Turkiish

'Visigoths' and 'Ostrogoths'

Is it not incorrect to speak of Visi- and Ostro-Goths prior and during the Hun era. They were rather known as Greuthingi and Tervingi. Visigoths and Ostrogoths appear after the collapse of the Hun Empire Hxseek (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hungary and the Huns

The article states: "The Magyars (Hungarians) in particular lay claim to Hunnic heritage." How accurate is this statement? Norvo (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking how accurate it is that the Magyars lay claim to Hunnic heritage or are you asking how accurate the claim is? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the unintended ambiguity. I was concerned about the accuracy of the claim that Magyars seriously assert Hunnic heritage, not whether such assertions are anthropologically accurate. If the answer is yes, then it would also be useful to have some information on how widespread the claim is among Magyars. A source would be useful, too. Norvo (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say that some Hungarians do think this. It was widely believed in the 19^th century and perpetuated by the famous Géza Gárdonyi novel, The Invisible Man which is about Attila and the Huns. I doubt that the belief is widespread among educated folks today. We call ourselves Magyar; the term Hungarian used outside Hungary has, as far as I know, no connection to the Huns; the similarity is a coincidence. I can't remember the details of where I read this, but it was supposedly used by a Byzantine monk-explorer in a 5^th-6^th century or so manuscript for the tribal association led by or called the Onoghurs (or Onogurs). The Magyar tribes were members of this association. When the Magyar tribes left this association and migrated to the present-day Hungary around the 9^th century the name stuck. Possible further linguistic evidence for this is the Russian term for Hungarians, Венгр (approximate English pronunciation Wengher). And of course the German term for Hungary is Ungarn.kovesp (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Huns in India

There is no reference in this article to the Huns in India. As far as I have read, they were a significant presence there, especially in Rajasthan. (See Rima Hooja's History of Rajasthan for example.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.176.153 (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

==

Hepthalites were non-Hunnic (by blood) mostly originally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.154.193 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Attila period

There were no Visigoths or Ostrogoths in the 4th century. They were formed after the collapse of the Huns, ie in 5th century A.D. rather, they were Greuthingi and Tervingi Hxseek (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Archeology vs. Mythology

It's curious to read that because there are no modern archeological data to confirm the claim that the Huns are part of the XiongNu tribe who migrated out of Mongolia in the 1st century AD after they were defeated by the Han Chinese, the "modern scholars" in the West reverted to the 6th century AD Gothic claim that the Huns were a savage race descended from "witches and evil spirits". Good thinking, whoever the "modern scholars" are! Even though Chinese kept detailed records and their history clearly identified the Huns as the branch of XiongNu who refused to sumbit to Han and migrated west to crush less formidable foes, even though there are many cultural similarities and identical military strategies between the Huns, the XiongNu, and the Mongols, it's not sufficient proof for the "western scholars". Sounds rather like "racism" at work here. --VimalaNowlis (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Sounds like your theory is baseless and at a primary school level. The Chinese said all northern barbarians were descended from the Xingnu, like all ROmans called people from the Pontic steppe Scythians. Just labelling on the part of Chinese sources. Huns cannot be "descended" from Xiongnu. Apart from lack of any concrete evidence, the Xiongnu was a political entity, not a "race", or anthropoligcal type. When the Xiongnu federation ended, then that was it. ANother clan took over. That there are similarities means little, as all steppe nomads had a similar culture. Doesn;t mean they were all born to one mother in the Altay mountains ! Get real Hxseek (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Chinese did not say all northern peoples were descended from the Xiongnu. What proof do you have that they were not their own ethnic group? Claiming such suggests that they must have spoken many different languages and that there was no Xiongnu language because there was no Xiongnu people. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's no secret. All such groups from the western Eurasia to the east were no discretly bound peoples, but nomadic confederacies which formed, unformed and re-formed numerus times. Because of their location (ie Mongolia) and the similar 'savage' nomadic lifestyle, the Han simply often caled all subsequent groups descendents of the Xiongnu. Hxseek (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention in their historical books about the other tribes being descended from the Xiongnu (not in Book of Tang or Book of Zhou. Can you provide a source for this claim?) They do say the Xiongnu are descended from Wolves though --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Attila

I'm surprised that there's so little about the Huns during the reign of Attila on this page. I mean, I know he has his own article, but considering how he's the first thing people think of when they hear "Hun", you would think his section would be bigger. 14 February 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.116.83 (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Article date nomenclature

Richard, you changed the dating format of this article twice, first partially and the a few months later you changed the entire article. Why did you do this?

First partial change with no mention:

14:36, 24 September 2009 Richard Keatinge (talk | contribs) (39,064 bytes) (added quotations from Jordanes - even though he may never have seen a Hun) (undo)

Complete change done 6 weeks later: 16:59, 9 November 2009 Richard Keatinge (talk | contribs) (39,862 bytes) (standardized dating format - CE) (undo)

From what I can see, you half modified the dating systems in September so that the article was partially using a mix of AD/BC & CE/BCE (mostly AD/BC) and then six week slater you changed the remainder of the article to fit with the system you added... You have not shown a substantive reason for changing the dating system and this article has been AD/BC from the first entry.

Monsieur Voltaire (talk)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsieur Voltaire (talk • contribs) 22:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC) 

Investigating... it seems that I added Jordanes, with his date in CE without even thinking about it (or remembering that I'd done so), then changed the rest of the article some weeks later for consistency. No upset intended, sorry - it's not even as if I care significantly about date formats, certainly not enough to argue about it. Feel free to apply any consistent format that you may prefer. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if i came across accusatory in tone. I feel strongly about this only because I have noticed an agenda amongst many editors/contributors to change dating. Your knowledge and contributions to this article and others is exemplary and very much appreciated by people like myself looking to learn. Monsieur Voltaire (talk)

My apologies also - I was definitely too hasty with the revert. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mukhamadiev article, include brief mention or not?

The inscription on the Khan Diggiz plate is interpreted by Mukhamadiev as giving the name of a known Hunnic king, son of Attila, in a form of Turkish.

- This seems somewhat relevant, but it has been removed because it is "are unconfirmed and unreviewed, and aren't included in any of the newer enycyclopedias and other articles about the Huns, despite it appeared 14 years ago." What do other editors think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

20th-century use in reference to Germans

Here's another 20th century use of "Huns" to mean Germans. In 1909, The US President (Taft?) sent troops to Nicaragua, ostensibly to protect from the Huns. This was because Nicaragua's President (Zelaya?) was opening up trade with Europe, starting with Germany. I don't have a reference right now, but I think the article should mention this. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)