Tag: AWB |
Hsynylmztr (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
user history of iran withdraws my editing even though I have shown my references that are trusted by WP.and not writing the reason why he got it back |
user history of iran withdraws my editing even though I have shown my references that are trusted by WP.and not writing the reason why he got it back |
||
Same, user HistoryofIran keeps deleting other edits. Obvious vandalism and edit warring. He deleted the research of Cambridge University without giving any reason at all. [[User:Hsynylmztr|Hsynylmztr]] ([[User talk:Hsynylmztr|talk]]) 12:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == |
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == |
Revision as of 12:23, 24 January 2022
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 3 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kevin Tian06.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Western Eurasian Steppe people
"Attempts to identify the Xiongnu with later groups of the western Eurasian Steppe remain controversial. Scythians and Sarmatians were concurrently to the west." This statement is without citation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Bactrian_Kingdom#/media/File:Greco-BactrianKingdomMap.jpg This map shows Scythia where Western European maps would show Grand Tartaria. Not to the west. Theres a linguistic similarity between the word Han and Hun like japanese Gen, Yen, and Jin. or Ki and Chi. I think this is the Manchu, the Han and modern day peoples of Harbin, Heilongjiang. Beginning with corded ware culture. Even the Greek symbol for Monad is the same as the oracle bone script for sun. Hence why Manchu and Xiongnu teaming up leaped trade routes all the way west to the Borders of Rome called the silk road and why some maps refer to China as Chinese Tartaria. If Attila the Hun was a Gaul and a Tartar, then Vikings are Tartars. We wuz vikings. We wuz Han Chinese. We wuz Mongols. I will throat sing you the songs of my peoples. To notice this there would be higher rates of Lactose Tolerance amongst the people of Harbin from genetic admixture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C6:1200:7585:A9E1:6090:D59D (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
History of İran
user history of iran withdraws my editing even though I have shown my references that are trusted by WP.and not writing the reason why he got it back
Same, user HistoryofIran keeps deleting other edits. Obvious vandalism and edit warring. He deleted the research of Cambridge University without giving any reason at all. Hsynylmztr (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Original research and off topic content, including outdated racialist terms, added by recent edits
A recent user added large amount of content about previous "Caucasoid", "Europid" people and possible inhabitants, Tarim mummies , and Yamnaya culture. This seems to be clearly off topic per WP:TOPIC and also a violation of WP:Weight and WP:RS/WP:OR. What does Tarim mummies or Yamnaya have to do with the Xiongnu? The Tarim mummies were not even Indo-Europeans. Furthermore, such racialist terms are outdated and WP:Fringe. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xiongnu&type=revision&diff=1061856088&oldid=1061485801 The content should be checked per WP:Cleanup. Racialist and fringe off topic content should not be given such weight full appearance. Also no secondary sources for topics related to human race.2001:4BC9:924:6152:DDE3:6173:B15F:F959 (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- There are indeed some dubious additions and changes. I will tag the page for now.RobertoY20 (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- @RobertoY20: I've just finished reading the section, claims by पाटलिपुत्र's were sourced and worded carefully so as not to conflate Indo-European-speaking nomads who preceded the Xiongnu with the Xiongnu, who arrived later:
- The territories associated with the Xiongnu in historical sources were previously occupied by nomadic cultures such as the Afanasevo culture (3500-2500 BC), which resulted from the eastward migration of the Yamnaya culture, originally based in the Pontic steppe north of the Caucasus Mountains. Their probable descendants, the Yuezhi, 'were displaced by the Xiongnu expansion in the 2nd century BC, and had to migrate to Central and Southern Asia.[1] Their probable descendants, the Yuezhi, were displaced by the Xiongnu expansion in the 2nd century BC, and had to migrate to Central and Southern Asia.[2][3] In the southern part of that territory, the Tarim mummies, dated to circa 2000 BC, testify to the presence of Caucasoid populations on the eastern edge of the Tarim basin.[4]
- @RobertoY20: I've just finished reading the section, claims by पाटलिपुत्र's were sourced and worded carefully so as not to conflate Indo-European-speaking nomads who preceded the Xiongnu with the Xiongnu, who arrived later:
- The Pazyryk culture (6th-3rd century BC) immediately preceeded the arrival of the Xiongnus.[5] A Scythian culture,[6] it was identified by excavated artifacts and mummified humans, such as the Siberian Ice Princess, found in the Siberian permafrost, in the Altay Mountains, Kazakhstan and nearby Mongolia.[7] To the south, the Ordos culture had developed in the Ordos Loop (modern Inner Mongolia, China) during the Bronze and early Iron Age from the 6th to 2nd centuries BC, and is thought to represent the easternmost extension of Indo-European Eurasian nomads.[8][9]
- (Boldface mine)
- The issue with said section is how relevant it is to this article about the Xiongnu.
- Still, the statement:
- In the southern part of that territory, the Tarim mummies, dated to circa 2000 BC, testify to the presence of Caucasoid populations on the eastern edge of the Tarim basin.[4]
- uses the obsolete and highly problematic racial term "Caucasoid" which belongs to a now-disproven theory about biological races, so that term will be edited out.
Lastly, 2001:4BC9:924:6152:DDE3:6173:B15F:F959 (talk)'s claim "The Tarim mummies were not even Indo-Europeans" is partly inaccurate.According to a A 2021 study by Fan Zhang et al.:
- although Tocharian [an extinct branch of the Indo-European language family/phylum] may have been plausibly introduced to the Dzungarian Basin by Afanasievo migrants during the Early Bronze Age, we find that the earliest Tarim Basin cultures appear to have arisen from a genetically isolated local population" of Ancient North Eurasian origin.
- Thank you for your edits, I had no time to check the references yesterday. The Zhang paper seems to not support an Indo-European affinity, stating that Indo-European like Afanasievo ancestry arrived later and is not found among the Tarim mummies:
- "Using qpAdm, we modelled the Tarim Basin individuals as a mixture of two ancient autochthonous Asian genetic groups: the ANE, represented by an Upper Palaeolithic individual from the Afontova Gora site in the upper Yenisei River region of Siberia (AG3) (about 72%), and ancient Northeast Asians, represented by Baikal_EBA (about 28%) (Supplementary Data 1E and Fig. 3a). Tarim_EMBA2 from Beifang can also be modelled as a mixture of Tarim_EMBA1 (about 89%) and Baikal_EBA (about 11%)."
- "For both Tarim groups, admixture models unanimously fail when using the Afanasievo or IAMC/BMAC groups as a western Eurasian source (Supplementary Data 1E), thus rejecting a western Eurasian genetic contribution from nearby groups with herding and/or farming economies."
- "While the arrival and admixture of Afanasievo populations in the Dzungarian Basin of northern Xinjiang around 3000 BC may have plausibly introduced Indo-European languages to the region, the material culture and genetic profile of the Tarim mummies from around 2100 BC onwards call into question simplistic assumptions about the link between genetics, culture and language and leave unanswered the question of whether the Bronze Age Tarim populations spoke a form of proto-Tocharian."
- For me it seems more like that they are questioning the possibility of an Indo-European association. But so far, it seems fine.RobertoY20 (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- I was WP:Bold now and have removed outdated paragraphs about Mongoloid and Caucasoid affinities. Hope this is acceptable for everyone.RobertoY20 (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
NOTE: User:RobertoY20 has been confirmed as WorldCresterFighter sock. The IP address "User:2001:4BC9...." who launched this thread also appears to be related [1]. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, the IP is obviously related. But we should do something about the racializing terminology (not because of the sock concerns, that's just an act; they have messed up with this page for many years and never have bothered about it before). If this terminology is attributed in-text to scholarship that still operated in these obsolete terms (e.g. Maenchen-Helfen), it's fine, but it is not when Harrison uses these terms in quotes whereas the plagiarized sentence in Wikivoice does not (
Well-preserved bodies in Xiongnu and pre-Xiongnu tombs in the Mongolian Republic and southern Siberia show both Mongoloid and Caucasian features
). Dito the text based on Tumen, which essentially shows what a mixed bunch the Xiongnu were, and certainly can be rephrased so people living in the 2020s who are familiar with the state of modern anthropology don't get a cringe about the racializing terminology. Or does anyone explicitly endorse to have such terminology in this article when wide consensus on WP is against it (echoing scientific consensus, see Race (human categorization) and talk page)? –Austronesier (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)- @Hunan201p: Instead of wasting time with banned editors, can you still take a look what I am suggesting here? You have restored quite problematic stuff with your revert, even the plagiarized sentence with the purged quotation marks. –Austronesier (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah I agree with what you're saying, Austro. We have to find some kind of solution to replace these terms, and the plagiarized quote is a no-go. I kind of just wanted to lure an Austrian IP out of its hole. Some newer authors like Hyun Jin Kim are still using the terms but we do have to do whatever the consensus is. Also a lot these references are primary regardless and trimming them would greatly reduce the massive size of the article. -- Hunan201p (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Hunan201p: Instead of wasting time with banned editors, can you still take a look what I am suggesting here? You have restored quite problematic stuff with your revert, even the plagiarized sentence with the purged quotation marks. –Austronesier (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- The recent changes by Hunan201p(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xiongnu&type=revision&diff=1062280886&oldid=1062278708), who is obviously the same racialist as WCF, only on the opposite side, has included WP:OR in his recent edit, claiming high Iranian ancestry among Xiongnu. But the study he cited says:
- "Specifically, individuals from Iron Age steppe and Xiongnu have an ancestry related to present-day and ancient Iranian/Caucasus/Turan populations in addition to the ancestry components derived from the Late Bronze Age populations. We estimate that they derive between 5 and 25% of their ancestry from this new source, with 18% for Xiongnu (Table 2). We speculate that the introduction of this new western Eurasian ancestry may be linked to the Iranian elements in the Xiongnu linguistic material, while the Turkic-related component may be brought by their eastern Eurasian genetic substratum."
- So the claim made by Hunan201p is as disruptive and misleading as the outdated racialist claims, linked to white supremacism. Previous edits of him in these topics were as misleading, and also noted by several users. Honestly speaking, Hunan201p sounds and acts like WCF but in an opposing agenda (played or not). Making a inclusion regarding genetics or linguistics, and than larger edits about something else of the same article. 2001:4BC9:920:2636:8C6A:F1C7:7A24:D0FB (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- And I am not linked to WCF, who originally edited from an English and HK IP, there are even WCF associated accounts fighting with each other, so what kind should that be? Its obvious that several users are linked to one master account here, and Hunan201p may be one of these. There was even the suggestion that he may be related to Tirgil34, another similar sock master, pushing this white supremacist agenda. Look at the early WCF edits there is clearly a difference between several accounts. The reinclusion of racialist content should already ring a alarm bell among serious Wikipedia editors.2001:4BC9:920:2636:8C6A:F1C7:7A24:D0FB (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- The SPI history for WorldCreaterFighter is admittedly in some parts a clusterfuck, but the Austrian IP is obviously identical to Satoshi Kondo, AsadalEditor, Kang Sung-Tae, Ape-huchi and many other abusively used accounts. Not being the "original" WorldCreaterFighter is a lame excuse for this endless CIR-disruption. –Austronesier (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Above non-anonymous contributor is clearly WorldCreaterFighter, I would suggest this article and others like it be locked as he is clearly reaching boiling temperature and has already made clear his agenda to minimize the "West Eurasian-ness" of Xiongnu and other groups. Hunan201p (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hunan201p(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AHunan201p), I