Talk:Wusun

Connection Wusun with the Issedones
Two basic reference works: Sinor (Cambridge History of Inner Asia) and Unesco (History of Civilizations of Central Asia vol. III) do mention a possible connection of the Wusun with the Issedones, described by Herodotus in his Histories (book IV). But the most extensive studie has been made by Gardiner-Garden, J.R., Chang-Ch'ien and Central Asian Ethnography, Bloomington 1986 (Papers on Far Eastern History 33), especially pp. 28-240. Here you find a survey of theories on their identification and ethnic affiliations. If there is a possible connection between Issedones and Wusun then there may also be a connection between Wusun and Issedones. So I revert the delete by User:Eiorgiomugini and put back this possible connection. Guss2 08:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I replace the pharse at the bottom here, cos it does not belonged to the Anthropology and archeology sections. Eiorgiomugini 10:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Eiorgiomugini, I am sorry, I didn't notice that. As you can see I changed the article a bit, putting the Issedones in a section of their own, I hope that and the other changes have improved the article. Only there remains one lose end: The rather unsupported theory that they may have originated as a stranded unit of Romans. Do you think it should be removed? Guss2 10:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Anthropology and archeology - Shji didn't records that. Are you sure about this? I used Watson II, p 267. But the Chinese original might differ, unfortunately I can't read that. Guss2 11:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The relation between wusun and issedones has not been put forward by Gardiner-Garden only. They did not put up the theory, they made just an encyclopedial survey about the hypothese (and need 212 pages for it!). As you can see from it the theory is rather wide accepted, though it remains just a theory. So I would like to reverse your change from Gardiner-Garden to the more general 'there are theories'. Guss2 11:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Two last remarks. In the history section you can findAfter this event the Wusun continued to be mentioned until 11th-century I could not find any mentioning, so I would suggest to end that section with probably they just vanished from history. This would also mean there is no connection with the Pechenegs. The only references I could find about a connection between Pechenegs and tribes mentioned in chinese sources is in Pelliot Quelques noms Turcs d'hommes et de peuples finissant en 'ar' , Paris 1949, p. 226, n 1, where het cites the Sui-shu mentioning a tribe called Pei-ju, among the T'ieh-lê, neighbours of the En-ch'ü and A-lan. In Pei-ju Pelliot sees *Pək-ńźi-wok = Pečeneg. So no clear connection to wusun, is it?


 * The connection between Wusun and Romans seems just a wild guess to me. So I vote for leaving it out Guss2 12:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There's quite pently of the theories for the Pechengs among the name of Tiele tribes, right now I just don't have the sources. Eiorgiomugini 12:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah you may be right about relations between tiele and pechenegs, but is there a connection between Tiele tribes and Wusun? Guss2 12:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I had not heard of a theory for that. Eiorgiomugini 13:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your additional details on wusun history are great!!! Guss2 13:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

companionably?
Hi Eiorgiomugini! . You did make a lot of small changes this past hour. I saw your addition companionably in the first line. I do not know exactly what you feel when using that word, but to me companionably means that you like to be in their company, that you feel at ease when in their company, that you yearn for their company. Well, I know for certain I would NOT!. Guss2 12:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

They were not exactly savage. How about friendly? Btw, is there any English translation of the map? Eiorgiomugini 12:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. What do you mean not exactly savage? About the Wusun I read: The Wusun despoiled the population of Ta Hsia (Bactria) see: Shiji by Watson II 267-268, 271-72. I would not call them exactly my friends ;). But I am really curious, do you feel sympathy for them so much??


 * Wusun despoiled the population of Ta Hsia, I had not heard of any before in Shiji. They do however get defeated several times by Xiongnu. Eiorgiomugini 13:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * About the map. In future I hope to write some articles about central asia and its peoples for Dutch Wikipedia. Then I will create some new maps, so for the time being I do not have an English translation. Guss2 13:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

En route they drove away the Saka
I would omit this remark. This is part of Yuezhi history describing their way to Bactria. I would change into 'en route they overran the Wusun...' Guss2 12:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that part of Yuezhi history describing their way to Ili Valley. Eiorgiomugini 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Now you lost me. According to Hanshu (in translation by Hulsewé pp 104-105, 120-21) and Shiji (Watson II 264 ff): After being attacked by the Xiongnu, killing the Yuezhi king, making his skull into a drinking vessel, the Yuezhi went far away beyond Ta Yuan (Ferghana) and proceeding west to attack and subjugate Ta-Hsia (Bactria). The Yuezhi migration caused the 'King of the Sai'(Saka) to move to the south where he established himself in 'Chi-pin'(the location of which is uncertain). The Sai tribes split and seperated and repeatedly formed several states. Some time before the Xiongnu attack on them (as you changed correctly), the Yuezhi had attacked their neighbour, the Wusun. Correct me if I am wrong but I see no connection between Yuezhi causing to migrate Saka tribes and the history of the Wusun. Guss2 13:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hanshu 96 mentioned the Wusun terrian was formerly occupied by Sai. It seems that you had gather two sources combined from Jibin and Yuezhi in 96th. Eiorgiomugini 13:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * mmmm I don't know yet. I make a short chronological survey in my own words. Correct me if I am wrong:


