Talk:Alchon Huns

Name of the article
A well-intentioned user has started some page renaming away from the original name "Alchon Huns", in favour of "Alchons Hunas". Unfortunately, nobody uses the expression "Alchon Hunas" (zero hits on Google Books, and only 1 hit on Google from a Jat blog  aside from that user's contributions). It's probably OK to say that the Indians called them (and some others) "Hunas", but "Alchon Huns" is the generally accepted term for them among historians (115 hits on Google Books ).

A second attempt was made from "Alchon Hunas" to "Alchon" this time... with the claim that "suffixes like Hunas/Huns are redundant". However, almost nobody in the literature uses the expression "The Alchons" alone, without the suffix "Huns" (and the suffixe "Hunas" is simply never used as seen above) : there are only two cases of "The Alchons" being used alone on Google Book, and "The Alchon" in the singular is only used as an adjective as in "The Alchon coinage", except for two cases were it is used as a noum. Again "Alchon Huns" is almost the only way these people are described in the literature: (115 instances on Google Books ).

As far as I know, Wikipedia is not supposed to invent new terminology or adopt extremely marginal terminologies in neglect of mainstream ones, and "Alchon Huns" is very clearly the mainstream terminology. At most, we could mention in the article that a few authors have only been referring to them as simply "The Alchons", but it does not justify that the article itself be named according to this very rare usage. "Alchon Huns" is clearly the way to go. Opinions welcome. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is obviously a contested move and needs a move request. I've attempted to move this page back to its original location at Alchon Huns, but the speedy deletion request to facilitate the move is pending and has since been contested by Grant65.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How about just reverting and opening a move request with your supporting arguments as is the norm instead of all this drama, ? 's talk page is not the place for justifying your move. There are other editors too who may have views on this. The article is also a GA nominee at the moment.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Names are always an interesting topic of scholarly discussion, since there are indeed many connotations that go along with them. As was pointed out, wikipedia is not the place to document primary research, rather it serves to distill the collective literature which documents primary research. As a side note, there are ancient Western sources that name "Xion" (Greek Hion) referring to the Hunas of the Indian sources (where we get the confusing and overlapping term for Xionites). In my opinion, "Huns" is a reasonable anglicization for these terms. Regardless of my opinion, 's quantification of the references in the source literature is the salient point for Wikipedia and justifies naming the article in the way the majority of scholars do. Thank you पाटलिपुत्र!! ping (alx_bio 03:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC))

- Cpt.a.haddock, since this article is now back at the location that is in dispute, I'm not sure what you propose I "revert" – or and why you consider a move request to be "the norm".

Anyway I agree that user talk pages aren't the best place to have these discussions, so I'll restate here.

The coins are, by far, the main and most authoritative primary source on the Alchon, including their name. And as Dr Pankaj Tandon (2013, " Notes on the Evolution of Alchon Coins", Journal of the Oriental Numismatic Society, no. 216,, pp. 24-34.) points out "None of the coins identifies an individual king; rather they all bear the legend alchono or alchonano in Bactrian letters."

Clearly, the people in question used the names  ALCHON, ALXON, ALKHON, ALKHAN, ALAKHANA, WALXON  etc as genitive or plural noun (on coins etc). Note also that: (I haven't researched the historical usage of "Alchon Huns", but suspect that it originated as a back formation, based on related ethnonyms such as Sveta-huna, which is also dubiously translated as "White Huns").
 * this is without a genitive suffix such as "Huns" or Huna;
 * there is also no evidence for an -s plural; even the -s in Alchon is redundant.

The only people to whom the name Hun (and declensions such as Huns, Hunnic etc) may be applied uncontroversially are the people who entered Western Asia/Europe from the Eurasian Steppe as early as the 4th century (376 CE), under leaders such as Attila. (They may be connected to the Khuni, also known as the Chuni or Huni, who appear to have settled in the North Caucasus as early as the 2nd century.) Note, in particular:
 * the western Huns are recorded up to a century before the Huna entered South Asia;
 * evidence for close ties between the two groups is purely circumstantial;
 * two or more unrelated groups could, purely by coincidence, share similar names;
 * like most peoples who disappeared long before the modern era, we know virtually nothing about the early history of both groups, including their urheimat and original language (although the majority view of the Huns who ended up in Europe is that they were a confederation of Turkic, Uralic, Scythian/Saka and possibly Yenisei, Mongolian, Tungusic tribes and others.

Obviously I am aware that the Huna are often referred to, in South Asian contexts as "Huns". However: Hence a name used in popular culture, or even in academic circles, is not necessarily relevant.
 * If it is the case that a majority uses a dubious name, it is also clearly a redundancy that has become semi-normalised (in much in the same way as "PIN number").
 * WP:COMMON does not necessarily require the most common name, just one of the common names. It follows that this is especially the case if the common name is demonstrably:
 * controversial
 * factually incorrect
 * misspelled
 * ungrammatical
 * a pleonasm (e.g. a redundancy)
 * a neologism
 * ahistorical, anachronistic, or a similar reason.

Of the relevant works featured in Google Books:
 * 673 of these use, without a qualifying suffix, the terms Alkhon, Alxon, Alkhan, Alakhana, Walxon or Alchon. These include authoritative examples like Michael Maas (ed.) 2014, The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Attila and Daniel T. Potts, 2014, Nomadism in Iran: From Antiquity to the Modern Era
 * A separate search for Alkhons, Alxons, Alkhans, Alakhanas, Walxons or Alchons +huns OR +hunas -alkhon-huns -alxon-huns -alchon-huns -Alkhan-huns -Alakhana-huns -Walxon-huns -alchon-huns brought up a further 166 hits.

A title for the article such as Alchon is simpler, unambiguous, consistent with the endonym of the people concerned and avoids: Grant &#124;  Talk  12:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * the controversial translation of Huna as "Huns";
 * the issues of neologism (raised by पाटलिपुत्र i.e. "Alchon Hunas") and;
 * redundancies like "Alchon Huns" – i.e. since all of the Alchon were Hunas/Huns, and referred to themselves simply as "Alchon", there is no need for a qualifier (Huns/Hunas).

Above  Grant  &#124;  Talk  06:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please open a move request with your supporting evidence so people can vote on it or provide evidence of their own countering it. This could perhaps also include a similar request for the Nezak Huns. You certainly have a point re:redundancy (esp. if Alkhan itself is believed to mean Red Huns?) and consistency with the articles on the other Hunnic peoples. However, I am not sure that this trumps WP:COMMONNAME and/or scholarly usage and, from what I'm seeing in Google Books, "Alchon Huns" is the more popular. Also, in terms of search results, what we need to compare are the terms as nouns and it is difficult to filter Google results based on parts of speech or negative collocation. I don't think "controversial", "factually incorrect", "misspelled", "ungrammatical", "ahistorical", or "neologism" really apply here and Wikipedia (and language in general) is full of redundant titles ranging from Dal Lake to Mount Maunganui (mountain). Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 September 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

– WP:TITLE states that "the ideal article title ... precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable". As such (IMHO) Alchon and Nezak are the best titles of these articles. While I acknowledge that the current names are widely used, they are far from universal and are unsuitable for reasons discussed below, and we are required to use a common name – not necessarily the most common name, especially if they are problematic for other reasons.
 * Alchon Huns → Alchon
 * Nezak Huns → Nezak

In my opinion the compound forms ("x Huns") in the current titles are erroneous for the following reasons.
 * They are confusing to lay readers and historically controversial, because there is no proven link whatsoever between the original Huns – a people led by Attila etc that invaded Europe during the 4th Century – and the Hūṇa, including the Alchon and Nezak, who were known only in South Asia, from the 5th century onwards.
 * Redundancy (or, more specifically, examples of tautology. Every member of the peoples known as the Alchon and Nezak were part of the broader grouping known in South Asian languages as Hūṇa.
 * Anachronism: they are not justified by evidence that they existed as endonyms. Neither people referred to themselves with a suffixed Hūṇa (or Huns), or a "-s plural" variation of Alchon or Nezak. Usage of "Huns" in South Asian historical contexts appears to have grown from the dubious (and by no means universally accepted) assumption by one or a few scholars that the South Asian term Hūṇa may be translated into English as "Huns". In 2013, Pankaj Tandon, an authority on ancient South Asian currency, wrote (in "Notes on the Evolution of Alchon Coins", Journal of the Oriental Numismatic Society, no. 216,, pp. 24-34): "None of the coins identifies an individual king; rather they all bear the legend alchono or alchonano in Bactrian letters." (Note that the latter form may suggest that -ano or -no were the plural or genitive form in the language of such peoples.) A search in Google Books brings up at least 673 relevant publications that concern the Alchon – or variant spellings like Alchono, Alkhon, Alxon, Alkhan, Alakhana and Walxon – that are not followed by a either qualifying suffix or an "-s plural". (These include authoritative examples like Michael Maas (ed.) 2014, The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Attila and Daniel T. Potts, 2014, Nomadism in Iran: From Antiquity to the Modern Era.)

This is largely a brief restatement of a broader argument I have already made in the section above. I would appreciate any feedback that may be relevant. Grant &#124;  Talk  09:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Move the articles to Alchon and Nezak respectively = Support. Grant  &#124;  Talk  09:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Almost nobody in the literature uses the expression "The Alchons" alone, without the suffix "Huns": there are only two cases of "The Alchons" being used alone on Google Books, and "The Alchon" in the singular is only used as an adjective as in "The Alchon coinage", except for two cases were it is used as a noun . "Alchon Huns" is almost the only way these people are described in the literature: (115 instances on Google Books ). Same thing for Nezak Huns. Wikipedia is not supposed to invent new terminology or adopt extremely marginal terminologies in neglect of mainstream ones, and the rationale of the above Move Request seems far-fetched and close to original research: the notion that "Alchon Huns" woud be redundant is, it seems, unheard of in the literature . It would be sad to mislead Wikipedia users into thinking that "Alchons" is the normal way to call this people, since "Alchon Huns" is by very far (50 to1!) the mainstream terminology . At most, we could mention in the article that a few authors have only been referring to them as simply "The Alchons", but it does not justify that the article itself be named according to this very rare usage. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was prepared for you to disagree with me, but find it surprising that you write as though you have not read things that I have written to you – three times now, above and on your talk page.
 * Once again: the current proposed move is to Alchon (not "The Alchons" and not "Alchons"). Part of my argument is that Alchon is legitimately used as an invariable noun – i.e. like Sioux or Maori, it does not require the addition of an -s to make a plural noun. Especially when the people concerned did not use such forms; ALCHON is also one of the names the people used to describe themselves on their coins.
 * There are 673 relevant publications that use Alchon, Alchono, Alkhon, Alxon, Alkhan, Alakhana and Walxon – that are not followed by a either qualifying suffix or an "-s plural.
 * It is also wrong and/or irrelevant to: imply that I am inventing/adopting "new", "rare" or "extremely marginal terminologies"; refer to my argument as OR; say that "Alchon Huns is almost the only way these people are described in the literature..." etc
 * As for the idea that one can disprove or prove the redundancy of a two word phrase by Googling those two words + "redundancy"...! I can only only assume that this is a joke. Grant  &#124;  Talk  15:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Grant. I am just trying to explain that nobody in the literature seems to follow your logic. Let's take "Alchon" then... as an invariable noun as you suggest. If what you say was true, there would be plenty of noun+verb pairs such as (the) "Alchon were"... or (the) "Alchon are"... or (the) "Alchon invaded"... or (the) "Alchon have"... or (the) "Alchon had" etc... (as would easily be the case for the Sioux or Maori, which you mentioned). However, these subject+verb groups are basically absent from Google Books: 0 hits, 1 hit (not even an actual usage but a word-by-word translation of a 5th century text), 0 hits 0 hits, 0 hits. This means that in actual fact Alchon is basically never used as an invariable noun contrary to what you claim above. When used at all, Alchon is used as an adjectival form as in "Alchon coinage", just as you generally say "English coinage" (adjectival form) rather than "England coinage". The conclusion is that the way to designate these people is neither "Alchon Hunas" (your first attempt, and a total invention/neologism ), nor "Alchons" (just 1 or 2 hits), nor "Alchon" (as just seen, another invention/neologism as an invariable noun), but Alchon Huns (or orthographical variations thereof) for 99% of historians . पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * पाटलिपुत्र – unfortunately Google Search is not well suited for your purposes or mine. It throws up many false positives (such as similar-sounding words/names) and it's impossible to tailor-make a search relevant to our needs here, e.g. (specific subject [including variant spellings]) + (single space) + ("wildcard signifying any verb").
 * Because of these limitations, it's easy to (unintentionally or otherwise), structure internet searches to support one side of an argument. Trawling Google Books for "word-x word-y" will throw up a lot of populist/junk/non-academic sources, false positives and soundalikes.
 * Whereas a targeted, parsimonious search such as this: huna OR hunas Alchon OR Alchono OR Alkhon OR alkhono OR Alxon OR Alakhana OR Walxon -Alchon-huns -Alchono-huns -Alkhon-huns -alkhono-huns -Alxon-huns -Alakhana-huns -Walxon-huns -demographic -america -guy -suzanne -alcohol -alchon-family -dibdin brings up 10 pages of results. Because of Google's numerical limit on search terms etc, this necessarily includes some adjectival, ambiguous results or "false positives". Nevertheless on the first page alone, there are at least four hits that clearly support what I'm saying, e.g.


 * 1) Frye (1984): "a tribe which he calls 'Alkhon' from legends in debased Greek script on coins";
 * 2) Kim (2015): "Black signified north and red the south, hence the existence also of Red Huns (Kermichiones or Alkhon from the Turkic ...)"
 * 3) Brentjes (1977): "Ein Teil von ihnen, die Alchon, zog nach Nordindien und blieb den Indern als «Hunas» in schrecklicher Erinnerung" and;
 * 4) Allchin (1978): The first of the new invaders were the Alchono (probably red Huns) who seem to have been part of a larger grouping."
 * 5) etc
 * I'm sure there are hundreds more, but life is short.
 * Grant &#124;  Talk  06:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Grant. I agree life is short, and I'd rather do something else. I don't know how your Google Book search is set up, but your search above ( huna OR hunas Alchon OR Alchono OR Alkhon OR alkhono OR Alxon OR Alakhana OR Walxon -Alchon-huns -Alchono-huns -Alkhon-huns -alkhono-huns -Alxon-huns -Alakhana-huns -Walxon-huns -demographic -america -guy -suzanne -alcohol -alchon-family -dibdin ) actually only brings out 18 relevant results, of which there are only 3 instances of the usage of Alchon/ Alkhon/ Alkhono as an invariable noun (essentially those you listed, apart from the German language one). That's just not "hundreds more" as you claim. Actually that's probably about all that can be found. You may be able to find a few more, but the simple truth, as your searches and mines show, is that this usage as a stand-alone noun is extremely rare, probably well under 1%. I suggest we don't lose more time on this, and just follow the standard academic usage of "Alchon Huns" . पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @पाटलिपुत्र – only a few seconds ago, I clicked on that same Google Books link, and it brought up 322 results for me. A vagary of how Google Search (and other web search works) is that the very same search terms may throw up very vary different results from one place and/or location to another, for various reasons. As this article puts it:
 * There are many different elements that determine what the results from a Google search displays, including:
 * • The type of device used for the search (desktop, laptop, phone, tablet),
 * • Your personal search history
 * • Whether you are logged in to a Google Account while searching
 * • Your geographic location
 * • What type of browser you are using
 * • The number of Google-generated ads on the page
 * • What type of search you are doing
 * • The phase of the moon (not really, but with Google you never know).
 * Also, single-word ethnonyms like Alchon etc come up an alternate or short form alongside instances of "Alchon Huns" etc.
 * Those things being the case, your estimate of "probably well under 1%" for Alchon as plural seems unreliable, and your belief that such usage is "extremely rare" is incorrect.
 * 13:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'm sympathetic to the "redundancy" argument. E.g., we have an article at Navajo not Navajo Native Americans.  But this move doesn't seem to reflect the majority of source usage; if the RS tell us that the common name is "Alchon Huns"(and that's out of many variant spellings), then so be it.  This is not a unique situation, though it's not all that common.  When it applies, it applies.  Secondly, our practice is to name articles on peoples at the plural form of the name (when there is a distinction in English and the anglicized plural form isn't considered colloquial, as it is with "Navajos" or "Navajoes"); e.g. we have articles at Berbers and Gaels; if such a construction doesn't apply or the result is ambiguous, appended "people", e.g. Irish people or some more specific identifier ("Huns" will do fine in this case).  