Talk:Modu Chanyu

message: Oguz Khan redirects here but it shouldn't. Oğuz kağan is alagendary figure like King Arthur. There are suggestions that this legend takes its origins from life of Tanrıkut Mete of Huns (Mo-tun Shanyu of Xiangnu or whatever) which is possibly corect but legend of Oguz Khan should be a separete article.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.187.215 (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The story of Oğuz Han is completely paralel to the life of Mete Han. But I do agree that they should have seperate articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.228.7.198 (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Corrected.--Joostik (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oghuz Khan 

message: Modu Shanyu, and the artificially imagined heroic statue-image of Modu Chanyu (located in Sogut, Turkey) should be removed from Project Turkey as the Xiongnu have nothing to do with Turks. They are a group of steppe people who appeared much earlier in history before the Gokturks, Mongols (Khitans, Jurchens, etc.) and Manchus. 
I removed the word Khan from the text as Xiongnu did not have khans, and this word is not mentioned in any Chinese sources that I have read.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.20.120.78 (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Modu Chanyu

message: I will go through the article and change the title 'Shanyu' to 'Chanyu' throughout (except in quotes). The reason is that the Guangyun, a dictionary compiled in 601 CE by Lu Fayan, and completed during the Song dynasty, gives three readings for the first character of this title [i.e. Chanyu]: dan, chan, and shan. The form chan is specifically mentioned as being used in the Xiongnu title Chanyu. The reading shan is used as a place or family name; the reading dan means 'single' or 'alone.' Also see, for example: "Early Chinese Settlement Policies towards the Nomads." Pan Yihong. Asia Major, 3rd series, Vol. V, Part 2, (1992), p. 42, n. 2; Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese and Early Mandarin, p. 48. (1991). Edwin G. Pulleyblank. UBC Press. Vancouver; Indo-Scythian Studies being Khotanese Texts Volume VII, p. 32. H. W. Bailey. Cambridge University Press. John Hill (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Chanyu]] is preferable to [[Shanyu]]

message: I am planning to go through this article and make a number of changes so I thought I should first explain the reasons I am doing so, and the broad outline of what I am attempting to do. 1. First a lot of speculation has crept into the article. The only historical evidence we have about this great early leader of the Xiongnu people is from the Chinese sources - anything else is speculation (and there are a number of mutually contradictory points of view - with little agreement between scholars). So, as this is meant to be a general encyclopedia article (not containing original research) I believe we should stick closely to the accounts given in the Chinese histories and anything more should be clearly identified as speculation. The same may be said regarding the relationships and language(s) of the Xiongnu people(s).
2. Claims and identifications have been made without proper references being made. Unless there is a good reason for keeping them, or unless I can find good references to back them up, I shall delete them.
3. I will use the Pinyin system of romanisation throughout, as this is now the most common and widespread system of romanising Chinese.
4. The article is badly in need of proper referencing and I will try to begin this task, starting with references to (translations of) the original Chinese texts, which are our only known sources of information about Modu.
I hope readers will take my edits for what they are, sincere attempts to improve this article, and that I don't upset too many people in the process - but, if you disagree with any of my edits - please let me know on this page and we can discuss the pros and con (I am always open to criticism as I am, like everyone else, prone to making mistakes). Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More changes to this article