 * 1) Yuezhi attack on their neighbours Wusun (Hanshu 61) Wusun nearly destroyed
 * 2) Xiongnu attack on Yuezhi causing them to move to Ta Yüan and west to Ta-hsia
 * 3) This moving of Yuezhi causing Sai to move to the south (Hanshu 61)
 * 4) Yuezhi occupied the lands Sai had left

Where in the chronology do I put in the Wusun occupying of the territory formerly occupied by Sai??? Guss2 14:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the starting line had based accordingly to Zhang Qian (under 61), so let get this straight, Xiongnu attack on Yuezhi causing them to move to Ili Valley (which later occupied by the Wusun, 96), this moving of Yuezhi caused them to defeated the king of Sai and the Sais move far to the south, while Yuezhi occupied the area, they were defeated by the Wusun and the Yuezhi moved to the Daxia (Daxia only mentioned on this parts on 61, Xiongnu did not drove them far enough to Daxia, it was Wusun), and the Wusun occupied the area. Eiorgiomugini 14:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Now you cleared things up. Thanks. Guss2 14:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You are always welcome Eiorgiomugini 15:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Anthropology and archeology - actual unneeded)
Hi! It is me again. I think you do need the word actual just to understand these lines better:
 * The Wusun were described' by the Chinese historical annals as having green eyes and red beards with a macaque physical shape

This is clearly a description. Then follows:
 * i.e., of Caucasoid appearance, though no description of the Yuezhi was given.

Now there is a contradiction you see?. BTW, It is my personal opinion that abbreviations in encyclopeadic text should be avoided as much as possible. Guss2 15:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You cleared things up. Thanks Eiorgiomugini 15:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

last mentioning name Wusun
Hi Eiorgiomugini. You wrote: though their name was last mentioned on an offering to the court of Liao Dynasty on September 22, 938 (Liaoshi, ch.4). In 'History of Civilizations of Central Asia' part III by Unesco the Russion historian Zadneprovskiy on p. 461 writes: The last reference to the Wu-sun in the historical sources is in AD 436, when a Chinese diplomatic mission was dispatched to their country and the Wu-sun reciprocated. So according to that Russian mentioning ended 500 years earlier. To me 436 seems more acceptable, otherwise there are 500 years unaccounted for. What do you think about it?? Guss2 09:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"The last reference to the Wu-sun in the historical sources is in AD 436, when a Chinese diplomatic mission was dispatched to their country and the Wu-sun reciprocated" The Wusun reciprocated by sending periodical tributes to the court of Northern Wei after then (not known exactly when). Well, if he did dig deep enough he would found that the last mention of Wusun was actually 938. I think is better to keep it than remove it. Eiorgiomugini 15:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

companionably again
Hi Eiorgiomugini!. Just for your information. Last night I read a chapter in Otto Franke 'Geschichte des chinesischen Reiches' (= History of the Chinese empire). Franke was a famous german sinologist and one of the first Europeans who wrote between 1936 and 1946 a history of China completely from chinese sources. I admire him for this. Unfortunately because of Worldwar II his work remained unfinished and stopped at 1368AD. He writes in part 1 about the peoples from the steppe:
 * In the sources of their enemies for centuries the steppe peoples are pictured as brave warriors who esteem honour high and with a symphatic and eminent character. Europe is still too much influenced by the one-sied and sometimes even completely wrong Greek-Roman sources.

Maybe this explaines your companionably and my surprise about it? Guss2 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Physical descriptions of the Wusun
Someone has added in the following supposed descriptions of the Wusun which seem to me to have been poorly translated: "The Wusun women were first described by Jiao Yanshou as "ugly and black colored people with deep eyes socket"[4], which probably resemble to the Hindu as suggests from the skin complexion. The Wusun was also described in without gender distinguish later in the Chinese historical annals as having "green eyes and red beards with a macaque physical shape"[5] (Commentary added by Yan Shigu in the Hanshu which he describing the racial Wusun of his days during the 7th century), i.e., of Caucasoid appearance, though no actual description of the Yuezhi was given.[6]"

Certainly both of these references are derogatory - but I think the meanings differ significantly from the interpretations given above.

The first reference, when I checked, has the line (No. 45): 烏孫氏女，深目黑醜. I would translate this as something like: "Wusun women have deepset eyes and are malicious and ugly (or detestable)."

I don't think the intention is to say they are 'black colored.' 黑 hei can certainly have the meaning "black", but it can equally mean "wicked' or "malicious", while 醜 chou means "ugly" or "loathsome." If this description really was saying that the Wusun were of a black colour - it would fly in the face of all the other information we have about the Wusun people - including the following reference to the Hanshu. I don't think there are any clues here about physical characteristics other than the mention of "deepset eyes" - a comment commonly made by Chinese authors about people of Caucasoid appearance.

I cannot find any reference to the looks of the Wusun in Hanshu 96B. If there is one that I have missed - would someone please point it out to me? However, the 7th century commentary to the Hanshu does contain this line: 烏 孫 於 西 域 諸 戎其 形 最 異. 今 之 胡 人 青 眼 、 赤 須 ， 狀 類 彌 猴 者 ， 本 其 種也.

I have very quickly translated this line as: "The Wusun of the Western Regions are the same as the Rong [people]. Nowadays, these Hu people have blue (or green) eyes, red beards, in form they resemble a bearded monkey, [and] they were originally of this species."

I will make some changes to the passage - but these are not meant to be final and I would appreciate any comments or help (especially to improve the translations) from other readers. John Hill 01:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

深目黑醜 actually refered to their skin colour according to my secondary source. There's no WP:OR here. 丑 actually refer to physical traits than intention or behavior, so 黑 (黑汗 or Kara-Khanid) here would certainly relates to their skin colour on their women 烏孫氏女, I had never encountered for 黑 being refered to a group of people of being wicked in the texts of those days, you might also wanna check out Du Huan account on Molin, which had also used 黑 on the people he was refering. I believe your translated Hanshu contained without any commentary, as happened to most of the Hanshu version I seen. Your direct translation on "The Wusun of the Western Regions are the same as the Rong [people]. 烏 孫 於 西 域 諸 戎 其 形 最 異", doesn't seem right at all, so I changed it under Rong people. It is most commonly agreed that the Wusun are a diverse people, so is not contradiction to the following reference to the Hanshu, as Yu Taishan also implied to that commmantary was actually refering to the Wusun's descendants of Tang era. Eiorgiomugini 08:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Eiorogiomugini: Thanks for your comments and opinions. I really rushed the entries I did today as I was called out and unexpectedly had to go to town, and so I did ask for help on this page. I should have, perhaps, waited until I had more time.


 * First, I have checked several dictionaries and found that 彌猴 does indeed refer to macaques or rhesus monkeys as you had indicated (not "bearded monkeys").


 * Secondly, Taishan Yu in his A Study of Saka History (1998), pp. 141-142, has already translated this passage, and so I suggest we quote him in this article and in the stub I have started on the Rong people. I will insert his translation and give him as a reference in both places. If you are still not happy with it - please let me know.


 * Thirdly - I am still uncomfortable that the passage about the Wusun women refers to their skin colour being black or dark. This does not make sense with what we know about the Wusun or with the comment by Yan Shigu. I suspect it may be better translated as something like: "Wusun women had deep set eyes [that were] black (or 'dark') and ugly." This could, perhaps, indicate that they coloured around their eyes with a dark makeup - like the use of Kohl (cosmetics) used in India, Egypt and Arabia and other countries for make-up by women. To someone who wasn't used to it (like the Chinese) - it might have looked very ugly indeed. However, this is just a guess. There may be other explanations - or a better translation for this phrase - but I cannot believe that the Wusun women (and why just the women?) were reported as having dark or black skins. If you have any other ideas - please let me know. Regards, John Hill 10:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear John, would you mind to quote on the translated passage from Yu's source? Are you sure that passage was translated by him? Does the passage mentioned blue eyes (even though the actual quote was green eyes) for it and even used macaques for his quote? I believe he had only mentioned Yan in his sources. We do not know much about the Wusun even from Yan's comment for your information. That passage of being refered to their skin colour was actually under the secondary source, so it doesn't meant their refering to a group of wicked people. I recalled there's an analyse on the paper about Hui Chao's relates on the physical traits of Indian in studies and some other sutras. We are not certain whether their makeup, I'm sure you had your point, but if they do it would be mentioned under the original quote. I would not make any ideas as those are considerd as WP:OR. I would suggests something like "Wusun women had deep eyes socket and their people are ugly and black". I would not waste my energy for just one short quote, I'm sure you are aware that it consume a lot of time for such matter you are complaining, infact it turn out nothing happened after my edits before you came. Regards Eiorgiomugini 11:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Eiorgiomugini: Thank you for you note. I certainly don't want to keep this discussion going any longer than necessary - I have many other things to do - and you are quite correct that these exchanges consume a lot of time. So, I would like to come to some agreement with you on how to leave this article so that it is accurate and acceptable to both of us.


 * This is why I suggested that maybe we could just accept Taishan Yu's translation of the passage from Yan Shigu. His exact words are: "Among the various Rong in the Western Regions, the Wusun's shape was the strangest; and the present barbarians who have blue eyes and red hair, and are like a macaque, belonged to the same race as the Wusun." I must admit that I have no idea whether Taishan Yu translated this passage himself - but I assume he did, as he includes it in his book without giving any other source.


 * Regarding the translation of the word 青 qing - as you must know, colours are very difficult to translate accurately from one language to another. 青 can be translated into English as either blue or green (and even, though more rarely, black). For example, in English we usually refer to the sky as blue, and the colour of grass as green - whereas, in Chinese, these are both described as being 青. So, I believe, this word would be best translated as "blue or green" (as, in English, we describe some people's eyes as green and other people's eyes as blue). However, this is not very important and, I think, either "blue" or "green" would do. Eye colour within some ethnic groups can vary considerably - for instance, in many families, the eye colours of brothers and sisters can range from "blue" to "hazel" to "green" to "brown".


 * What is of importance here is the bearing it has on the other quote attributed to Jiao Yanshou. Ethnic groups with green or blue eyes and red hair almost always have very light-coloured skin - almost never could they be described as having "black" skin (although 黑 is also often translated as "dark" which, I suggest, would be preferable to "black" here). I therefore think there must be some mistake - either in the texts, or in their translation.


 * Now, this quote is taken from the Jiaoshi Yilin attributed to Jiao Yanshou and is dated to the Western Han dynasty. It was a book of divination (like the Yi Jing) - not a serious historical, geographical or anthropological work and, therefore, should not necessarily be taken as a reliable or objective source on the looks of a foreign people.


 * My suggestion is, therefore, that perhaps we should leave it out of the article altogether.


 * Please let me know what you think. Yours sincerely, John Hill 23:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear John, apart from your lengthly explanation on eyes colour, my suggests for you would be to leave the full quote and the redundant parts out from the context, perhaps you could do it differently under the article Rong as you did earlier for his quote. Maybe it would be better for you to cut in some brackets along the indirect words for compromise on this minor issue i.e. "Among the various Rong in the Western Regions, the Wusun's shape was the strangest; and the present barbarians [Hu] who have green [or blue] eyes and red beard [or hair], and are like a macaque, belonged to the same race as the Wusun." The Wusun were never of same type of category people as you implied, they were by far a diverse group, Yan's comment certainly cannot be treated as if they were only one type of people among them. I had found a few quotes on 黑 used from other sources, 身黑卷发，倮行 under 《新唐书·南蛮传》Nanman 自林邑以南，皆卷发黑身 under 《旧唐书·南蛮传》Nanman and 目深体黑 under 《宋史·大食传》Arabs. If we were about to leave the descriptions out of the article altogether, I would not be surprised others might had put out the issue again as happened earlier in the creation of this very own article. I am also disagreeing of leaving Jiaoshi Yilin out from the article and as you suggested cannot be taken reliable or objective source, as the matter of fact it had been quoted among the academic sources, when informations were sparse, several non-historical sources are gather from different direction by authors for publishing. This is the exact words quoted from (ISBN 7-5005-4301-8) p. 380-381: "乌孙的种属历来说法不一. 汉代学者焦延寿的《焦氏易林》描写说“乌孙氏女，深目黑丑，嗜欲不同. 唐代颜师古为《汉书·西域传》作注时提到“乌孙于西域诸戎．其形最异. 今之胡人青眼赤须状类弥猴者，本其种也”. 前者认为乌孙人是肤色较黑的民族，后者认为乌孙人应为赤发碧服之欧洲人种. 这两种说法虽有所不同，但均认为乌孙与汉人种属相异. 中外学者比较了前苏联中亚地区和我国天山以北地区乌孙时代的人学材料，认为形成乌孙部落的人类学类型的大人种基础是欧洲人种，其中有轻度蒙古人种的混杂. 人类学资料还说明，乌孙人有许多类型，乌孙与天山地区塞人的种族文化同出一源[1]. 魏晋以后，乌孙人遂渐融入铁勒、突厥诸部中. 今天山地区的游牧民族哈萨克、柯尔克孜等民族体内都有乌孙的血缘，所以乌孙不能简单地直接与今天哪个民族挂钩. 有些论著或文章说哈萨克是乌孙后裔，其理由是哈萨克族中有一个“乌孙”部落. 其实哈萨克人中的这个'乌孙'部落来自蒙古许兀慎部(旭申)，与乌孙并无关系[2]." Now I don't wish to keep going on for this discussion forever, I am providing my citation for the quote being interpreted as skin complexion, and it seemed no other source stated otherwise, I am hoping to end this complaining from you. Regards Eiorgiomugini 05:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Eiorgiomugini: thank you for the long quotes. I am sorry you felt that I am complaining. That was not my intention - I am just trying to keep the article accurate. Also, I never intended to infer that the Wusun were a homogeneous group - in fact we know otherwise as the histories tell us that they had elements of the Yuezhi and Xiongnu among them (and there were probably others).

I will accept for now your interpretation that the quote from the Jiaoshi Yilin refers to skin colour. What I do think is that people with blue or green eyes, and red hair or beards could hardly be referred to as being "black" skinned in English. Perhaps "dark" - but not "black." As a matter of fact no human beings have truly black skin, although some people's skin is a dark enough shade of brown that it looks almost black. So, I am taking the liberty of changing black to dark (which is a reasonable translation of 黑).

Oh, I think I should also change "Hindus" to "Indians" as Hindu refers to a religious rather than an ethnic grouping.

I will also make a few very minor grammatical corrections which I hope and trust will not annoy you, but will make the text read more smoothly in English. Yours sincerely, John Hill 07:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear John, is good that now we had a compromise for such matter, I am not actually saying you were complaining, but considered I had a minor edits before you came, I was surpised that you came after and requested for the changes on the quote. Also, I agreed that we should probably changed Hindus to Indians as well as the colour. Regards Eiorgiomugini 07:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Eiorgiomugini: Thank you for your kind words. I think that together we have improved the article. Cheers and best wishes. John Hill 09:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Language
The language of the Wu-sun is totally unknown and subject of speculation. Leading theories are that they spoke Turkic, that they were speakers of Iranian languages and thus related to Scythians and Issedones. Most scholastic sources (The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, The Cambridge History of Iran, etc) do not mention any language, but only explain that they were nomadic and - in terms of lifestyle - similar to other steppe peoples.

Thus, I have removed the reference to the alleged Turkic language from the intro. Although the information is sourced, it is a misleading claim, and selective quoting does not imporove the article. It would take only a minute to find sources claiming that the Wu-sun spoke Iranian, Tibetan, or some other language. Tājik (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

many turkic related articles edited by the user tajik, and usually referances to turkic languge changed with iranian claims. there is a reasonable possibility of wusuns were originally speak an iranian language or at least contained people who spoke iranian. though this is not the problem. the problem is some people sees wikipedia as an intellectual propaganda media for their nationalistic agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.83.175 (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Usun might spoke one of the Altaic language but claiming their language was Turkic is false, an obvious mistake. Usun emerged long before the Turk actually gained power, if they speak Turk they would call them Turk, this is like to say Huns are speaking Turk, which is just ridiculous. Their language might be similar, but that would end with the Turk actually speaking Huns language not vise versa. You can't claim the grandfather is speaking his grandson's language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wusun = Asvin ???
& they were an Indo-European people says Christopher I. Beckwith. (but I don't believe it. They were a Turkic people.) Böri (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

False edit summary
IP 89.204.139.68 removed a reference and referenced information under the false edit summary, "Indo-european theory is not in the source". Yet, the source clearly states, "Seven years later he was sent on another mission, this time to the Wusun, another Indo-European people living in the Ili River valley north of the Tarim Basin". I would like an explanation from IP 89.204.139.68 why he clearly removed referenced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

On Mongolian Theory
This theory is high possibly minorities'(or fringe?) opinions. There is a two referance in the article but they do not give a so much clue except a few words. 1st source ("Asian mythologies" compiled by Yves Bonnefoy) just said: "...The oldest proto-mongolian people seem to have appeared in the first century A.D. among them are Wusun, though some believe that these were Indo-europeans..." and the second one (The Khazaks by Martha Brill Olcott) is more unclear: "In the period 300-200 B.C., the Sacae were gradually overrun by the Usun, a group of allied tribes of pastoral nomads who were Turkic speaking but of Mongolian stock.(?)" what is that mean exactly? If there any certain sources supporting this theory, must be add. Otherwise it should be removed.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
The past few days have seen massive WP:Edit warring on this page. None of the parties have even attempted to discuss their differences here at the talk page or to reach consensus. Edit warring is against Wikipedia policy and can result in the warring editors to be blocked from editing at Wikipedia. If you have a disagreement with another editor, you must NOT keep reverting each other. You must come to the talk page and work out your differences in a civil manner.

Also, you must not accuse each other of sockpuppetry here at talk page, or in edit summaries. That amounts to a personal attack. Allegations of sockpuppetry may only be made at WP:SPI.

