Talk:Huns/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Why Suni

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

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)

Religion or religions?

Does anyone know what religion or religions they practiced? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twslandlord (talkcontribs) 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)

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 (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 (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)


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] DenizTC 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 (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC) (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. (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 (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:,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. (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 (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.

-- (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

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. (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 (talkcontribs) 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 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"; - -

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. (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)

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?

"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! -- (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

protecting the page

second source about Finnic Nomads. 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.


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 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.


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)

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

by the way, i dont want you to go, 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 (talkcontribs) 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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.-- (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 (talkcontribs) 17:48, 24 October 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)


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. (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. (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? --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:

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. 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 (talkcontribs) 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)