message: User 62.248.42.19 from Bursa in Turkey has again inserted these "names" for Modu. The fact is these are, I believe, later suggested possible reconstructions of Modu's name. As far as I know, they do not occur in any early documents or historical sources. Christopher I. Beckwith, in his recent book Empires of the Silk Road, p. 387, n. 8, discusses the possible origins of Modu's name: "It has not been identified, but as some have suggested, the Old Chinese pronunciation appears to represent a foreign *baγtur. a relative of the later-attested Central Eurasian culture word baγatur 'hero'. The etymology of the word is unknown, though the first syllable is very likely the Iranian word *baγ 'god, lord', an element in many later Central Eurasian titles."
I will, therefore, add a note on this possibility to the article, but I have no idea where "Mete" comes from. If User 62.248.42.19 still wishes to have this name included in the article for Modu, would s/he please give their reasons and valid references before inserting it again - I would be happy to discuss this further here. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore any mention of "Mete Han, Khan" or anything else. These are only Turkish nationalists trying to rewrite other people's histories and their own as well. Modu Chanyu was not a Khan. He was not a Turk either. Any further insertion of such names will continue to be removed. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If this issue is such a source of conflict, then there certainly are scholarly material available that talks about this chanyu from the Turkish viewpoint. In the interest of a neutral point of view, those "Turkish nationalist" views will need to be noted. For the moment, please leave the picture alone as I was only attempting to provide a depiction of him as a person, not just the lands he conquered (and that depiction I did not remove, I only shifted it to a more relevant section). Cheers. _dk (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is nothing from the "Turkish point of view" since Turks did not come from Huns, nor are they Huns themselves. They have no records about Modu Chanyu aside from what was written by Chinese.--Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you deny that the Turks came from the Huns? In the inscriptions of the Göktürk state, they base their roots on the Huns. Yasincansahin (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Mete, Batur, Bahadır

message: I removed the bit about the Yeniseian language theory for the following reason.  The line provides no information regarding the name Modu.  Instead, the line creates the implication that Modu Chanyu was Yeniseian yet the citation doesn't exactly support that supposition.  Vovin's short article analyzes a phrase in the Jie language then extends that to all of the Xiongnu tribes in the conclusion without much support to make that leap.  First off, steppe confederations tend to follow a pattern of multi-ethnic conglomerations so the extension is difficult to make.  At best we can say that the Jie, a member tribe of the Xiongnu, were Yeniseian.  Secondly, personal names frequently cross ethnic boundaries.  It is still possible that Modu Chanyu was Yeniseian but carried a Turkic name.  Or he was Turkic and the Jie alone spoke a Yeniseian language.  But now we're getting outside of the scope of the article!  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible synthesis with the line about Yeniseian 

message: An image used in this article, File:Mete Han2.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mete Han2.JPG)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Mete Han2.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: IP has falsified the referenced content, from the source:
*8. Th e name Mo- tun 􀝦􄷧 NMan mòdùn is in MChi ✩m􀅩k (Pul. 217–218) -✩ tw􀅩n3
(Pul. 84). It has not been identified, but as some have suggested, the Old Chinese
pronunciation appears to represent a foreign *baγtur, a relative of the
later- attested Central Eurasian culture word baγatur ‘hero’. The etymology of
the word is unknown, though the first syllable is very likely the Iranian word baγ ‘god, lord’, an element in many later Central Eurasian titles. Mo- tun is
presented as the found er hero in the story given in the Chinese sources, but he
was actually the son of the found er (*Tumen). He was skilled with horses and
the bow, the king (*Tumen) and his favored son attempted to use a stratagem to
have him murdered, the prince was warned in time and miraculously escaped,
he acquired a personal bodyguard of courageous warriors, and finally he attacked
and killed the evil king and established a righteous and prosperous
kingdom.''
*Source: Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present, page 387. --Zyma (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beckwith 

message: Mete-han needs to be added to his name next to Modu Chanyu because he is Turkic origin and considered one of the ancestors of Turks. Also this has to be mentioned. I want to edit this article and add Turkic information in related parts. Metinemre2 (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Train2104 (t • c) 16:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2017 

message: Modun Chanyu's turkish name is Mete khan, Xiongnu Empire are a confederate state. The Chinese cannot claim the Xiongnu Empire And Mete Khan and his father Tuman are Turk! http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=The_Xiong_Nu_Empire
Analysis of skeletal remains in Mongolia: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180365/ 88.238.197.89 (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mete Khan 

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 13:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Modun Chanyu →  – This was a move by Erminwin, without a request. However we can  see that Modun Chanyu is not used in English. It might be correct in foreign languages, but per WP:COMMONNAME this should be moved back to Modu Chanyu. Beshogur (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 February 2022 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion