Talk:Huns/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Genetics

Genetics confirm genetic mixing between magyars and huns CE 217-315. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.129.204.36 (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Genetics - Edit request

The genetic section (for what ever reason) does only mention haplogroup R, but at least two papers also found significant amounts of haplogroup Q. This should be corrected and accurately presented...

:"Considering all published post-Xiongnu Hun era genomes (Hun period nomad, Hun-Sarmatian, Tian Shan Hun,20 and Xianbei-Hun Berel21), we counted 10/23 R1a-Z93 and 9/23 Q Hgs,... These Y-Hgs were most likely inherited from Xiongnus, as these Hgs were frequent among them22,32 but were rare in Europe before the Hun period."

Cited by [https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cub.2022.04.093] 94.131.108.114 (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done:: Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. –Austronesier (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Elite Hun burial genetic ancestry

@पाटलिपुत्र I am afraid I am going to agree with @Wikiuser1314 about the elite Hun's genetics image unless @पाटलिपुत्र has a convincing argument. It seems to be undue weight because this is the genetic ancestry of just a single individual. Also, the labels in the new image you ulpoaded are incorrect. You used the term "Khövsgöl EBA" but it's actually Khövsgöl LBA. Fries Montana (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Simply intended as a graphical illustration for a paragraph with complex data. Just one individual, but probably quite representative of elite Huns in general. I corrected "Khövsgöl EBA" to "Khövsgöl LBA" (might have to refresh the file cache to see it). Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, with the correct label it's at least acceptable. P.s. if you cannot create a new map for the Huns what do you think of moving the Eurasian steppe belt map to the infobox and get rid of the old one? Fries Montana (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Huns (orange), with Eurasian steppe belt (green)

400

ROURAN KHAGANATE

Kyrgyzs

Kokel

Gaoju
Turks

HYMYAR

EASTERN
JIN

NORTHERN
WEI

VAKA-
TAKAS

GUPTA
EMPIRE

KIDARITES

XIONITES

SASANIAN
EMPIRE

BYZANTINE
EMPIRE

ROMAN
EMPIRE

HUNS

Lombards

Franks

TOCHARIANS

Paleo-Siberians

Samoyeds

Tungus

MEROË

class=notpageimage|

The Huns and main polities in Eurasia circa 400, with Eurasia steppe belt

I like contextual maps, so I am thinking of making a Eurasia map (from France to Korea) with Hunnic territories in orange, and a faint green mass for the steppe belt. This could go in the infobox. What do you think? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

It's good. But since we already have a similar map, wouldn't it be better to create for the infobox a map focused more on Europe/Western Asia (like the current one)? With such a map you could also include the sub-tribes like the Akatziris. Fries Montana (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, maybe its better not to include the (Germanic) peoples ruled by the Huns in the map. Their position within the Hunnish empire is not so easy to pin down as far as I know, and the empire was ruled by the Huns after all (Thracians, etc. are barely included in maps of the Roman Empire, for example). I would maybe include the Akatziris though, since they are probably a Hunnish sub-tribe whose area is known with certainity. Fries Montana (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment: There seems to be two individuals analyzed by Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. 2022, namely the Hun_P_Budapest_5c and the Hun_P_NTransdanubia_5c, with significant variation in their genetic makeup. The authors even state:

The only two Hunnic-period genomes available, analyzed above (Hun_P_Budapest_5c and Hun_P_NTransdanubia_5c), suggest a wide genetic variation for this mobile group...

In this regard, I made a collection of these two, and additionally the KazakhSteppe Hun sample and Tian Shan Hun sample (Kazakh_OutTianShan_Hun), which may be a better representation for the article:

I will add this quote accordingly; if there is any idea how to improve the collection or replace it with another, feel free to give suggestions or upload a better version.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Great work. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't like the idea of having a picture for genomic data at all. This is even worse. For example, it presents chromosomes, even excluding the European Hun samples where Q paternal was found. It only includes the Tian Shan, which also has Q, but since the relationship between the Tian Shan and European Huns has not been definitely proven yet, it seems to almost separate them further in the eye of the reader. Other problems are that the map has no caption. How is a reader supposed to know what 'WSH' is? TBH I could accept the other picture just because it also mentioned Khovsgol, a topic that really interests me. But I have to vote against this one. I am just sorry for you for the time it must have took you. I appreciate that though and I thank you for that. Fries Montana (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that there is much difference for the readers by writing "Khövsgöl LBA" or "WSH". Furthermore, the graphic is explained by the text to which it belongs. (The text mentions WSH=Steppe_MLBA=Sintashta.) I displayed the haplogroups of the four analyzed samples, henceforth no mention of the several other Y-chromosomes analyzed from additional samples, which however were not full genome sequenced (yet). But anyway, I have no strong opinion on including such graphic or not. If we use such graphic, perhaps this one, with only the two Hungarian Elite Hun samples explained in the text, is a better option.

On another thought, we may shorten the genetic section and link/move it to the genetic section of the main article Origins of the Huns, in which we can be more detailed, only mentioning the genetic heterogeneity and some broad overview of Huns here (per above quote of Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. 2022 for example). Any thoughts?–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Khövsgöl LBA and WSH are not the same. Since it was supposed to be a "graphical illustration for a paragraph with complex data" I merely think that the lack of a legend doesn't make it as useful as it could, or should. I displayed the haplogroups of the four analyzed samples, henceforth no mention of the several other Y-chromosomes analyzed from additional samples I don't get your thought. This article is about the Huns, not the study on those four samples. A recap of the chapter should include all analyzed samples. Excluding the one with Q haplogroup is especially serious because that is an East Asian haplogroup, and the alleged East Asian origin of the Huns is a major topic of discussion. You also said which however were not full genome sequenced, but what does full genome matter when we are talking about haplogroups? While I am sure tou are in good faith, any attempt to add a "graphic" with the ancestry of the Huns can be taken as some sort of POV-pushing. Like I said, I can support-or rather not argue against-the previous graphic but I have to oppose this one. Fries Montana (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand your concerns correctly. The graphic is an "illustration for a paragraph with complex data" on the two analyzed samples (the other two are full genome sequenced ones from Kazakhstan; all of which are mentioned in the section). I can not make a graphic for the other not full genome sequenced ones as we do not have any data (only haplogroups), so I made a graphic illustration on the four full genome sequenced ones and included their respective haplogroup. There is no difference in this and the previous one, other than a higher sampling number. Do you mean to remove the mentioned haplogroups of the two (or four) samples in the illustration? Adding a legend is probably useful, but again, the legend would use "WSH" (or Sintashta), etc. Obviously Khövsgöl LBA and WSH is not the same thing, but I tried to say that readers know exactly as much (or as few) about the one or the other component, henceforth these components are explained or linked in the text, to which the illustration refers to. Perhaps than it is better to not include such illustration at all... yet I am not sure if I get your point, the article is also not on the single specific sample illustrated before, what's the difference to higher sampling numbers? And haplogroups do not pinpoint their geographic origin, henceforth the full genome. My point was to display all the full genome sequenced samples, not one single. Again, I can not illustrate the other Hun period samples of which we only have haplogroups, because we only have haplogroups. So I guess I will just remove it for now... perhaps we find a better solution.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Fries Montana's original concern is sensible and not really addressed here. The question is whether this is a topic where there is some sort of stable scholarly consensus. I don't think it is yet, at least not looking at these sources. Based on WP policies we should therefore avoid this topic until bigger studies have been done, and ideally there should also be a secondary literature.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I will just remove the illustration.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Andrew Lancaster. @Wikiuser1314 what I meant is that if you don't use a legend you don't make it so much easier for the reader (which was supposed to be the purpose of the graphic). I mean, the way the illustration is, without legend, with four genomes, how easier does it make it for the reader? I was doubtful about the previous image but at least it was quite straightforward and admittedly somewhat interesting (IMO). I let it go more for its value as a "trivia", you could say. You cannot make a graphic for the non full genomes, but you shouldn't have included the haplogroups, because that way, for instance, haplogroup Q (East Asian) is excluded, while chiefly European/Eastern European ones are included. Fries Montana (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

