Talk:Xiongnu

Template:Vital article

Hunnic Link

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

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

Careful with DNA research

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xiongnu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

Robbeets, Savelyev source

Per the source:

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

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

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

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

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

should be removed and;

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about the Wusun?

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