Talk:Hephthalites

message: A discussion to work-up (or have) whether Dr. Kurbanov is "worthy of trust" on "History and Study of the Hephthalites (Hephthalite Empire)" has been initiated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard -> AYDOGDY KURBANOV on History and Study of the Hephthalites (Hephthalite Empire) And, to neutrally have a firm decision on whether the source ( www.diss.fu-berlin.de/diss/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/FUDISS_derivate_000000007165/01_Text.pdf ) can be cited in the concerned WP Articles. Please note that at the present moment, this very source ( www.diss.fu-berlin.de/diss/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/FUDISS_derivate_000000007165/01_Text.pdf ) is cited as much as 6 times in this WP Article. Comments are Welcome :) ← Abstruce 18:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  AYDOGDY KURBANOV on History and Study of the Hephthalites (Hephthalite Empire) 

message: This part is in shambles, at the moment. I think it would be best to, first of all state, what all the primary (anceint) sources say on the arrival of the Hephthalites, and then also then state what modern scholars favour/ interpret. I think that is the only way of dealing with what is otherwise a very mysterious origo gentis. TO be done soon . . . Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins section 

message: The article on Uar should be merged into this one, becuase it should not even exist. Simply, there is no scholarly concensus that the middle Chinese translation of Hua is even Var !! Whatever the case, the Hua were a subset of the Hephthalites, and having a separate article is redundant, duplicating and pointless. The uar article is moreover mostly of a stub quality. Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Uar (tribe) seems to have been merged here by now, but then the article currently does not contain the term "Uar" at all. Should be at least explained somewhere. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 13:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: If right Iranian category, must right Turkic category. Erim Turukku (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: not unreasonable , although there were likely many different languages spoken in this vast, diverse region Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  pseudo avars, varangians, sardinians and macedonians, share the same genetic makeup of mostly paleobalcan i2a2 genome. so they cant be turkic. maybe turuk, tocharians or thracians are of macedonian origin? it is interesting because turks have indo-european genes, but their language is not indo-european. how come? 85.30.66.73 (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

text: For the same reason that language classification has absolutely nothing to do with biological genetics. 104.169.35.251 (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkic categorization 

message: According to Procopius of Caesarea, Hephthalites lifed in cities  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.244.39.199 (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomadic empire ?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hephthalite Empire. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20071215083628/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/search/searchpdf.isc?ReqStrPDFPath=%2Fhome%2Firanica%2Fpublic_html%2Fnewsite%2Fpdfarticles%2Fv5_articles%2Fcentral_asia%2Fpre-islamic_times&OptStrLogFile=%2Fhome%2Firanica%2Fpublic_html%2Fnewsite%2Flogs%2Fpdfdownload.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/search/searchpdf.isc?ReqStrPDFPath=%2Fhome%2Firanica%2Fpublic_html%2Fnewsite%2Fpdfarticles%2Fv5_articles%2Fcentral_asia%2Fpre-islamic_times&OptStrLogFile=%2Fhome%2Firanica%2Fpublic_html%2Fnewsite%2Flogs%2Fpdfdownload.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/hephthalites.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dont remove Afghanistan tempalte. Infact the only related template is the Afgghan one. Why would you remove that?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.199.161 (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan 

message: *Category:Huns
**Article says: "... All of these peoples have often been linked to the Huns who invaded Eastern Europe during the same period, and/or have been referred to as "Huns", but there is no consensus among scholars about such a connection." Is it right to call Hephthalites Huns?
*Category:Iranian empires | Category:Historical Iranian peoples | Category:Iranian nomads
**When the origin of Hephthalites is uncertain, should we us such categories?
*Category:Sogdians
**Is there any source that calls Hephthalites Sogdian? How they fit in "Sogdians" category? Per what?
 Your opinion? --Wario-Man (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Also pinging . I think saying "there is no consensus among scholars about such a connection" is incorrect. At the very least, almost everyone seems to agree that all these groups used the name Hun. Whether they were "genetically" related is another, and, frankly, somewhat old-fashioned and racialist way of looking at things. I can't speak to the Sogdians bit though.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The main issue is Category:Huns = Huns (only Attila's Huns) OR Category:Huns = Any historical group that named Hun. If you remember, this was the reason why I excluded the other Huns (XYZ Huns) from Template:Huns. Can we say Hun is an umbrella term like Scythian? For the Iranian categories, I'm neutral about them. But when we add such categories to people with uncertain origins, stuff like this happens. That user is a sockpoppet of User:Joohnny braavoo1 and that sockmaster is well-known for his "make everything Turkic" quest/agenda (He always tries to represent non-Turkic peoples as Turkic). But another editor may come here and tries to add Turkic-related categories per current cited references. For the Sogdians category, I suggest removing it. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ermenrich, if we really do not go into debates of genetic origin, they belonged to the Huns, I'd tend to support it as an umbrella category, nevertheless I don't agree of the removal of it. The connection to Sogdians is only that the Hephtalites conquered their land, thus that category should be deleted, along with the Iranian categories that are widely put openly to such groups/peoples of uncertain origin or heritage in case their ancient history overlaps of the territory of the present-day or historically undoubtful Iranian/Persian countries/entities.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care about outdated racial classifications. And genetic data have their own story but they have nothing to do with this discussion/topic. As I said, my main concern is about the usage of term Hun/Huns. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Agree with Wikaviani. I'd also like to note that there is at least a slight difference in the usage of Huns vs. Scythians/Sarmatian: whereas (ancient) people tended to call unrelated groups by that name, Hun appears likely to have been an endonym used by the ruling elites of these tribal groupings themselves (although I guess that's not a universally held belief). This excludes people like the Sabirs and basically anyone called a Hun after the fiftth century though, except maybe the North Caucasian Huns.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

text: OK. So should we add these XYZ Huns to Template:Huns? If the answer is yes, what label do you suggest for "group" (parameter)? I think "Other Huns" or "Other Hunnic peoples" is a good choice. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Other Hunnic Peoples" would be a good choice, though I'm sure we'll have to police it to keep people from adding Bulgars and Sabirs, etc.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

text:  , it's relevant to add these Huns to Template:Huns, per the above comments. Any of your two proposals sounds good. However, an exclusive Turk origin is dismissed by Encyclopedia Iranica. Rather, it seems that they were of mixed origins while being culturally Iranians.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Last I checked the leading theory was that the Hepthaltites were most likely related to a former vassal of the Rouran called the Hua, not the Xiongnu. The Kidarites were Xiongnu. And certainly there were Xiongnu in the Hepthaltites, but their ruling body was different.MMFA (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rewriting this article and especially rewriting and summarizing Hephthalites#Origins will be very helpful for our readers. Current revision looks like a mess and it is confusing. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable categories 

message: In hebrew Naftali is also pronounced with an 'E' instead of an 'A', they are belived to have become a tribe in central asia, they were talking aramaic and iranian languages, as modern hebrew back then was aramaic and it fits with their culture and differences. Any scientific opinion on this. Ilanohsky (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hephtalites = Naftali ? 

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) 23:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: * Category:Iranian countries and territories, Category:Historical Iranian peoples, Category:Iranian nomads
Should be neutralized just like Huns and some other similar articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  We better remove these categories 

message: User:Kami2018 I have given you clear reasons for the removal, your edit wars wont bring you anywhere. The part which I removed was a part about Rajputs having Hephtalite origins, however the basis for that theory, per the sources and per basic knowledge which is required if you are edit warring on a article like this, is that Nezaks are Hephtalites, as we know that view is outdated, the Nezaks and Hephtalites are not the same, hope User:पाटलिपुत्र can confirm this --Xerxes931 (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rajput origin theory is already mentioned in the page about the Alchon Huns, who were previously (until recently) thought to be part of the Hephthalites. It is also my understanding that this is the source of the confusion, and, as far as I know, the Rajputs have no relations to the Imperial Hepthalites, and it is probably better to leave them out of this article. Thanks पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, sorry for taking your time for something clear like this, but it was necessary . --Xerxes931 (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial edit warring by Kami2018 

message: I think it is very early to decide that hephthalites didnt went south of hindukush or into india. Still majority of sources consider alkons a part of hephthalites. Considering indian sources explicitly mentioned them by names such as " white huns" we still have much to learn. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hephthalites and alkon huns