OTOH, you are right, the previous graphic was limited to one genome and this is also not good. Anyway, better to just remove any such illustration. Fries Montana (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Let us add Odoacer' picture?

@पाटलिपुत्र, @Andrew Lancaster, @Wikiuser1314 In the desperate search of contemporary depictions of the Huns to add to the article (section "appearance") I thought about adding a picture of Odoacer, for whom we do have a contemporary depiction, the notorious one on the coin. It is generally accepted that at least his father was a Hun, it is my opinion that he had at least some Hunnic "blood" giving his "national" and geographical origin from the Hunnic Empire and date of birth (433, over sixty years, or potentially three generations, after the Huns penetrated in the area where he was born). I would have added the picture straightforwardly as per the bold policy, but I have a concern, which is rather esthetic: the 4-picture template we have now, with pictures of Xiongnu, Attila, and White Hun king, looks pretty, and a fifth image could disrupt the section. I wonder what you think about it all. Fries Montana (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me we could get rid of the Middle Ages painting , which in all likehood has very little documentary value and is not very aesthetic, and replace it with your historical picture of Odoacer. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I question the relevance of any of these images of non-European peoples associated with the Huns by some modern scholars to a section on the physical appearance of the European Huns. The images should be removed or placed in the proper section, on origins - and it is not at all clear that Odoacer was in fact Hunnish.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ermenrich I respectfully disagree. First, Attila (Chronicon Pictum) is the "Europeanest" Hun. The Xiongnu are accepted to be the ancestors of the Huns. A minority view holds they are unrelated or distantly related (through ruling classes), but they are still highly relevant to the article. Lastly, the White Huns are probably closely related to the Huns (if not the same people, as the caption suggests). They also had dealings with neighboring Alans, with whom the Huns later (re)mixed in Europe. On the White Hun connection we have not only the support of modern historians but also that of a contemporary historian (Procopius), i.e. someone who actually saw them both. The White Hun's appearance is highly relevant to this section and an image of them definitely called for especially in the absence of portraits of the (Attila's) Huns (if they were indeed a different Hunnic tribe). And the caption of the images is also cautious enough, maybe even too cautious. As for Odoacer, I didn't claim he was "in fact Hunnish", I said that his father was. Nationality is one thing but physical traits are inherited from parents and so his image is relevant in this section about physical appearance. Fries Montana (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It is entirely unclear if Odoacer's father was Hunnish, as is discussed in some detail at Odoacer. What these images do is take the arguments of some scholars (the Hephthalites and Xiongnu are related to the European Huns, Odoacer is partially Hunnish) and display them without argument or nuance in a section that is about European Huns' physical appearance - thereby suggesting that the European Huns looked like these images, which is WP:OR. These images may fit somewhere in the article but it is not there.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ermenrich disagree. It is precisely here where they fit. It is not the argument "of some scholars" that Xiongnu/White Huns are related to the Huns. It is what science, modern scholars and even contemporary scholars tell us. Since these peoples are the same, closeley related or at the very least from the same ancestor, their appearance is relevant, and it is not a suggestion but a fact that the Huns looked like them, just like two brothers or cousins do, which is not to say they were the same (though this is yet possible in the Huns' case, and in fact this is what all the argument is about). Were the images without caption, were we claiming or implying "these are [European, Attila's] Huns", I would agree with you about the images' unfitness in those circumstances. But with the proper caption, they are very helpful to the reader, and make the article prettier, and based on the article's content and amount of data about Xiongnu-Hun connection, far from OR. Fries Montana (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It is simply not true that this is the scholarly consensus. This review article from 2020 refers to the proposal having only limited support in modern scholarship. This statement qualifies for WP:RS/AC, meaning to state that there is a scholarly consensus you must demonstrate that the consensus has changed since 2020. The connection is still very much up in the air. It does our readers a disservice to suggest otherwise.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

what are you talking about? You are mixing things up. What is your problem with having images? This article had (has?) some OR and other problems, like severe POV-pushing (somebody even tried to exclude the Q haplogroup and another East Asian one while adding all the European ones, goes figure!), however, the use of these images has nothing you can argue against, and after all they weren't removed till now. What consensus are you talking about? Consensus that White Huns and Attila's Huns are the same? No, there is no consensus about that, but it is obvious and certified that they are related to whatever degree (again, even Procopius states this), which is pretty obvious when you think that they come from the same area, have same lifestyle and even the same name, and related people look alike. Adding such images in a section where, morover, the relationship between Huns and Xiongnu is discussed is fine. Images are to the discretion of the editor, they have to be relevant, and these obviously are. There is no need to have consensus that White Huns and Huns are the same to add an image saying "White Huns and Huns are considered related by a part of modern historians [etc.]" in a section describing their physical appearance and touching upon their origin from Xiongnu and relationship to White Huns. Fries Montana (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र yeah, I would probably let go of that one. Certainly not of the White Hun king, with his beardless face, tiny eyes and thick neck. In addition, the White Hun's is contemporary... But then again, the image of Attila from the Chronicon does have something...and it is actually an image of Attila, the "Hunniest" of them all... Fries Montana (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Ermenrich that the ancestry of Odoacer is a fascinating but very uncertain topic, despite all the great-looking leads. So this type of illustration could create a false impression. Looking for illustrative ideas, what about archaeological materials? (Reconstructions from burials?) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster a Schopenhauerian like me is always of the belief that an artist is more apt to capture the real essence of an object. Besides。nothing in the free domain is available. Sad you disagree on Odoacer, but just a precisation: purpose is try to reconstruct the appearance of the Huns for the reader by providing any possible depiction of them, or of something influenced, touched, partially of them. Odoacer may not have been a Hun himself, but he likely had some Hunnish descent (even the most skeptical about his ethnicity will give you that), and he might have, e.g. used haircut, beardcut, and dresses by or inspired by the Huns. Adding his image (with proper caption) would not reinforce the view he was Hun to the reader but just give some insight about their appearance, or what it might have been like. Also, could you give your opinion about the other images with proper caption(s)? Those which had been here for a while and have just been removed? Fries Montana (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew - original archaeological objects are obviously better illustrations for this page.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Fries Montana all you say is nice in an artistic way. (I am not being sarcastic.) But we have to limit our ambitions here on WP. There is a whole can of worms here. Just for example, Odoacer comes out of a complex of cultures which includes Huns (and Goths), but so did his replacement Theoderic. This is a topic worth being cautious with.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course, I am just saying, even several skepticals will admit that artists can (doesn't mean they always do) see very deep, not only when it comes to the object they observe, as Schopenhauer would aver, but also, romantically, when it comes to subjects like Attila, Biblical subjects, etc. Plus, in the case of Attila's Chronicon's picture, the artist was probably acquainted with the appearance of contemporary Arpads (who, remember, claimed descent from Attila). If the artist filtered that into the depiction of Attila given by Priscus, he might have come close... And there might be more... We do not know whether in 1300s Hungary there was some depiction of Attila available (such as a sketch of the Hun king in some lost manuscript, like the bogus one which was around a while ago and even made it to Turkish and Israeli Wikipedias' main pages). Regarding Odoacer, of course he came from an intricate culture and eventually became Goth "by nationality", but I think it is very likely (due to the circumstances, let alone the fact his father was named like a contemporary noted Hun ambassador) he had at least some Hunnish ancestry, and this reflects in his appearance. And he also probably had (due to his upbringing - i.e. at the court of Attila) a Hunnish "mentality" and way of dressing, etc., which also reflect on appearance, and I think this is all relevant to this section (the image would have an appropriate caption, of course, explaining that it is not certain that Odoacer was a Hun, yet it is possible his father was, and he grew up among them). I agree that we should be careful with Odoacer though. This is partly why I opened a section at talk page instead of editing the article directly. But I am convinced the recently removed images are perfectly fine, and removing them is a loss for the article. By the way, if @पाटलिपुत्र has not changed his mind, I will restore them, since @Ermenrich is the only one opposing their use. Fries Montana (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you are stating things as facts which are not known for sure, and I think this has already been explained several times - not only by Ermenrich. That doesn't really seem cautious?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Which things are you referring to? Some of the stuff I said is facts the rest is conjecture but the fact remains that Odoacer's appearance is relevant because he may have been a Hun. Waiting for the other editors to opine on the images removed by Ermenrich, I will restore them since its 2 editors supporting them and one who doesn't. I also invite @Ermenrich to discuss before removing against consensus. I will not add Odoacer image till I gain consensus. You can also still change my mind about adding Odoacer's picture. For now, I support its addition. Fries Montana (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Fries Montana: I provided a source the satisfies WP:RS/AC That the connection between the European Huns and other groups is not consensus. You cannot use WP:PRIMARY genetics sources to argue that this is wrong. You need a more recent source that also satisfies our academic consensus requirement.

As for the images, I’ve objected, Andrew Lancaster had objected, it’s up to you to gain WP:CONSENSUS for them. And the “racist caricature” is a 19th century image that portrays the Huns as buck toothed, slant eyed and yellow skinned.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

You have no consensus at all. Adrew merely expressed doubts on Odoacer's image. I already explained twice why there is no need to gain consensus yo add a picture thay relates to the main text. Those images were established, been here a while. Another user helped me edit their caption and they agree with them. It's up to you to find consensus for your unexplainable removals. Note that I waited 24 hours to revert your damage. You have revert twice within a few minutes. Again, it's like there is some problem with adding pictures at all. But like I said, nobody can have monopoly on any article. Fries Montana (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Gain consensus before adding - I’ve explained the problem with the images location - you can add them in the origins section (where they were before) but it’s misleading to readers to add them there.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Who are you trying to fool? It is you who have to gain consensus. Two editors support the three images without Odoacer, one opposes Odoacer's, and one (you!) opposes any image whatsoever. Hence, I have consensus to add the three image but I need to leave out Odoacer, which is what I did. Fries Montana (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ermenrich, just stop trying to have monopoly on this article. I have consensus for the pictures you have repeatedly removed, it is you who has to gain it. And by the way, looking at edit history I found out it was you who excluded the Q haplogroup and the other East Asian one from a list of all known haplogroups of the Huns (!). I suggest someone checks Ermerich's edits. Looks like legit editor but at least on this page he is making a mess IMHO. Fries Montana (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the talk page archives; those sources were removed by consensus.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no time to provid diffs now. But let any editor have a look at page history. At some point Ermernich started to freely removing stuff from the article, and apparently pov pushing because they left out from a list the only two east asian haplogroups. They included very long quotes criticizing the Xiongnu Hun relation, removed or shortened sources supporting it. They even altered the chronological order of sources, perhaps to transmit/ enhance the impression Xiongnu Hun relation is weak. For example, there is a 2020 source firmly establishing Xiongnu Hun connection, and a 2019 interdisciplinary study rejecting it. They placed the latter after the 2020 study, which succeeds it in time, that is, is more new (I might be wrong with the dates of the studies, but thats the kernel of what they did). Fries Montana (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no such 2020 study that “definitively proves the connection “. That is a WP:primary source. The interdisciplinary study is a wp:secondary source that satisfies Wikipedia’s requirements for academic consensus (WP:RS/AC). I suggest you review our sourcing policies before you make accusations of POV pushing.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I am tired of your wiki lawyering just to command what you want. I didn't have much time earlier to provide diffs and less time now that I have to argue against you at ANI. But be aware that I am 100% sure of ehat I've seen in the editor history of this article. Judging from your edits, you have clearly attempted to push your POV in the article. And now, to get what you want you went as far as reverting four times within 24 hours. As for the specific matter here: I explained several times now that you need consensus. It's two against one for the 4 images exluding Odoacer. Notice again how calm I am, how I let 1 day pass before reverting, and how quick you are to try and have it your way. Wait. Seek consensus. Stop repeating meaningless things. Fries Montana (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge reverted to longstanding version? What are you talking about? Did you even read the page's history or are you just blindly supporting a given editor? The longstanding, stable version includes the images, and it has been around for months. Also, if you still want to support Ermernrich, it is 2 against 2, so what gives you the right to push your view into the article without consensus? Fries Montana (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I overall agree with Ermenrich and Andrew Lancaster that the pictures are not really useful in such way, and may be even misleading in this section. It is also unclear if there was ever any specific "Hunnish" phenotype at all. They included highly variable groups. As Andrew suggested, published reconstructions may (if there are any) be a better choice. Lastly, I do not think that the removal of (contested) pictures is worth an edit war. @Fries Montana: while I can understand your points and feelings, I think you should also try to look at it without your personal lense (you previously said that you are very interested in this topic together with the Khövsgöl LBA genetic component), but through a neutral lense in accordance with Wikipedia rules on reliable sources and weight. Showing too much interest or having too strong (good faith) ideas may cause you loosing a neutral stance and see "agendas" in other users edits. This does not only happen to you, but may happen to many. The right way is to discuss such different views on the talk page and not through reverts and reports. So, what do you think about Ermenrich's suggestion to include (useful) pictures elsewhere, where they fit and do not become associated with controversial topics (and the origin of Huns is still controversial or just not solved yet). Try to reach a concensus with the participant users. Regards–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment I have to agree with the facts presented by both Ermenrich and Andrew Lancaster.--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Comment Fries Montana has now been blocked as a sock puppet, so I think the original dispute about the images is now moot. However, there is still the issue of their additions on the genetics sections. I'd like to suggest we try to re-edit it to conform to the previous consensus at Talk:Huns/Archive 9#Székelys, which was never fully implemented due to my inadequate knowledge of how to portray genetics sources. Perhaps Andrew Lancaster (or anyone else) might be able to streamline the section and remove extraneous and misleading info?--Ermenrich (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

No promises but will see if I can find time soon. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

We may also consider to shorten the genetic section here, only summarizing the most relevant information, while moving the more detailed data to the genetic section of the article Origin of the Huns. Currently these two articles have quite similar sections on their genetics. All the information on haplogroups is probably less useful and informative than actual full genome data, such as this:

The only two Hunnic-period genomes available, analyzed above (Hun_P_Budapest_5c and Hun_P_NTransdanubia_5c), suggest a wide genetic variation for this mobile group...

At least, having two nearly identical sections on their genetics is increasing the possibility for redundancy or even contradicting information (which is just unnecessary IMO).–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've gone ahead and restored the version from February 7 of this year - I discovered that a source characterizing the state of genetics research for the Carpathian basin had been removed entirely.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Wikiuser1314 - shorter is better here. The other article's section probably also needs some careful rewriting.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That was also my thinking. If others want to work on it, please do. I think genealogical sections need a rationale for existing, or at least for existing beyond a very brief summary. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

This (I believe) review article that's currently only cited in the lead would probably be useful [1]. In particularly, it characterizes the study by Maroti et al. that's currently taking up so much space in the article (and does it in a far more nuanced way than Maroti et al. themselves do): Maro´ti and colleagues show that the genomes of European Huns vary from western (European) to eastern (Northeast Asian) similar to Avars, with individuals with the easternmost affinities genetically sharing the most with Mongolia-related groups (Xiongnu, Xianbei). I think we should remove all discussion of the study and replace it with something based on that.

Note that I also changed the way the lead presented this study after reading it, previous wording was archaeogenetic studies suggest their Xiongnu origin from Mongolia as well as admixture with Scythian and Germanic peoples. This wording was not supported by the source, which only says "genetic affinities with Mongolia-related groups".--Ermenrich (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I had a go at simplifying it down to just two paragraphs on the most recent studies (besides the one on the "Tian Shan Huns" from Nature - perhaps it should be removed too?). Have a look and feel free to tweak or re-add whatever you think is necessary. The older articles can still be included at Origin of the Huns, I think, but this will also need work.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the Origin of the Huns article is more appropriate for present the genetic studies. I see the latest one is not presented yet: May 25, 2022 https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00732-1 OrionNimrod (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Huns - old Hungarians, genetic connection

Hi @Ermenrich,

I see you removed this sourced content https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huns&diff=prev&oldid=1158054489

Perhaps it would be good in the legacy chapter? I see the legacy section mention these things. Because these things are facts, and provided many reliable academic sources.

It is fact that in foreign and all Hungarian medieval literature, and in the literature until the 19th century the Hun-Hungarian countinutiy was the mainstream. (as this info is already in the lead, just I extended it) It also fact the Hun-Hungarian connection was denied in the 20th century due to the Finno-Ugric language theory. (as this info is already in the lead) And it is fact that there are nowadays many modern international genetic tests in the subject. Of course this is quite fresh, so probably need time when the genetic results will adapt into historian works.

For example you can see the genetic matches with a Hungarian king (1077–1095). (note, other genetic tests of the Huns revealed that the Asian Scythians played a key role in their formation)

I think these things are related to the content. What do you think which section would be appropriate for this content?

File:King Ladislaus I Hungary - Haplogroups.jpg

OrionNimrod (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The section on the legacy of the Huns already gives the mainstream scholarly opinion on the Hun-Hungarian connection. The genetic sources are all WP:PRIMARY and do not overturn that consensus. What they show is that the Hungarians have some connection with dwellers of the Eurasian steppes - something not really in dispute, but which does not mean that the Hungarians are descendants of the Huns. Often these papers include some rather far-fetched or poorly informed theorizing, vaguely label samples as "Huns" who are not from Europe, etc. - it's clear that the authors, for whatever reason, want the Hungarians to be associated with the Huns, and they often include barbs against the countervailing, consensus view.

I also object to the specific wording of your addition. It includes grammatical errors (Foundation of the Hungarian state is connected) and an un-encyclopedic tone, e.g. in this sentence: The Árpád dynasty claimed to be a direct descendant of the great Hun leader Attila.--Ermenrich (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ermenrich, thanks for your answer! Sorry I am not perfect in English, but you can repharse the content.

Those genetic studies analized the Hungarian conquerors not the modern Hungarians. (But many modern Hungarian made nowadays genetic test, I can see 3 main components: ancient local Carpathian basin + Scythian folks (Scythians, Sarmatians, Hungarian conquerors, Avars, Sakas, Hun...) + Germanic and Slavic. My family did also, and it revaled genetic sample matches from the whole Eurasian steppe: Scythian, Sarmatian, Hungarian conquerors, Avar, Saka, local Hun-Sarmatian from Carpathian Basin and even Hun sample matches from Mongolia as well. But this is personal research I do not intend to put in the article.)

And many other genetic test proved the Scythians played a key role in the fromation of the Huns, examples:[2]

The genetic studies showed that the Hungarian conquerors were a very diverse groups (many allied tribes, various genetic), it showed also that the Huns were also not only Huns, it was always more tribes. The acadmic studies what I sourced does not say that "the Hungarians descendants of the Huns", the researcher scholars said:

Thanks to the science of archaeogenetics, we can obtain new genome information about the former populations, and gain a more accurate picture of our ancestors' origins, with the help of the most modern cellular analyses and a supercomputer," said Tibor Török, Senior Research Fellow at the Research Centre for Archaeogenetics of our Institute. The Asian Hun heritage of the "conquerors" clearly proves that around 300 AD there was a significant Hun-Hungarian mixing, and the remaining Huns were integrated into the conquering Hungarians.

International (Non Hungarian) DNA study:

East Eurasian R1a subclades R1a1a1b2a-Z94 and R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 were a common element of the Hun, Avar and Hungarian Conqueror elite and very likely belonged to the branch that was observed in our Xiongnu samples. Moreover, haplogroups Q1a and N1a were also major components of these nomadic groups, reinforcing the view that Huns (and thus Avars and Hungarian invaders) might derive from the Xiongnu as was proposed until the eighteenth century but strongly disputed since.

This is the most complete study 265 genome analized (Heliyon is a very prestigious Q1 ranked journal, a top ranked journal where only 17% of the articles are accepted.): Result: Conquering Hungarians had Ugric ancestry and later admixed with Sarmatians and Huns

These academic sources mention that medieval Hungarian chronicles claimed the Hun ancestry and that the Arpad was the descendant of Attila:

I took this sentence from the source:

Presence of the Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin was documented from 862 AD and between 895–905 they took full command of the region. The Hungarians formed a tribal union but arrived in the frame of a strong centralized steppe-empire under the leadership of prince Álmos and his son Árpád, who were known to be direct descendants of the great Hun leader Attila, and became founders of the Hungarian ruling dynasty and the Hungarian state. The Hungarian Great Principality existed in Central Europe from ca. 862 until 1000, then it was re-organized as a Christian Kingdom by King István I the Saint who was the 5th descendant of Álmos

One third of the maternal lineages were derived from Central-Inner Asia and their most probable ultimate sources were the Asian Scythians and Asian Huns

I think it is does not matter if it is true or not, but it is fact that the Hungarian medieval literature claimed the Hun and Attila's ancestry, so it is belong to the legacy section. Of course we have academic sources which critize this, and we can mention them also, more POV.

Do you have a suggestion for using encyclopedic tone, repharsing idea?

This is a new schoolbook in Hungary for all Hungarian students by the Hungarian Educational Authority, which means it is the mainstream academic theory now in Hungary based on the latest researches (page 57): it said (fast translate): The Huns were made up of many different peoples, and they belonged to tribal confederations speaking many languages

(page 105): According to ancient Hungarian legends, the Hungarians are descended from the Huns, at least they are related to the Huns. Foreign writers also related our ancestors to other steppe peoples, such as the Onogurs, Avars, and Turks. The linguists, on the other hand, classified the Hungarian language in the Finno-Ugric language family and claimed that an ancient people lived in the region of the Ural Mountains and spoke the Finno-Ugric language. However, such an ancient people did not exist in the north, that is, there was no such ancient language either. The similarity between the Hungarian and the Ural region languages could have developed in such a way that the Hungarian language could once have been a mediating language for the peoples who later moved to the Ural region. This is how the conflict between historical tradition and linguistic observations can be resolved. The matter is complicated by the fact that the history of a people is not the same as the history of a language, because becoming a people is a multidirectional process. The same thing happened on the Eurasian grassland, the steppe. Our ancestors met several peoples and intermarried with them. Thus, the Hun-Hungarian kinship does not belong to the world of fairy tales either. The Huns took part in the formation of the Hungarian people, even if we cannot speak of complete identity. In any case, the name "Hungarian" came from the Huns. around a Kutrigur-Hun king was called Magyar (Greek chroniclers recorded this name in the form Muageris)

You can see even this schoolbook which was written by historians does not say "the Hungarians descendants of the Huns" but it say Hungarians had many ancestors and some Hun heritage also part of it.

The Anglo-Saxon 'Cotton' world map (c. 1040) calls the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary: “Hunorum gens” = “Hun race” , if you zoom it you can find next to Pannonia: File:Cotton world map.jpg

I think these things are part of the legacy. If we mention in the article that scholars refused the Hun-Hungarian things in the 20th century, why should we silent about the other things? I think Wikipedia should present more POV, and these are academic sources. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the right-wing nationalist Orban government has allowed a schoolbook to print something does not mean it is mainstream. There are textbooks printed in the US that say that the American Civil War was not about slavery. Why? Because that's what people want to hear. It's the same in Hungary. Hungarian nationalists have, for whatever reason, decided they really need to be connected to a people who most other Europeans associate (fairly or unfairly) with barbarousness and cruelty, to the point that Germans were called Huns as an ethnic slur.

As I said before, all these studies are WP:PRIMARY. Mainstream historians do not believe that the Hungarian conquers really had anything to do with the Huns. The medieval legends about it are already mentioned and contextualized in the article. Ethnic groups on the steppes were not defined by genetics, and they repeatedly collapsed and reformed from disparate other groups. --Ermenrich (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ermenrich, I think your modern example is not exactly correct. Because the Hungarian-Hun affinity is not a modern invention. It was declared (much earlier than any Hungarian medieval source) by many foreign high ranked authors (so not by the poor old smith at the corner of the small village in the forest), but by emperors, pops, church people, etc... from many countries which often were enemy of the Hungarians. So I do not think that those old people 1200 or 1000 years ago would be "Hungarian nationalists". I could show massive amount of quotes from old authors regarding this, but I understand we do not need use primary sources, just if modern academic sources refering to that. Just this is a conversation with you about the Hungarian nationalist purpose. This Anglo-Saxon world map is from c.1040, you can see Hungary as "Hunorum gens" = "Hun race" (between Tracia and the name of Pannonia): Early world maps#/media/File:Cotton world map.jpg, I think the map maker was not a Hungarian nationalists. German map from c 1235, next to "nunc Ungaria" = "now Hungary": "et hic sunt Huni qui" = "this is where the Huns live" Early world maps#/media/File:Ebstorfer-stich2.jpg. This was by Godfrey of Viterbo (clergy at the court of the Holy Roman Emperors): “Huni, sive Hungari” = “Huns, otherwise Hungarians”. And all medieval Hungarian documents repeates all the time: "Huns or Hungarians" "Hungarians namely the Huns"... I think nationalism is a modern idea. Also the Chinese alphabet use the same font for Huns and Hungarians only, no more meaning of this font: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/匈, I also do not think that old Chinese people who associated this font to the Huns and Hungarians would be Hungarian nationalist. But you can see the connection is more complicated, as I showed above, the modern Hungarian sources tells a complicated result, than saying all Hungarian conquerors were the same as Huns, according genetic test the Huns also were not only Huns, and Hungarian conquerors has genetic sample matches with Huns, but they were also a very diverse group.

Of course Huns were associate with cruelty because their story was written by their enemies. However many book analyze the situation more deeply, and there are many development, impacts, etc even just see how many times were Rome plundered: Sack of Rome (For example at 1527 German mercenaries killed 45 000 civilians + robbed the city) but Attila did not plunder the city however his army was front of it and it was no Roman army at that time to defend it, it is clealry not a cruelty act comparing with others. I think we will have more academic sources when historians will use the result of the genetic science.

I see many things already mentioned as you pointed out, just I plan to add more sources and some polishing on that section. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I think, it is not exactly true that this thing would be "Hungarian nationalism", in my last comment I showed you several examples that the Scythian/Hun-Hungarian things are very old, it was declared 1000+ years ago by vast amount of foreign non-Hungarian high ranked authors, rulers, etc while the nationalism is a modern term. For example the English map maker, German emperor, Byzantine emperor, Roman pope 1000 years ago cannot be Hungarian nationalist which claimed the same. And of course it was also declared by the medieval Hungarian royal court. There are a lot of medieval Hungarian chronicle, all of them say the same that the Hungarians are Huns and Scythians, but I show you a law and a letter:

(in Hungary the Christianity became as state religion under king Saint Stephen (1000-1038)) From the laws of King Andrew I of Hungary (around 1063):

“In Hungary, every Hungarian or newcomer who does not abandon the ancient pagan custom of Scythia, who will not immediately return to the true religion of Jesus Christ and will not obey the holy law given by the glorious King Stephen, punished with the loss of his head and goods." Paragraph 4: "Turn away from the unholy Scythian customs and false Gods and destroy Idols.”

This was written by princess Sophia of Hungary (nun) (who was engaged with Henry, a son of Conrad III of Germany) but became a nun to his brother to king Géza II of Hungary in 1146:

"once the sister of his glorious lord and brother, the victorious king of the Huns and his brother's one-time sister-in-law, now Christ and his handmaid" "Gloriosissimo domino et fratri suo N.regi Hunorum victoriosissimo, N. quondam germana nunc Christi et ipsius ancilla."

That old declaration and assignment is fact, if this is true or not true does not matter, this is not a modern Hungarian nationalism. I know this old assignment is already presented in some articles, but I agree the secondary modern academic sources could analyze those old claims, and of course there are usually many theories and POVs even by modern historians in many historical things.

Here a French genetic study says this (among many other studies): "East Eurasian R1a subclades R1a1a1b2a-Z94 and R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 were a common element of the Hun, Avar and Hungarian Conqueror elite and very likely belonged to the branch that was observed in our Xiongnu samples. Moreover, haplogroups Q1a and N1a were also major components of these nomadic groups, reinforcing the view that Huns (and thus Avars and Hungarian invaders) might derive from the Xiongnu as was proposed until the eighteenth century but strongly disputed since"

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-020-02209-4, https://indo-european.eu/2020/08/xiongnu-ancestry-connects-huns-avars-to-scytho-siberians/

I do not think these French scholars would be "Hungarian nationalist."

I did a personal genetic test with 23andme, and it showed cousins (who did also a test) who are living in USA, I did not know them, but my father knew them, they moved to USA in 1980s and the genetic company showed that we are cousins. Later both of my parents made anonym way a genetic test and the USA company packed us a family, it showed me that the genetic is science, a math.

Of course as I mentioned earlier the Hungarian ethnogensis is very complicated. The identity of a nation came from the leading elite, the the Hungarian royal elite claimed the Scythian-Hun origin. That above image is from mytrueancesty, not a Hungarian website, the Hungarin king Saint Ladislaus (1040-95) DNA has significant Scythian and Hun sample matches. I do not think the genetic, the math combinations would be Hungarian nationalist or mytrueancesty. Because genetic is math it should be something not just a fantasy nationalist claim.

For example secondary sources regarding the DNA researches:

https://mki.gov.hu/assets/pdf/MKI_EN_006_kings_and_saints_B5_web.pdf

https://mki.gov.hu/assets/books/mki_2021_ksz_en.pdf?joomla_image_width=0&joomla_image_height=0

Genetic is a new science, I am sure in the future it will be many historian study which will use the results. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

1) the fact that something is "old" does not remove it from suspicion of misuse by nationalists. If you disagree I have a Kyivan Rus to sell you.

2) Those are not secondary sources on the genetics of the Hungarian population (and they're also hosted on a Hungarian government website, which should immediately raise alarm bells). The closet we have is currently to a secondary genetics source (i.e. a review article) discussing Hun-Hungarian genetics is this article: Magyars also present a west-to-east ancestry cline like Huns and Avars10, though failing to reach as far east, and the individuals in its easternmost extent have ancestry from Late Bronze Age Southern Urals5, Siberia (modern Nganasans as proxy) and the Late Bronze Age Altai-Mongolian region16,17. Notably, elite individuals display more similarity to Asian and non-elite individuals to European genomes10. What is more, individuals from certain cemeteries derive ancestry from Asian-like Xiongnu/Huns/Avars instead of Asian-like Magyars. So "certain cemeteries" have individuals ancestry from "Xiongnu/Huns/Avars", although none of these people can be considered "the same." If we look at how the summarize the Avars, we'll see: Furthermore, individuals from regions surrounding the Avar core area are particularly heterogenous11 with some having greater affinity to Xiongnu or Hun period individuals than to the Avar elite10, indicating a more complex history of admixture. Recent admixture dates of individuals from the peripheral areas11 suggest outgroup marriage during the Hunnic and Early Avar periods as a potential cause of the heterogeneity. What's all this mean? That the Huns came in, some left their genomic footprint, then the Avars came in, some left their genetic footprint and intermingled with those having "Hun DNA", and then last but not least the Magyars came in and did the same as the Avars. Does this indicate some huge connection between Huns and Hungarians? No. You'll probably find similar results for the population of any area that's seen a lot of migrations. This in no way supports the (likely invented, see origo gentis) legends that the Arpads are descendants of Attila or that the Huns and the Hungarians are the same.

Anyway, so far no on has agreed with you on including your preferred version. I've explained how you are misusing primary sources to make an argument when you need to wait until such sources have been subjected to discuss in review articles. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. You are welcome to start a RFC or advertise at the reliable sources notice board or whatever you'd like to do.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

For why we should not trust Hungarian government sources, including textbooks, see [3]: In Hungary, government-owned institutionalized illiberal science and scholarship has become instrumental in furthering Hungary's geoconomical alignment as the primary EU partner of the new Silk Road project that connections China and the Eu through Central Asia and Turkey. These institutions also further mythomoteurs of nationalist identity politics and popular culture for Hungarian audiences in Hungary and neighbouring countries. [...] This new narrative owes its credibility and marketability to domestic and Eurasian audience to the scientific support of a set of actors from palaeoanthropology, archaeogenetics, and archaeology, all of which are researching the biogeographical origins of the Hungarian Conquerers, the Hungarian medieval ruling dynasty, and historical populations of of the pre-1920 territory of Hungary. These actors then 'scientifically' link these peoples to contemporary populations in Hungary. Thus, the narrative produced is one of cultural-civilizational continuity of the nation as 'historic Hungarian statehood,' embodied in its historical ruling elites, projected back to the Huns and Avars as predecessors of the conquering Magyars. There's specific discussion of some of these genetics studies in the volume as well, including how they are misreported on in Hungarian government media. Finally: Using Hungarian statehood and the Arpad dynasty's DNA as its central epistemic object, MKI affiliated researched can produce a biohistorical nativist narrative of cultural and civilizational kinship, based on genomic data from the history of migrations, feeding nativist and racist discourse in the present.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ermenrich, thanks for the answer!

Those linked new academic books by me are about the genetic of the old Hungarian conquerors and Hungarian royals not about the today Hungarian population (but I did not read the entire books). 1000+ years past, so it is impossible that the today's Hungarian genetic would be the same as the Hungarian conqueror one (even you have just 1/4 genetic from you paternal granfather, so going back in time the genetic proportions of the ancestors are changing), morover according to the results the conquerors were a very mixed group and also mixed with local Carpathian Basin population, Sarmatians, Avars, etc... and according to the results the local ancient Carpathian Basin population also had many times genetic impacts from various steppe folks. The other tests also revealed the Huns were not only Huns, Scythia was very big, old authors also refered to the Huns, Avars, Hungarians as Scythians. https://www.worldhistory.org/uploads/images/14359.png?v=1653464942 It is not surprising that many people are mixed in that huge region, they were fast horse archers. Hungary also had many population impact in the past 1000 years. As I said my family did a personal genetic test, and I also saw the result of many other Hungarians: today Hungarians have 3 main parts in their genetic: local ancient Carpathian Basin + Steppe folks (Scythian, Sarmatian, Avar, Hungarian conqueror, Hun, Saka...) + German and Slavic.

Btw many new genetic studies are in progress, they will test the ancient local, and Sarmatian population also.

Those linked books contain also the history of Hungarians in medieval times, the Arpad era, based on the genetic tests, it describe a much more complicated result than saying all or old "Hungarians just only 100% Huns" of course this would be ridicolus. I think if you interested in the topic it would worth to read and see what is the Hungarian viewpoint at the moment regarding these new genetic science, reading the details to see better the whole picture.

So "certain cemeteries" have individuals ancestry from "Xiongnu/Huns/Avars" I see that source acknowledge some kinship, which means the kinship is not a Hungarian nationalist fairy tales, but something there, the "certain cemeteries" are the Hungarian conqueror elite cemeteries and the Hungarian royals, and Hungarian noblemen from royal basicilia. And an origin history of a nation came always from the leading elite, even the name of "Hungarian" is "Magyar" in Hungarian language because the Magyar tribe was the leading state founder tribe, so not the Hungarian nationalist named the Hungarians as "(Hun)garian" in the English language, like I showed above the Chinese people is using the same alphabet for Huns and Hungarians, I bet they were also not Hungarian nationalists. This is interesting from Germany, this is the memorial stone of the battle of Riade 933, it called "Hunnenstein" (Hun stone)"Hunnenschlacht 933" (Hun battle 933)[4] I bet not erected by Hungarian nationalist.[5] Several old German sources called the Hungarians as Huns at that time, I bet those German authors were not also Hungarian nationalist 1000+ years ago.

"that the Arpads are descendants of Attila or that the Huns and the Hungarians are the same." We do not have the bones of Arpad or Attila so we cannot say anything. However we have the bones of Hungarian royals who descended from Arpad (King Saint Ladislaus (1040-95) above presented), we can see very close Asian Scythian and Hun sample matches (the closest sample matches), so not far sample matches, not Chinese, Swedish, Indian, Italian, French sample matches, but Asian Scythian, Avar and Hun sample matches. And genetic is science, the test proved a genetic connection between these individuals. I agree the situation is more complicated than saying all Huns and all the Hungarians are the same, if you read the Hungarian academic sources they describe a more complex situtation. Btw my wife and myself have several Hun (from Carpathian Basin and from Mongolia too) sample matches and Asian Scythian sample matches in MyTrueAncestry. As well many Scythian, Sarmatian, Hungarian conqueror and Avar sample matches, I uploaded my genetic data anonym way and MyTrueAncestry is not a Hungarian company. I think the falsification can be happen if for example there are a Hun grave and archeologists say it is Gothic grave, or inverse it is a Gothic grave and archeologists say it is a Hun grave, in this way from the bone sample the computer calculate a Hun or a Gothic connection.

This text is in the history schoolbook for basic schools in Hungary, you can see nobody write this: "that the Arpads are descendants of Attila or that the Huns and the Hungarians are the same."

But they write this:

"The matter is complicated by the fact that the history of a people is not the same as the history of a language, because becoming a people is a multidirectional process. The same thing happened on the Eurasian grassland, the steppe. Our ancestors met several peoples and intermarried with them. Thus, the Hun-Hungarian kinship does not belong to the world of fairy tales either. The Huns took part in the formation of the Hungarian people, even if we cannot speak of complete identity."

Why would be a government website an "alarm bell"? UK, German, USA government websites also not good? I think the local people, and local native historians know better the history of the country than historians from very far countries, except if those historians are experts in the historiography of the region.

It is also fact as the French genetic study suggest that the Hun-Hungarian kinship was the mainstream until the development of the Finno-Ugric theory in the 19th century. After the suppression of the Hungarian revolution war in 1849 (alarm bell also, should we trust to the Habsburg occupiers?), Paul Hunsdorfer and Jospeh Budenz who never spoke Hungarian were placed in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and they worked in the 1860–80s to make the Finno-Ugric theory as official linguist and origin theory of the Hungarians. This theory was also the mainstream during the long 50+ years Soviet occupation in the occupied Hungary (again alarm bell, should we trust to the Soviet occupiers?) which promoted Pan-Slavism. The problem is that the Finno-Ugric theory started as a language theory then it became the theory of the origin of the Hungarians. For example, the Afro-Americans are speaking English, but they did not originate from England. For example, I think we cannot determine the origin history of an Afro-American person in New York from the English language. The Finno-Ugric theory spread out from Hungary because Hungarian academic spreaded and other countires regarding the Hungarians adapted it. Today in Hungary the Finno Ugric theory is a language category and a theory not a origin of the nation anymore (schoolbooks), there are also no genetic matches with Finnish people.

Those genetic tests made by Hungarian academics, those tests are published in top science journals, where the articles are supervised by other scholars and only the good one are accepted. Many times the Hungarian scholars are collaborating with foreign scholars as well. I see the Kremmler text is a political script, not a scientific document.