If the few sources that do use the short forms without "Huns" were consistent, we'd probably use Alchons and Nezaks. However some use Alchon as a plural, and some introduce Alchono.  Regardless, these are not the names of current ethnicities, so our principle (borrowed from cultural anthropology) of preferring native endonyms to Westerner-imposed exonyms (e.g. Inuit not "Eskimo") doesn't apply here; there's no one to offend. WP:CONCISE is a valid argument, but it doesn't equate to "use the shortest possible name no matter what".  People writing about these groups professionally seem to usually think that the "Hun" part is important. Probably because they're historically interpreted as a group of the Huns/Huna (thus "the First Hunnic War", not "the First Alchon War"). PS: First Hunnic War, Second Hunnic War and Hunnic Wars should go somewhere, not be redlinks.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There is always more to article titles than surveys of RS and common usage – especially if the RS are divided on issue concerned and/or common usage is controversial. For example, scores of respected academics are prone to inaccurate/controversial usages that Wikipedia would never endorse, such as "England" to mean the UK and "football" to mean a specific code that is popular in one country. In the likely event that such usage were upheld by a majority of Wikipedia editors, it could successfully be appealed on the grounds of Systemic bias. That applies here too: the specific biases at work here are apophenia (the human urge to see connections where none may actually exist) and illusory correlation (a form of confirmation bias).
 * Even if it could be shown that there really is "no one to offend", it would be irrelevant because the point is that the terms "Alchon Huns" and "Nezak Huns" are unacceptable on the grounds that they are conflations and neologistic portmanteau-phrases of two subjects that may have had nothing to do with each other: two groups of Huna + the Huns known only in Europe.
 * The commonness of exonymic and neologistic forms, such as "Alchon Huns" etc, is no guarantee of their validity or persistence, in either RS or common usage. To cite a pertinent example: from Roman to early modern times, scholars have been prone to conflating and referring to various unrelated peoples, including the Sarmatians, Scythians, Avars, Turks and Mongols, as Huns. But a RS would not do that now (or only with parentheses, such as "Mongol Hun").
 * I'm not convinced that there are so many claims to Alchon that a disambiguator is justified.
 * Grant &#124;  Talk  13:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. At least on Google Books, it does appear that when these peoples are intended, "Huns" follows their names.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Add 'Not to be confused with....'  and explanation. 'Hun' has three basic meanings: 1. Huns proper or Attila's people; 2. Groups associated with the Indian Hunas; 3. a vague term for Hun-like people used in the original sources for a distant and ill-understood people, as North Caucasian Huns. "Hun" is confusing to people not familiar with the different uses. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – regardless of other outcomes that may follow from the discussion above. Grant  &#124;  Talk  00:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