am citing inline citations, which are what the study really says, and not your West-Eurasian supremacist agenda. This is obviously looking at your edits. Do you know] causality, action and reaction. Your white supremacist agenda will result in reaction. "Minimize West-Eurasian-ness", is the most absurd thing I have heard so far.2001:4BC9:920:2636:8C6A:F1C7:7A24:D0FB (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Actually you haven't cited anything, but more importantly, you haven't understood anything, either. Thank you for admitting that you are WorldCreaterFighter. Hunan201p (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- I have cited the only mention of Iranian genetic components among the Xiongnu, which the authors model at 18%. Instead you have not cited anything, only linked the study. Provide a inline citation, or your claim is nothing more than racialist motivated WP:OR. And I am not WCF.2001:4BC9:920:2636:8C6A:F1C7:7A24:D0FB (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Actually you haven't cited anything, but more importantly, you haven't understood anything, either. Thank you for admitting that you are WorldCreaterFighter. Hunan201p (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hunan201p(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AHunan201p), I am citing inline citations, which are what the study really says, and not your West-Eurasian supremacist agenda. This is obviously looking at your edits. Do you know] causality, action and reaction. Your white supremacist agenda will result in reaction. "Minimize West-Eurasian-ness", is the most absurd thing I have heard so far.2001:4BC9:920:2636:8C6A:F1C7:7A24:D0FB (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- And I am not linked to WCF, who originally edited from an English and HK IP, there are even WCF associated accounts fighting with each other, so what kind should that be? Its obvious that several users are linked to one master account here, and Hunan201p may be one of these. There was even the suggestion that he may be related to Tirgil34, another similar sock master, pushing this white supremacist agenda. Look at the early WCF edits there is clearly a difference between several accounts. The reinclusion of racialist content should already ring a alarm bell among serious Wikipedia editors.2001:4BC9:920:2636:8C6A:F1C7:7A24:D0FB (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- I agree Hunan is a racialist or white supremacist of some kind. He was banned for three months arguing over the physical appearance of Genghis Khan in May 2020 and is also known for propagating pseudo-science. See the discussion on "blonde god" in Talk:Yellow_Emperor#Hemiauchenia_-_Hunan201p_discussion_re:_blond_God. Basically he deletes any content that goes against the idea of x people looking like European blonde white people. Qiushufang (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- See his previous permalink to ANI thread. on account of massive deletion of academic publication calling them "fraud" Qiushufang (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Qiushufang: Please show me where in this article I have pushed a white supremacist or white-washing agenda. I literally brought to balance the only white-washed theory in the Xiongnu article (Yeniseian theory). The material I posted at the Huangdi article (blond God) which you call "pseudoscience" was written by Tsung-Tung Chang and published by Victor H. Mair -- not pseudoscientists. Please note that libellous allegations of racism are not the way to constructively contribute to talk pages. Hunan201p (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Mair is the editor of the Sino-Platonic Papers, an activity that doesn't quite locate him in the mainstream. –Austronesier (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Qiushufang: Please show me where in this article I have pushed a white supremacist or white-washing agenda. I literally brought to balance the only white-washed theory in the Xiongnu article (Yeniseian theory). The material I posted at the Huangdi article (blond God) which you call "pseudoscience" was written by Tsung-Tung Chang and published by Victor H. Mair -- not pseudoscientists. Please note that libellous allegations of racism are not the way to constructively contribute to talk pages. Hunan201p (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Allentoft, ME (June 11, 2015). "Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia" (PDF). Nature. 522 (7555). Nature Research: 167–172. Bibcode:2015Natur.522..167A. doi:10.1038/nature14507. PMID 26062507. S2CID 4399103.
- ^ Benjamin, Craig (29 March 2017). "The Yuezhi". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277727-e-49.
- ^ Bang, Peter Fibiger; Bayly, C. A.; Scheidel, Walter (2 December 2020). The Oxford World History of Empire: Volume Two: The History of Empires. Oxford University Press. p. 330. ISBN 978-0-19-753278-2.
- ^ a b Mallory & Mair (2000), pp. 181–182.
- ^ Linduff, Katheryn M.; Rubinson, Karen S. (31 December 2021). Pazyryk Culture Up in the Altai. Routledge. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-429-85153-7.
The rise of the confederation of the Xiongnu, in addition, clearly affected this region as it did most regions of the Altai
- ^ The Editors (2001-09-11). "Pazyryk | archaeological site, Kazakhstan". Britannica.com. Retrieved 2019-03-05.
{{cite web}}
:|author=
has generic name (help) - ^ (State Hermitage Museum 2007)
- ^ Macmillan Education 2016, p. 369 "From that time until the HAN dynasty the Ordos steppe was the home of semi-nomadic Indo-European peoples whose culture can be regarded as an eastern province of a vast Eurasian continuum of Scytho-Siberian cultures."
- ^ Harmatta 1992, p. 348 : "From the first millennium b.c., we have abundant historical, archaeological and linguistic sources for the location of the territory inhabited by the Iranian peoples. In this period the territory of the northern Iranians, they being equestrian nomads, extended over the whole zone of the steppes and the wooded steppes and even the semi-deserts from the Great Hungarian Plain to the Ordos in northern China."
Article too heavy
This article is much too heavy in size. It takes me 10-20 seconds to refresh the page, and I have a moderately high speed internet connection.
The problem seems to be the massive number of images and extremely lengthy sections, sometimes going much too far in to the minutia of minoritarian theories.
I would argue some images need to be trimmed or somehow reduced in file size. The good news is that the article is still loaded with primary sources and unreliable sources that don't really belong here, meaning we should be able to reduce the size of this article while improving it at the same time. Hunan201p (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- WP:SIZERULE recommends 100kB as approximate limit, the current version has 144kB. Before considering a size-split, some of the material here might be trimmed, especially if poorly sourced. Oh, and please try to keep also this talk page within the limit of easily loadable pages. Oversize posts and engaging with banned editors might not stimulate the kind sober discussion that is needed here. –Austronesier (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources
This article contains a reference to the so-called "Silk Road Foundation", also known as "Silk Road". It's an online publisher.
The website can be found here:
https://www.silkroadfoundation.org
This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with Silk Road Journal Online, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
The Silk Road Journal in question is based primarily around Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by researchers who appear to mostly hail from Russia and China. The sole editor of the publication, an American man named Daniel Waugh, has candidly stated that it has no formal peer review:
http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf
From the outset, there has been no formal process of peer review, such as one expects in the standard academic journals. We still solicit articles (a task which largely has devolved on me over the years), though we also receive (but have not been overwhelmed by) unsolicited submissions.
Decisions on what to publish (as with any journal) ultimately rest with the editor, who in this case, for better or worse, has acted as the peer reviewer. I often see what I think is gold in material that could never find its way into a standard academic publication. But the perils of rarely seeking outside opinions may mean things slip through without acknowledgement that a subject has been thoroughly treated elsewhere.
The lack of formal peer review does have the unfortunate consequence that junior scholars hoping to advance in their profession may avoid us, since their promotion will depend in the first instance on peer reviewed publication, however excellent (and widely cited) a piece might be which we would publish. Yet in some cases where there is a premium for academics in other countries to publish in a respected journal in English, we have been able to provide just such an opportunity. Many of the senior scholars we have solicited for contributions have politely refused to write for us, since they are already over-committed [...]
So, the Silk Road Foundation is a speedy publishing mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "'gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication'". A lot of researchers don't want to be published by Silk Road Foundation, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals.
To my mind, this is very near to the definition of predatory publishing, with the exception that the Silk Road Foundation does not even provide the benefits of high-end predatory publishers, like DOI. It's really more like an internet blog.
The Silk Road Foundation is cited on various ethnical and archaeological articles on Wikipedia, often advancing pet theories, which is out of touch with WP:RS, which says that Wikipedia should prioritize high-quality, peer reviewed secondary research over this kind of stuff.
The reference used in this article pertains to the "Iranian theories" section, where it used to demonstrate that people seen on an a carpet are "Yuezhi":
"Men in Iranian dress depicted on an embroidered rug from the Xiongnu Noin-Ula burial site. Note on the far right Zoroastrian fire altar and fungal haoma offering [1] The figures are generally considered to be Yuezhi. 1st century BC - 1st century AD. [2] [3]"
I'm not aware that the associated Russian links are reliable either, and I'm not seeing where it is claimed that the people on the carpet are Yuezhi.