I checked Kremmler writing, this is a political book, but I do not see the full content, I also do not see any scientific analysis about the genetic researcher. I know the Orban's system has many critics, from those people who has a different viewpoint in the politic. In the text I see almost in every sentence the "illiberal" word, seems it is a joker card word to make a stamp. It is same when in USA if a government is Republican then Democrats critize everything and use magic words, and if the government is Democrats then the other side critize everything and use different magic words. I am interested in medieval contents, not about politics.

In the text Kremmler talk a lot about the Kurultaj, I really do not know what is the bussiness with this traditonal event with the new genetic science, btw Kremmler does not mention too much government things there, she mentions mostly the fair right Jobbik party, which never was a ruling party. Genetic is science, is math, I do not know how can be the math illiberal or liberal, my family by genetic tests by 23andme (USA company) and uploaded anonym way my result to MytrueAncestry (again non Hungarian company) and it showed significant shared genoms to Hungarian royals, and with many local samples, which is not a surprising because I am Hungarian, this proves that the genetic is science.

I never visited that festival, but I saw videos, I checked a video about Kurultaj: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIc24D1yJ7w, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpLtWxqDg2Y, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9At88R2eRc I see people are making traditonal horse games and archery, like in many countries there are traditonal games, there are many medieval knight games in every country of Europe, there are Roman legionary games, there are WW2 games, there are Americal Civil War games in the USA... in Hungary there are also medieval knight games in castles like this, and in hussair games as well like this, I think the crowing of King Charles III in UK had much more traditional costumes. It is fact the old Hungarians were horse archers, and in the Eurasian steppe it was many other horse archer folks. Do you think it is a huge problem to make traditional games? That is why the genetic tests not good? Do you think every country can traditional games but if Hungary does then it is bad? Or raising flags is the problem? In Kurultaj I see many kind of flags to promote diversity. In a school event in the USA we can see more USA flags than flags in the Kurultaj.

There are also a horse archer school founded by not the governemnt, a sport community https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt3cJiC72Xk they also producing traditonal bows [6].

I see Kemmler does not like the "cultural kinship" but this is fact, because old Hungarians used the same warfare and weapons, and items than other steppe folks. Also I do not understand what does mean "racist discourse". The genetic tests talking about that old Hungarians were more diverse than today's Hungarians. If you check Kurultaj, it is a very very diverse, participants from many many countries by different ethnic background, this would be the racism? I know many countries did genetic tests of their royals, folowing that logic, all of them is racist? Or if Hungary does a genetic test regarding their royals then Hungary will be instantly racist? I do not understand.

"Anyway, so far no on has agreed with you on including your preferred version" As you can see not much people interested in the topic, and not much Hungarians in the English wiki who interested in these things.

Do you think that all Hungarian academic works during the past 13 years (Orban government) not allowed to use in Wiki because certain people does not like the politic of Orban? Are there any Wiki rules for example that only those US works by US scholars who worked under Rebuplican era in USA are allowed to use in Wiki or inverse only works can be used which were made under Democrats governing?

For example the Romanian-Hungarian things are much more hot and in many cases the viewpoint are total different. But in Wiki we can present both academic opinions like "according to Hungarian historiography...." and "according to Romanian historiography" or "according to historian XY...", and critics from other opinions etc...,

We could present Hungarian academic sources in this way, also we could present the other opinions and critics as well.

"Wikipedia does not lead, it follows." Which means it should be not a problem to mention what people said and what was the mainstream in the past, if we has secondary academic sources regarding certain contents.

I want to be useful member of the community and I am not making edit wars, also I like the nice talking with smart people like you and we can work together to improve the Wiki. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

tl;dr. I am on a holiday and should spend as little time as possible "doing WP", but after skimming through the 12k comment I can't help but to chime in :) First, this is a classical tail-wags-dog situation. Undeniably, the Huns have played an enormous role in Hungarian identity formation; hagiographic continuity was construed from a very early stage of Hungarian presence in Europe. But this is of marginal objective relevance in an article about the actual Huns.

Genetics is science: I have read and rebutted this before, but here it is again: yes, the biochemistry behind the human genome is exact science, but population genetics is anything but exact since it has to bridge endless informational gaps from myriads of unsampled individuals. So it is mostly extrapolation and best-fit statistics, which hinges on our knowledge of hitherto sampled population and p-values. So no, please no scientism here.

What do we actually know? The Hungarian founder population can be modelled with a small ancestry portion that can be based on genomes from Xiongnu elite burials. Does that mean that the Xiongnu directly contributed to the formation of the founder population? No, because the Xiongnu only serve a working proxy here. The East Asian part in the founder ancestry could as well stem from peripheral unsampled groups of the wider Altai area. And even it was really direct Xiongnu ancestry, the formation of of the founder population took place in deep in the steppe, thus far away from the place where the European Huns formed as a multiethnic confederation. And the contribution of Xiongnu(-like) (=? Hun-like) geneflow was at quite a low percentage. So really of only marginal interest here, regardless of what Huns have become in Hungarian identity seeking. As an extreme analogy: for the Saint John Coltrane Church, John Coltrane is of supreme importance, but such importance is clearly unidirectional. -Austronesier (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Maurice's Strategikon as a source on Hunnic warfare

I've wondered about this for a long time: we currently cite a translation of the Strategikon of Maurice rather extensively as a source in the "Warfare" section. This is WP:PRIMARY and I don't think it can be cited without further comment as a source on the tactics of the Huns anyway, as it was written in the 6th century, after the heyday of the Huns proper, in a time when the Byzantines were calling any steppe nomad "Huns." I think the section needs to be rewritten to emphasize WP:SECONDARY sources - we can reference Maurice's Strategikon when and if reliable, secondary sources do. A quick search via google scholar suggests that they may sometimes [7].--Ermenrich (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I should add: statements like The Strategikon also makes note of the wedge-shaped formations mentioned by Ammianus, and corroborated as familial regiments by Maenchen-Helfen, which is cited to the Strategikon and M-H and Ammianus, appear to be WP:OR. The Strategikon is not mentioned by M-H.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. The section on tactics is probably fine still, but the section on equipment will need more sources for things like Hunnic saddles, bows, etc. Maybe some of the very old ones can also be removed.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

If there was no editorial "interpretation" of the primary source material yet "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" - then revert your removal and edit the section accordingly adding secondary sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

There are no secondary sources making the connection as far as I can see. And Maurice wasn't describing Huns proper - in the 6th century, Huns had become a generic term for steppe barbarian.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Does Maurice makes any reference to Huns proper when describing the 6th century steppe barbarians? I guess it could be stated that in later centuries those steppe barbarians perceived under the term of Huns had such and such warfare, equipment and so on.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

We could, but I don't think it's needed. We already have a lot about Hunnic warfare without using the Strategikon. And for the equipment there are definitely better sources - I've already found some.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)