I have locked (fully protected) the page for 24 hours, and I have reverted it to the last stable version before the edit warring began. The purpose of the full protection is twofold: to stop the edit warring, and to get the warring parties to come to the talk page with their differences. If edit warring resumes, I or other administrators will lock it again. --MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments
Significant parts of this article has been added by User:Hirabutor, User:Radosfrester and User:Poikdiyma. All these three users are confirmed socks of User:Tirgil34, who has been promoting turanist fringe theories on Wikipedia for years under numerous socks. In accordance with CSD G5, articles and edits by socks are qualified for speedy deletion. Tirgil34's edits on Wusun are in addition WP:Disruptive in several ways:

1. Fringe theories: In June 2014, Tirgil34's sock Poikdiyama made major changes to the article. Among the changes was that "The Wusun were divided into two groups, the Kangly, many of whom were sedentary farmers, who lived in the Karatau region and along the middle course of the Syr Sarya, and the Alani, who migrated from the northern shores of the Aral Sea to the northern banks of the Caspian Sea.." This quote actually comes from a book published by Hoover Press of Martha Brill Olcott (who is however a political scientist, and not a linguist or historian). A quick click at the Kangly link on the other hand shows that Kangly first appeared in history during the Middle Ages (a millenium later) as a branch of the Oghuz Turks, making it impossible for them to have been a branch of the Wusun, thus amunting to fringe theory. The claim that the Alans were a subroup of the Wusun is likewise not mentioned at all in their respective article on WP.

From the same source Pokdiyama also promotes the claim the Wusun spoke a Proto-Mongolic language, which he inserts right into the lead along with mainstream theories although the Proto-Mongolic claim has not been suggested by a single notable linguist. In addition, Poikdiyama inserts another claim the Wusun spoke an Altaic language. As the Altaic languages is only a proposed language family, according to WP widely discredited, it is improper to place in the lead like that. From the snippet used as reference one can read that the same source claims that the Yuezhi were Altaic-speaking, which is in clear opposition to the view of the mainstream scientific community, thus amounting to fringe theory.

2. Severe misrepresentation of sources: To promote the Turkishness of the Wusun, Pokdiyma refers to several sources, most of which are not easily accessible and many which are not in English. The most prominent expert referred to in these sources is Denis Sinor, who was one of the world's leading scholars on Central Asian history for more than half a century. Poikdiyma specifically quotes Sinor's work "The legendary Origin of the Türks". He does not provide a link to this text, but i have discovered that it can be read at Aspects of Altaic Civilization III and Studies in Medieval Inner Asia, both edited by Sinor. Not only is the claim of a Turkish origin of the Wusun absent from Sinor's article, but he is actually of the opposite opinion: "... it seems likely, the Wu-sun were an Indo-European, perhaps Iranian people." This is a very serious misrepresentation of sources, which is a clear example of disruptive editing.

Recently i've been making an effort to clear this article of these disruptive edits by Tirgil34. In addition i've been adding numerous citations from various distinguished scholars to give equal weight to various mainstream opinions, including from sinologists Edwin G. Pulleyblank, Michael Loewe, Edward L. Shaughnessy, Victor H. Mair, turkologists Peter B. Golden and Carter V. Findley, archaeologist Elena Kuzmina, Central Asian scholars Denis Sinor and Christopher I. Beckwith, and institutions like Encyclopedia Britannica and UNESCO. These additions citations have been quickly removed by User:Yagmurlukorfez and the IP's 2a02:908:e620:a260:f836:fbf:6432:6776 and 2a02:908:e620:a260:414f:9801:c8b7:e1b3. A clear example is this this edit by Yagmurlukorfez, where he removes references to the scholars mentioned above and restores Tirgil34s disruptive additions, marking his edit with "POV views fixed". The diff shows he is doing the exact opposite, namely removing reliable sources giving equal weight to various scholarly opinions, while reinserting disruptive pov edits by a sock. Removing extensive reliable content through a fraudulent reason is clearly WP:Vandalism in accordance with Vandalism and WP:Vandalism. The IP's and Yagmurlukorfez later entered ANI, where they embark on a vicious personal attack against me, accusing me of extensive sockpuppetry, vandalism and attributing racist edits to me without evidence. These editors have been engaged in attempts driving away productive editors before, notably succeeding in banning User:Florian Blaschke, who edits under his own name and has an M. A. in Indo-European linguistics, after he broke the WP:3RR rule (according to WP policy he was actually qualified for 3RR exemption) while reverting disruptive edits on the article Kurgan by what was later found to be another Tirgil34 sock, User:Ragdeenorc.

In short, this edit war is about weather disruptive additions by socks belong on Wikipedia or not. Wikipedia policy is very clear on this, see CFD G5. Wusun is just the tip of the ice berg, as Tirgil34's socks have been active on a wide range on related articles. Since he appears to have an almost unlimited access to new IP's and is an extremely tendentious editor, i fear the only solution is the protection his article's of focus, in addition to careful monitoring by administrators to prevent the reupload of his disruptive additions by new socks. Krakkos (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm looking into it. Let me ask you one question: After protecting the article, I reverted to what I identified as the last stable version - IOW, what looked like the version before the edit warring began. In your opinion, is the current version of the article acceptable? --MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The current version still contains most the issues mentioned above. I would recommend restoring to the version established by the experienced neutral editor User:Ian.thomson. Thanks for looking into this. Krakkos (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In fairness, I reverted to your version because your claims that the IP was Tirgil34 seemed fairly obvious after glancing over Tirgil34's SPI archive. I do not have enough prior experience to file a report without trawling through editor histories, however, which is why I'm going to have to pass the buck onto you for filing an SPI (which I recommend if only as a formality).
 * This isn't my usual area, so I'll otherwise be staying out (but will keep it on my watchlist in case any more apparent Tirgil34 socks appear). Since your work was to remove his work, however, I can't speak against your work, and so would have to agree that that version is probably the best to revert to.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI I filed an SPI earlier today. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Why all those sources removed now MelanieN? Is there any consensus on this revision? before the "edit war" this article already has sources about Turkic thoeries and they are gone now. What is the point on this? this action screwed up the article's neutrality. Why did you start the discussion if you don't listen anyone?Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The earlier sources removed had been added by sockpuppets of a blocked user. --MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So what can we do know? Just delete all those sources and opinions? I'm not a sock account of anyone, I personally edited this article but it's still deleting with the reason of "sock edits." If we'll go this way, neutrality template should add to top of the article.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The initial investigation showed no connection between Yagmurlukorfez and the socks. Yagmurlukorfez, I owe you an apology. I would remind you, and the others here, not to resume edit warring and reverting each other. Talk things out here on the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. And my suggestion is still remain. I'm behind the old revision. Wheter that reliable sources given by sock account or not, they still valuable. What am I have to do? Write all those sources manually? With this, those will not consider as sock edit?Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * To set the record straight, the only "contributions" of significance to Wusun made by User:Yagmurlukorfez is reverting edits by me, User:Ian.thomson and earlier the User:TU-nor, while restoring edits made User:Hirabutor, User:Radosfrester and User:Poikdiyma, all socks of User:Tirgil34. In one such edit, which i discussed above, where Yagmurlukorfez removes references to a large number of distinguished scholars and restores Tirgil34s disruptive additions, he games the system through a fraudulent marking "POV views fixed" to push a content blanking without valid reason. This can not be considered a contribution but rather a clear case of WP:Vandalism. The only edit by User:Yagmurlukorfez containing original content is a tiny rewording of the edit earlier made by Poikdiyma (a Tirgil34 sock). This can easily be determined by a look at Wusun's revision history.


 * Regarding the "Turkic theories", these were added in January 2013. None of the sources referred to for this claim are easily accessible, and most of them are not in English. It is likely that these sources were simply copied from somewhere else without any form of WP:Verifiability. The most prominent expert referred to in these sources is Denis Sinor, who was one of the world's leading scholars on Central Asian history for more than half a century. Sinor's work used as a ref is "The legendary Origin of the Türks". As with the other sources, a link is not provided to this text, but i have discovered that it can be read at Aspects of Altaic Civilization III and Studies in Medieval Inner Asia, both edited by Sinor. Not only is the claim of a Turkish origin of the Wusun absent from Sinor's article, but he is actually of the opposite opinion: "... it seems likely, the Wu-sun were an Indo-European, perhaps Iranian people." This is a very serious misrepresentation of sources, which is a clear example of disruptive editing. As the other sources are not verifiable, one should not the exclude the possibility that this source misrepresenation extends beyong those concerning Sinor.


 * Administrators reviewing this dispute should keep in mind that we are dealing with an editor whose sole revisions to the article in question is blatant WP:Vandalism and restoration of WP:DISRUPTIVE edits by WP:SOCKS. Krakkos (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: First you have to close this sock account issue. You can't get anything with that way. This page is not for that and also stop commenting about me. Talk about the article.

On the other hand, you did manipulate the article and painted it as there is a consensus about their Indo-european origins. But there is not. For example this sentence in the language sect is extremely baised:


 * "The Wusun are generally believed to have been an Indo-European-speaking people.[2][3][4][5][6][57][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]"

It is very clear that you are keep adding sources about their Indo-Iranian origins and trying to make heavier this theory.

You also deleted the opposition opinion of Sergei Starostin in the language sect:

"Russian linguist Sergei Starostin assumes a derivation from Proto-Turkic *bāj ("rich, noble; many, numerous"), itself ultimately from a possible Proto-Altaic root *bēǯu ("numerous, great", cf. Old Japanese p(j)iida-/pui-).[72] Within Turkic *bāj ("rich") in turn is probably hard to distinguish from *baj (~ -ń) ("holy; god; true, reliable, honest").[73] In the same way Starostin gives an indigenous Proto-Turkic etymology for "böri".[74] He further excludes the hypothesis of an East Iranian source, basically because of the lack of early attested forms with -k, and vice versa affirms Vasily I. Abaevs elaboration that the East Iranian form itself is most likely borrowed from a Turkic source.[75]"

And your intention wasn't good when you doing this. There is no other explanation. You are only talking about Sinor's "false" ref but you're not talking about the other sources, those are deleted by you:


 * http://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=en&id=iT7YAQAAQBAJ&q=Wusun+Altaic+Turkic&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Wusun%20Altaic%20Turkic&f=false


 * Jean-Paul Roux: Die alttürkische Mythologie, Der Wolf. In: Käthe Uray-Kőhalmi, Jean-Paul Roux, Pertev N. Boratav, Edith Vertes: Götter und Mythen in Zentralasien und Nordeurasien. ISBN 3-12-909870-4, p. 204
 * Jila, N., "Myths and traditional beliefs about the wolf and the crow in Central Asia: examples from the Turkic Wu-Sun and the Mongols", Asian Folklore Studies, V65, i2, p161, 2006.

and etc...
 * Asian Mythologies. University of Chicago Press, 1993. page 315.

can you falsify all those sources too? Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm wasting my time by explaining this over and over again as i'm sensing a WP:ICANTHEARYOU, but i'll try to make it simple:


 * 1. You're the one who started talking about yourself by stating above that "I'm behind the old revision", complaining about how "your" edits were being removed. I was thus compelled to expose that fact that your only revisions of note to this article are the restoration of disruptive edits by Tirgil34's socks and vandalistic content blanking without valid reason through gaming the system. (see explanation above)


 * 2. The reference to the controversial linguist Sergei Starostin was added by Radosfrester, a blocked sock of Tirgil34. Edits by blocked socks are qualified for speedy deletion in accordance with CFD G5.


 * 3. This WP:POV snippet "" listed by you was first added by User:Poikdiyma, also a blocked sock of Tirgil34. CFD G5 applies to this case as well.


 * 4. The other sources you mention here were all added together with the Denis Sinor source which was completely misrepresented, as i've explained above. It is therefore likely that these sources, which are not easily accessible and many of which are not in English, were misrepresented too, making them unreliable. It seems that all these sources were simply transferred without verification from the German version, where Tirgil34 has made substantial edits through his master account and his confirmed sock User:Maikolaser.


 * This discussion seems to be getting nowhere as you are clearly exhibiting a refusal to get the point. Krakkos (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I am interested in the topic and I read something on the subject. My impression is that the article should strive for objectivity and give a balanced view. It is certainly possible that the Wusun might have spoken some kind of Proto-Turkic or Proto-Tungusic language. This view is supported by numerous scholars from different countries and as such should be mentioned. The scholars cited above Starostin, Roux and Jila are all serious and respected ones, their works are easily accessible and can certainly be quoted along with others.Aldrasto11 (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your recent contributions to this article. I agree with you that every article should strive for objectivity, and Starostin, Roux and Jila are of course serious scholars. Denis Sinor is also a respected scholar, but his work was used together with that of Roux and Jila by a banned user to promote a claim which was shown to be a severe misrepresentation of sources, as illustrated above. It is certainly possible that the Wusun could have spoken any language, as pretty much nothing is known of their linguistic affinity, but since the Indo-European theory is the most prominent it should be given the most prominent weight on Wikipedia as per WP:UNDUE. Krakkos (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes it is the most prominent but not the only one and I think WP readers must be allowed to have the correct picture so that they may form their own opinions based upon the broadest range of views from reputable scholars. Now the article as it stands is in this respect deficient.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Aldrasto11 Thanks, I agree. That was my point too.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Language again
Currently the article starts like this:

"The Wusun are generally believed to have been an Indo-Aryan-speaking people.[48][49][50][51] They are thought to be Iranian-speaking by the archaeologist Elena Kuzmina,[52] linguist János Harmatta,[53] Joseph Kitagawa,[54] David Durand-Guédy,[55] Turkologist Peter B. Golden[56][57] and Central Asian scholar Denis Sinor.[21][58] That the Wusun were Iranian-speakers is supported by archaeological evidence.[59]"

First: Has nobody noticed that the first sentence flat-out contradicts the next two?

Second, the Russian article starts out by calling the Wusun people "of Indo-Iranian [6 references] or Turkic [12 references] origin". Somebody who has time to spare should take a look at those references. David Marjanović (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you rewrite this section and solve its issues? --Wario-Man (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)