I am also unsure exactly how long that image will remain on Wikipedia commons. It appears to be sourced with a Pinterest link. Hunan201p (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- The question abour the The Silk Road has been already answered in a nutshell by @Headbomb in RSN, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_341#The_Silk_Road. This kind of topic requires scholarly peer-reviewed sources, following WP:HISTRS. –Austronesier (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeniseian theories
The "Yeniseian theories" section expands far too much in to the minor details of the Yeniseian theory, which is not the most widely accepted theory. This is supposed to be a cursory encyclopedia article, not a bully pulpit for every theory in the world. And yet this section repeatedly uses primary sources from the same author (Vovin), and it also uses certain unreliable sources, as well.
Quoting the current "Yeniseian theories" section: "The Haplogroup Q can also be found in Xiongnu, which is also found in the Ket people, at approximately 94% of the population.[146]"
The publisher of this source [146] (Serials Publications Pvt Ltd) is listed as a predatory publisher by Beall's List. It does not make a coherent argument linking the Yeniseian theory to genetic haplogroups, and is a primary source.
Also present in this section is a very lengthy "proposed cognates" chart. In addition to extending an already massive article with unnecessarily specific details of the theory, this chart again contains a primary source citation [198] from the very same blacklisted publisher (Serials Publications Pvt Ltd).
I am not aware of any high quality secondary sources supporting the Yeniseian theory.
For example, Early nomads of the Eastern Steppe and their tentative connections in the West, Cambridge University Press (2020):
Our linguistic analysis finds evidence for a Yeniseian affiliation of the Xiongnu, or a part of them, unconvincing; nor is the Yeniseian hypothesis supported by population genetics.
The genetic profile of published Xiongnu individuals speaks against the Yeniseian hypothesis, assuming that modern Yeniseian speakers (i.e. Kets) are representative of the ancestry components in the historical Yeniseian speaking groups in southern Siberia. In contrast to the Iron Age populations listed in Table 2, Kets do not have the Iranian-related ancestry component but harbour a strong genetic affinity with Samoyedic-speaking neighbours, such as Selkups (Jeong et al., Reference Jeong, Wilkin, Amgalantugs, Bouwman, Taylor, Hagan and Warinner2018, Reference Jeong, Balanovsky, Lukianova, Kahbatkyzy, Flegontov, Zaporozhchenko and Krause2019).
Based on the Cambridge paper's conclusion that the Yeniseian theory is contradicted by the genetic and linguistic evidence, versus the unreliable and heavily primary sources, I've decided to trim down and add balance to the "Yeniseian theories" section, by removing the unreliable sources, condensing the Vovin references, and adding secondary sources that actually analyze the theory rather than blatantly advocate for it.
I would also like to point out that a notorious sockmaster, WorldCreaterFighter, has recently been shilling the Yeniseian theory on this article. It's a very bad day to be the Yeniseian theory as of 27 December 2021. -- Hunan201p (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Blond-haired blue-eyed Mongolian Xiongnu
This quote from Gžard & Wong's A Global History of War: From Assyria to the Twenty-First Century p. 121.:
Although Chinese chronicles describe the Xiongnu as Mongolian, they also describe warriors with blond hair and blue eyes, who practiced a religious cult involving a sky god called Tengri, with whom the shamans interceded
is merely a bare assertion in the book. I had to find other sources (Su Shi's poem, Songshu, Jiu Tangshu, Xin Tangshu) to back it up. I also fail to see how relevant the phenotypes of (Proto- & Para-)Mongolic-speakers are in this section about whether the Xiongnu spoke (Proto- and/or Para-)Mongolic (at least partially) or not. I tried to remove these stuffs about phenotypes yet somebody reverted my edit, & I was not willing to engage in an edit war so I decided to leave them here in this article. Any thought on whether they should be kept or removed?Erminwin (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- The quote doesn't make any sense. It references Records of the Grand Historians, but Mongols did not exist during the time it was written. Mongolians did not exist during the time of the Xiongnu and their ethnogenesis postdates the Xiongnu. The source is probably trying to avoid the word "Mongoloid" and used Mongolian as a replacement to describe someone with east asian phenotype. Qiushufang (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- There is enough specialized literature about the Xiongnu, so we don't have to take information from a "Global History of War". And yes, it is not even related to the matter that is discussed in the section where it is cited. Hair-color doesn't talk. This only makes sense in the parallel universe of people obsessed with phenotype. Scrap it. –Austronesier (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)