source review tips
To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows: When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link; archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * First, copy/paste  to Special:MyPage/common.js.
 * On the same page and below that script add . Save that page.
 * Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add.

Thank you and  for the great work on this GA nomination. I have submitted a DYK nomination, feel free to provide alt hooks!

Name: Alchons or Alchon Huns?
Did this nomadic people call themselves Hun or this name is just given to them by modern scholars? I ask this question because I don't see similar approach in the name of articles like Hephthalites and Kidarites. --Wario-Man (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They used the word "Alchon" on their coins (although it's not 100% sure that it was ment to be the name of their ethnic group), the Indians called them "Hunas" (as many such tribes from the northwest), and the general naming for them in the literature is "Alchon Huns".पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Serious problems with this article
I have started with a bit of tagging. I see loads of WP:OR and source misrepresentation. And, I have serious doubts about the whole concept of this article.

The way I see things stated in sources, these people were Hephthalites. Alchon/Alkhan was a dynasty. Indians and perhaps Iranians called them "White Huns" (Sveta Huna). Scholars haven't confirmed that they were in fact Huns. Please see this chapter: -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I no longer have the book with me, but I'm pretty sure Kim, The Huns, discusses them separately. I may be wrong there. Can you show sources equating the two?--Ermenrich (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Litvinsky chapter is available online (as are all the volumes of the UNESCO Central Asia series).
 * Kim says that Hephthalites were White Huns, and so were the Kidarites. There is no mention of "Alchon Huns". But he does include Toramana etc among Hephthalites. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * So are you proposing merging this into Hephthalites, or renaming it "Alchon Dynasty"? Before doing anything major, I'd suggest requesting comment at some of the relevant wikiprojects.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that they were a dynasty, or a ruling house. It seems that the first of their rulers was called Alakhana or something of that sort and all (or some of) the successors used it as if it were a surname. But it doesn't appear that all the people under their rule had any particular ethnicity. The situation is somewhat like "Selucids", who were not a tribe or an ethnic group, but just the people of a particular empire/ruling house. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That may be your feeling, but none of the proposed etymologies of Alchon support this conclusion. Rather, they generally support the notion that -chon is a form of the ethnic name Hun. See especially the entry in Encyclopedia Iranica.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Kim specifically identifies the "Alkhon" as "the southern wing of the White Huns". That would imply at the least that they were a people and had some sort of separate existence which he does not document. I don't have time to look for more sources now but I will soon.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Found the following: "al).9 Behind the head we see a characteristic symbol [...] which is the tamga of of the Indian Hunas, or Alchon Huns, as Robert Göbl called them, and which is frequently attested on Alchon coinage." The article clearly uses Alchon to refer to a people, though it is unclear how it differentiates them from the Hunas. It cites a paper G. Melzer (2006) "A Copper Scroll Inscription from the Time of the Alchon Huns" as well. Cf. also Klaus Vondrovec (2008) 'Numismatic evidence ofthe Alehon Huns reconsidered', cited here. It seems that these few references refer to their coinage, as well as Khingila. Obviously there must be some more sources for the term, this is just what I've scrounged together from JSTOR.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sure you can find all kinds of mentions in research papers, since the scholars are still trying out figure out the history. But I believe the predominant view among the scholars at present, as exemplified by the Litvinsky chapter as well as Kim's quite thorough discussion, is that they were Hepthalites. See in Kim:
 * So, there were two groups that invaded India, in succession. Indians of course called all of them "White Huns". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So, there were two groups that invaded India, in succession. Indians of course called all of them "White Huns". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The modern view is that the Alchons were a separate entity from the Hephthalites. See a recent (2017) overview by Khodadad Rezakhani in ReOrienting the Sasanians: East Iran in Late Antiquity. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. See also the Encylopedia Iranica, which, following Göbl, identifies four waves of Iranian Huns: the "Alkhon" are the second wave, the Hephthalites are the fourth wave. The tagging that Kautilya3 has done to the lede is unwarrented and I'm removing unless he can find sources that actually say what he says, rather than potentially imply it.
 * That's not to say that the article does not need some work, but I've already done my duty improving Huns so I'm not sure I'm the man to fix everything up here.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, these are good sources, and I will study them. However, please note that citations are required even in the lead when the issues are controversial (WP:LEADCITE), and we are obliged to report all views found in the reliable sources even if we believe they have been overtaken by more recent views (WP:NPOV). Hopefully, can attend to these. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right that if there are scholars who view the Alchon Huns as part of the Hephthalites we must include those views. It would be better to mention alternative views (in the body and lead) rather than using citation needed tags, however. As I said, the article definitely needs some work: it lacks a works cited section, making it very difficult to figure out what sources were used, for starters.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , thanks for adding citations. Can you also revise Middle kingdoms of India and History of India in line with this article? I am also not sure what to do about Hephthalite Empire. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

English
The invadars were followed by Huns and Sakas 2409:4064:E8D:6D33:0:0:1FC9:7208 (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources
This article contained 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 puboishers, 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.

Although I'm not aware of any controversial material in this particular Wiki article related to its Silk Road Foundation reference, and I have no enmity for the Silk Road Foundation or its publisher, or its authors, this source does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and should not be cited. Hunan201p (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

GAR
To expand upon. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)