Talk:Xionites

message: The Xionite article should be divided into eras and the Kidarite period should be mentioned here briefly before the Alchon era. Any better suggestions? Kaz 21:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Alchon]]

message: Your version is misleading, and your sources are not reliable. One of the links is dead , the other 2 are not scholarly works. I checked the following link. In no way does it favour your version that the Chionites were "Huns" (which you believe to be the same as "Turk"). In fact, it even contradicts it, based on historical sources:
*"... We are ignorant of the situation of the Vertae and Chionites, but I am inclined to place them (at least the latter) towards the confines of India and Scythia ..."Ammian. xvi. 9, quoted by Edward Gibbon
So far, the quotes from Encyclopaedia Iranica are authoritative, because Iranica is a primary reference:
*"... On the northeastern front, the Chionites (q.v.), a Hunnic people who by the early fourth century had mixed with north Iranian elements in Transoxiana and adopted the Kushan-Bactrian language, threatened Persia. ..." Iranica
So, the Chionites had indeed adopted the Bactrian language. The word "Hunnic" in this article has a different meaning than the definition given in Wikipedia. Iranica makes clear:
*"... According to Göbl, Iran and India underwent several successive invasions by clearly distinct tribes, whom he referred to collectively as "Iranian Huns." They apparently had no connection with the European Huns, but may have been causally related with their movement. A prominent characteristic, which they shared with all other Central Asian power constellations, was their ethnic mixture, among which the elite was said to be Iranian, or at least expressed itself as such through its coinage (Göbl, 1978, p. 107). It is noteworthy that the tribes in question deliberately called themselves "Huns" in order to frighten their enemies (Frye, pp. 345-46) ...". Iranica
You are - once again - purposely ignoring and rejecting major sources in favour of non-scholarly, non-reliable, and obscure web-sites like this one (which you have presented as a "major source" in the article in order to contradict scholarly sources). 
Tājik 13:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The claims above are simply not correct. Especially, the authoritativeness of iranica is not true. It's not a holly book. The Euroasian nomads related topics are generally controversial, one cannot push a view such as "...there seems to be a consensus among modern scholars...". This is just a POV push. If there exists a consensus why different sources claiming different views? or Who are the modern scholars? What is the definition of a modern scholar? According to Tajik, the ones supporting his pov are modern scholars and the others are pan-x-ists. The links are working, anyways, i'll make some direct quations from the sources below.
 
The History of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol.II
by Edward Gibbon '''
Part 6 out of 16:
"The Vertae are still unknown. It is possible that the Chionites are the same as the Huns. These people were already known; and we find from Armenian authors that they were making,
at this period, incursions into Asia. They were often at war
with the Persians. The name was perhaps pronounced differently
in the East and in the West, and this prevents us from
recognizing it."
On the Greek Sources for the History of the Turks in the Sixth Century, by Carlile Aylmer Macartney
Quotation:The nation can hardly be other than that which appears in the fourth century, under the name of Chionite, in the steppes on the north-west frontier of Persia. These Chionites were probably a branch of the Huns, the other branch of which afterwards appeared in Europe, the latter appear to have attacked and conquered by the Alans, then living between Urals and the Volga about A.D.360, while the first mention of the Chionites is dated A.D.356. In the fifth century the name is replaced by that of the Kusan or of the Kidarite Huns, who are clearly identical with the Kusan...
As clearly seen from the quotations above, it's probable that Chionites is of Hunnic origin. 
*Tajik is misrepresenting the issue, ignoring the ones in any case countering his pov, calling them as being nonsense. As he already confessed above, even the terminology of iranica is confusing. Sorry, Tajik, it's impossible to accept iranica as a holly book. It's a good reference but not the only one. Regards. E104421 11:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you misunderstand and misinterprete is the term "Hunnic". It is not a name given to a specific ethnic group, it is a general term for a whole bunch of unrelated peoples who appeared to have the same way of life. The "Huns" were conglomeration of different peoples - Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, even Chinese - who were nomadic horsemen and posed a continious threat to settled populations of the "civilized" Persian, Chinese, and European worlds. So, saying that the Chionetes were "Hunnic" does in no means contradict the statement that they were most likely (and this is what modern scholars believe) of East Iranian origin (at least their ruling and dominant elite). Tājik 11:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ao, please up to reaching a compromise, do not revert the article. --Pejman47 23:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * Pejman47, please check the references i provided. They are from your favorite source iranica. Regards. E104421 23:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *To Pejman47, again. Please read the discussion above again. I just restored the deleted sources, i provided above. If you have any objection, please state here before reverting blindly. Regards. E104421 00:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a dead link to a website.  Also Gibbon is from around 200 years ago! So I removed him as well as it is outdated source. We should follow modern sources.  The other two sources need to be cited more properly with date and pages.  I am wondering what Bailey says (he is a good source). Also "white Huns", "red Huns" and etc. as Tajik pointed are just ancient designations but not necessarily the modern scholarly perspective.  The designation Hun used by ancient Greek authors is too general and it is up to modern scholars to discuss and examine the sources.  The coinage is one of the best sources we now posses from around that era. Note one of the sources: According to Göbl, Iran and India underwent several successive invasions by clearly distinct tribes, whom he referred to collectively as "Iranian Huns." They apparently had no connection with the European Huns, but may have been causally related with their movement.  So this source is more up to date than Carlile Aylmer Macartney.  That just leaves Bailey and it would be good to have the exact quote.  If you have any sources from the last 20 years from a scholarly perspective, please bring it.  That is the source should examine the origin and not be interpreted.  That is wikipedia guidelines allows only scholars to for example interpret Greek sources and not any Wiki-users.  I'll await the Bailey quote and the other quote.  Note the ancient Greek designation should be put in another sentence.--alidoostzadeh 09:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also removed the connection with Hephatlite since it was based on much older writing of Frye while Frye in 1991 has considered the two groups separate.  The reason is given by Professor Wolfgang Felix .  I think the article should reflect the modern assessment of Wolfgang Felix.  --alidoostzadeh 10:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Ali, i checked the Bailey link and its working, if you have question, i'll make direct quotation on Monday. The Ephtalites connection is an open question, cause not much known on the languages of Chionites and Ephtalites. For this reason, better to put the leading sentence again. I still in favor of mentioning all the sources, cause each source has a value. Surely, upto date ones are better, but without any falsification, keeping one in favor of the other is not an academical way. I'll reply in detail soon. Regards. E104421 12:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had this discussion before in Hephatiles if you recall.  Sekandarjee put his input.  If you look at the modern source they are not 100% but they do say "probably" or "most probably" with regards to Chionies and Hephtalies.  One of the results of that discussion was to have modern sources and I mean modern from at least the last 20 years or so.  Actually Bailey (which is an old source) works only if you are in the university.  You can e-mail me the file if you wish or I can look at the article.  We can not keep a source from 200 years ago.  That is unacceptable for any encyclopedia when modern references have much more updated research with regards to a topic. I await the Bailey quote.  Macartney is also outdated it seems because recent scholars dismiss any connection with European huns.  It is from 1944.  Much research has been done since then.  The only reason I am keeping her is because of Bailey.   But Bailey is from 1933.  He seems to be describing the Bahman Yasht.  Note that in general the non-Zoroastrian Iranian tribes were not considered Iranians but were considered Turanians (weather they were Iranian speaking or not).  Bahman Yasht is a old Pahlavi manuscript written down somewhere rom the 9th-10 century.  We can not put our interpretation of ancient sources in Wikipedia.  The only connection of the Chionites with Huns (a general designation for many nomadic groups in Greek sources) is simply the designation.  But we need to take scholars of the last 20 years seriously and give them precedence and the lead sentence.  And again 200 years ago (Gibbon) is absolutely not acceptable.  Bailey (1932) and Macartney (1944) are not really acceptable sources.  The article from Wolfgang Felix is from 2004 and that of Frye is from 1991.  The article from Wolfgang Felix specially updates many of the facts that were not known 200 years ago, and even 60 years ago.  It is the only article right now that is devoted to the Xionites.  That is the Xionites are not a footnote of his article/book.  It is also updated (2004).  So please provided some modern references.  For now I am r.v.'ing back to my edit and the 200 year ago source had to go.  But if we can not get anything from 20 years ago about them being related to the huns (hunnic origin)(European Huns) with the exception of the Greek designation (which we can mention that the Greek authors gave them the designation Huns in their work), then the scholars that of modern times should have their ideas inserted.  See the part about the coin reading.--alidoostzadeh 16:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Ali, you not only deleted the cited references but also the direct quation from R.N.Frye. Your version is just reflecting the half of his sentence and misrepresenting his statement. For this reason, i quoted directly in his own words on Chionites. For the Gibbons reference, alright, it's rather old. I just cited it, cause it's a famous book and available on the internet. On the other hand, i'm still wondering your recentliness issue. If a statement is not falsified, it preserves it's validity. This is the academical way. You cannot prove anything by claiming that the other is not recent. In addition, my latest version (except the accidentally added Gibbons) is neutral and informative, cause it's directly reflects R.N.Frye's opinion on the subject. Regards. E104421 15:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is false (from 200 years ago) and contradicts modern sources.  Also you misquoted Bailey.  Bailey says: xyon. This name is familiar in Pahlavi and Avestan texts.
It would appear to be a name of an enemy of the Iranian people in Avestan times, transferred later to the Huns owing to similarity of sound, as Tur was adapted to Turk in Pahlavi. Herzfeld has read.  So Bailey does not say they were Huns of later times.   --alidoostzadeh 16:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay my friend.  I was left with no choice but to state the statements as the sources have it and in chronological order (given the wide gap between 2004 and 1944 of course 2004 should take precedence).  Bailey does not say they were Hunish, he is saying their name was adopted by later Huns.  Also  Macartney seems to be trying to connect Kermichiones in Greek sources with the Pahlavi word.  But nothing about origin.  Thus I do not consider these sources as saying they were related to later Hunnic waves.  I also removed the statement about them and Ephtalites being the same(this was an earlier mistake by some scholars) but since Frye in 1991 seems to have been aware that they were different.  I still think the 1944 Macartney article is irrelavent given the 2004 article of Wolfgang Felix.  We are talking about 60 years of progress in scholarship and this should be reflected.  Thus for now I left the dates of article so that the average user is aware of this progress (and this progress occured because of better reading of some coins from the era although we do not have any coins from Chionites themselves as of yet).  --alidoostzadeh 16:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *I expanded the quotations and added an introduction paragraph to the origins section. I hope that's alright for that section. On the other hand, the W. Felix article was dated 1992 not 2004. That's probably because the Encyclopedia Iranica publishes still the same versions of the articles in later editions. So, the upto-date-ness of Iranica is not correct, since the newest editions are just the reproduction of the older ones just as in the W. Felix article. Regards. E104421 11:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay will have to check date.  But :Many theories discussed, the Iranic, Hunnic and Turkic theories are the most prominent ones. is OR.  I think the sources will let the discussion flow, since Hun is a general name..  --alidoostzadeh 12:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yes, Huns are a confederation, a general name. On the other hand, the sources indicates these links, so they are not OR. Regards. E104421 12:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually none of the sources say they were Turkic.  It is just Bahman Yasht (which is written somewhere in the 9th century ad) which identifies three groups of Xyons."Diviosions of this people seem to be recognized, the Xyon with the Turks, the Karmir Xyon, and the White Xyon."  Thus that is not Bailey's opinion (we need modern scholarly opinion) but just his interpretation of Bahman Yasht and he mentions that the name was transfered.  The other source about Hun is also old (1944) and is not direct.  Thus we are left with Frye and Felix. That is why we can not have equal weight for all three theories since the more trend seems to be identifying these groups with Iranians and that is why Felix says "probably Iranian" and Frye says "Bulk was Iranian".  So I think we should not add our statement and it is up to scholars to give their weight on the matter.  In this case while Felix acknowledges the complexity of the issue, he goes with probably Iranian.  So if anything, if we are to synthetize a sentence we should mention this.  --alidoostzadeh 02:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: the reason is that we have white Huns (Hephtalites), Chionites (possibly red huns), European Huns (These were Atila and mainly Altaic), Xiongu.  I got the UNESCO book, but they do not discuss origin of Chionites/Hephtalites and say it is uncertain.  --alidoostzadeh 18:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I made some changes to .  If you have hard time getting the UNESCO let me know..I have scanned few pages on Sassanid, Hephtalites, Chionites and Seljuqs as well.  You can if you want send me an E-mail and I'll send it to you.  Take care--alidoostzadeh 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  we need DA page 

message: Isn't Chionites the more common orthography? Most quoted sources use Chionites, making the article a bit awkward to read. Why not change it to Chionites?--Joostik (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Xionites or Chionites

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rong_people   the same people? Böri (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rong (Jung) 

message: Here no problems are present except for Pan-Turkstic. All time one and too. Iranians do fine pages, Turks come and they Turks " finish to available clauses " were, they are Turks " and refer to the terminated idiots. Whom do they wish to deceive?To that to these Turks of Anatolia to not undertake хза the valid interesting employment - once and for all having refused from Turks to recognize itself as Hurrians. Turks actually passed to Turkic language Hurrians and Hattians--89.221.200.219 (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panturkistic Problems 

message: This article and the related articles on the Kidarites (which is marginally better) and the Hephthalites are total disasters. Some information go back to the 1930's, and then a set of quite unsubstantiated modern claims. The study of the "Iranische Hunnen" (as Goebl called them) is now quite a bit more advanced thanks to numismatics, archaeology, epigraphy, and the publication of the newly discovered Bactrian documents. The whole thing needs to be wiped off and re-written. I am working on this period for my PhD dissertation and I just thought of checking to see what is out there, and I am getting a headache! This is my field, but I will not call myself an expert, but if someone wants to start writing a proper entry, I can point them out to some sources and new articles. --Khodadad (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-all disaster 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Xionites. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071013231126/http://starnarcosis.net/obsidian/siberia.html to http://starnarcosis.net/obsidian/siberia.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This entire section ("Alchon") is WP:Dubious and WP:Fringe. There is some evidence suggesting that the Avars or Varchonites (of Eastern Europe) resulted from merger of the Uar and Xionites.
But there is no consensus or compelling evidence (in terms of WP:RS) that I can see for the following assertions:
* "Khingila I united the Uar with the Xionites"
* Khingila led a "Hephthalite ruling élite" 
* Alchon = Uar
* Alchon = Xionites
* the Alchon or Xionites were closely connected to the Pannonian Avars
to name but a few issues.
Grant | Talk 07:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on [[Xionites#Alchon|Alchon]] is [[WP:Dubious]] 

message: Why have this disastrous article alongside Hunas? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wdym? This article needs some love indeed, but Xionites/Chionites appear in a lot of sources. Some good sources to start with would be ReOrienting the Sasanians: East Iran in Late Antiquity and Chionite Rulers of Chach in the Middle of the Fourth to the Beginning of the Seventh Century (According to the Data of Numismatics). --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments