Talk:Xianbei
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
History of Manchuria
[edit]Changes were made to the Template:History_of_Manchuria to reflect actual Manchuria history. The changes were major. Please access the new changes and determine accordingly the relevence to this page.
Wiki Pokemon 02:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Please refer to Template talk:History of Manchuria for relevant discussions and consensus. Cydevil38 12:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Part of Chinese culture?
[edit]"They first became a significant part of Chinese culture during the Han Dynasty, where they occupied the steppes in Mongolia, Hebei and Liaodong."
Is there any logical connectin between the two parts of this sentence?
What's the purpose of the statement saying the "Xianbei became part of Chinese culture". Very unclear. What do you want to imply with that? Gantuya eng (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- The "Han Dynasty" qualifier is necessary because it needs to be known when it was that they were in what is now Mongolia, Hebei, and Liaodong. Certainly they don't occupy Mongolia, Hebei, and Liaodong now. If you think they don't connect well, separate them. Taking out the information that they first came onto the scene in Chinese history during Han Dynasty takes out the timeframe context and makes the several sentences untethered, time-wise. --Nlu (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, you aren't answering my question at all. And why do you revert when the sicussion isn't over? Gantuya eng (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how I failed to answer your question, and I am reverting because your removal of pertinent information is bordering on vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't use personal attack. Don't be rude!!! I don't understand how pertinent it is. Why are you soooo rude? Please don't insult me calling me a "vandal" instead of enlightening me. You are engaged in an edit war , by the way. Be civil. If you can't discuss an issue peacefully, I'm not gonna waste my time with you. Unwatching the page. Gantuya eng (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't appreciate it when I directly answered your question and then was told that I didn't answer it. --Nlu (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Because everyone who tries to establish something on Chinese lands will eventually be assimilated into the strong Chinese culture. Manchu identity is very weak today and they were emperors for 300 years. Xianbei were nomadic and they adopted the Chinese way of setting up dynasties. --94.134.89.145 (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Anonymous users' edits
[edit]There has been two anonymous user(s) (first 58.106.230.131, and now 81.214.153.182) who added an online Britannica article's link [1] to this article. In my opinion, this Britannica link is not a credible nor factual source for this article because: 1) it suggested that the tuoba clan of Xianbei was "Turkish speaking" (not "Turkic speaking" in which the anonymous users twisted the words around), which of course was not possible given the timeline and circumstance of linguistic history, and the fact that we know "Turkish" does not correlates to "Turkic" (i.e. German does not correlates to Germanic). 2) More importantly, this Britannica article is also contradictory to another online Britannica article [2] about the Xianbei in which it suggested that they were Mongol people instead.
Note the two articles from the same Encyclopedia Britannica offers two different views on this ethnic group. That is why these two sources from online Britannica are too contradictory and inconsistent to be used.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
If we're looking at several other academic sources, the cultural institution Metropolitan Museum of Art suggested that the Tuoba clan of the Xianbei were proto-Mongol people [3]. While the Library of Congress suggested that the Toba clan of Xianbei belongs to the Donghu ethnic group, which were proto-Tungusic peoples [4].--TheLeopard (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- The Library of Congress is a questionable source on subjects related to the far east in general. I have run into conflicts when people copy/use from that source in particular. Benjwong (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- The same could be said for every sources, even the most notable and commonly used academic references, considering the Library of Congress is among the world's most prominent and well-established research centers.--TheLeopard (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- In the past I have been skeptical on that source when others have used it on China related articles. But I understand what you mean. Benjwong (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
More Anonymous users' edit
[edit]An anonymous editor 70.107.79.101 has added back a link to an article that has no relation to the current article. The battle which happened in the Xiongnu era isn't relevant to the Xianbei in any way. I have to remove that link. Sorry. Gantuya eng (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think in that particular case, I agree with you, but a blanket statement that "happened in the Xiongnu era isn't relevant to the Xianbei in any way" (assume you are intending for it to be a blanket statement, rather than only to that battle) is inaccurate, because the Xiongnu and the Xianbei coexisted in the same geographic region for hundreds of years. --Nlu (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Added Tibetan name "Sumbe" , it might be more close to real name of Xianbei
[edit]From tibetan historian books found another version of the name "Xianbei".The meaning of the word "Sumbe" might be "sumber" because we use word "sumber uul" ( high mountain).Chinese sources says, after Modu chanyu's attack some Donghu people moved to Southern Mongolian Xianbei mountain and the mountain's name became these Donghu's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.235.172.69 (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- That reconstruction / theory should belong in an etymology section, definitely not as an alternative name in the lead, since it's not used at all. --Cold Season (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The Xianbei claimed to be descended from the Yellow Emperor
[edit]The Xianbei claimed to be related to the Chinese through descent by the Yellow Emperor
page 75
Because his forces were victorious in this battle, the Yellow Emperor's clan came to be known by the surname of "Bear" (Youxiongshi). The Weishu also states that the Xianbei were descended from one of the sons of the Yellow Emperor, ...
page 279
They have a fanciful history complete with legends claiming the Yellow Emperor as one of their ancestors.2 Although much of Xianbei culture is similar to that of the Xiongnu, there are distinct differences.' Xianbei burials commonly contain a ...
page 4
The Taba Xianbei, however, disliked the idea that they were mixed blood of the Han and Xiongnu. Instead, they traced their ancestry to the Chinese legendary Yellow Emperor (Huangdi H^?, the symbol of "earth" of the Five Elements) in order ...
Xianbei claimed to be Hua ren and Zhongguo ren. The Xianbei Northern Wei called their own state as "China" (Zhongguo) and sought to portray themselves as Hua ren or Zhongguoren, and started calling the original inhabitants of China by the name "Han ren" so they could be lay claim to the identity of "Hua ren" so "Hua" would not be a monopoly of the Han people.
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/elliott/files/critical_han_studies_ch8_elliott.pdf
The Non-Han Emperors equated their state with the concept of China(中國).[1] Non-Han rulers expanded the definition of "China" to include non-Han peoples in addition to Han people, whenever they ruled China.[2] Yuan, Jin, and Northern Wei documents indicate the usage of "China" by dynasties to refer to themselves began earlier than previously thought.[3]
- Zhao, Gang (January 2006). "Reinventing China: Imperial Qing Ideology and the Rise of Modern Chinese National Identity in the Early Twentieth Century" (PDF). Volume 32 (Number 1). Sage Publications. doi:10.1177/0097700405282349. JSTOR 20062627. Archived from the original on 25 March 2014. Retrieved 23 May 2014.
{{cite journal}}:|number=has extra text (help);|volume=has extra text (help); Cite journal requires|journal=(help); Unknown parameter|deadurl=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help)
The Xianbei called yogurt (their own ethnic food) as a food of Zhongguo.
Zhongguo
Food
http://books.google.com/books?id=QfkWAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA66&dq=wang+su+yogurt&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HlYrVMu0N8HGsQS2_oD4CA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q=wang%20su%20yogurt&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=6F2XLmIVAaYC&pg=PA66&dq=wang+su+yogurt&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_lUrVKK5F4OpyQS5joKwDg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=wang%20su%20yogurt&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=CWE8AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA66&dq=yogurt+fish+wei&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qFUrVO7mF5KsyATxj4CQCw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=yogurt%20fish%20wei&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=sV48AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA66&dq=yogurt+fish+wei&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qFUrVO7mF5KsyATxj4CQCw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=yogurt%20fish%20wei&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=FgtFxedkgbcC&pg=PA511&dq=wang+su+yogurt&hl=en&sa=X&ei=41UrVMP8IYOTyQTbxIIo&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=wang%20su%20yogurt&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=FgtFxedkgbcC&pg=PA511&dq=wang+su+yoghurt&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pFcrVMboF-L-sATUkoGABw&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=wang%20su%20yoghurt&f=false
03:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC) 21:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Added Xianbei words
[edit]G.Sukhbaatar was sinologist of Mongolia and he restored some Xianbei words (G.Sukhbaatar, Mongolian history sourcebooks, Volume I, 1991).
- chjichjen (Chinese pronunciation) — Mongolian: tsetsen (wise)
- bidechjen — Mongolian: bicheech (typist)
- chjeguichjen — Middle Mongolian: juuchin Modern Mongolian: zuuchin (letter carrier)
- fuchjen — Middle Mongolian: buurchin. This word used in Secret History of the Mongols. (cook)
- fuchjuchjeni — Mongolian: örtööchin (relay stationist): Ortoo
- hulochjen — Mongolian: horchin (weapon keeper/carrier)
- kebochjen — Mongolian: haalgachin (doorkeeper)
- pudachjien — Mongolian: bogtagchin (woman who keeps noble's clothes)
- syanchjen — Mongolian: zamchin (guide, middleman)
- tsihaichjen— Mongolian: gesgeegchin (executioner)
- tsivanchjen — Mongolian: helmerch (translator)
- uaichjen — Mongoian: üizen (title of clerk/noble)
- yanchjen — Mongolian: yamutan Modern Mongolian: yazguurtan (noble) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cethe (talk • contribs) 04:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Requested move
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Sumbe people → Xianbei – Recently a new user (User:Sczc) had suddenly moved this article from Xianbei to Sumbe people without any discussion. The new name does not meet Wikipedia:COMMONNAME in any shape or form. A search on Google Books [5] and Google Scholar [6] shows that the name "Sumbe people" or "Sumbe" yields few searches, and almost none of the results are related to this article (about an ancient group of people). The article needs to be move back to Xianbei, which is the most common name for this group. TheLeopard (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support - Common name for this topic in English appears to be Xianbei. That the sources use this name should be a good clue. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support. I've never even seen its use, while "Xianbei" is clearly the common name. It was ridiculous move from the user. --Cold Season (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support - per sources and WP:BRD, this should/could be a technical move. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support - per sources, and we should scrutinize _all_ of this user's specious, undiscussed moves.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support The article does not even mention the term. Can we move now pls? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Mongol and Tibetan names
[edit]We must keep Mongol and Tibetan names in heading section: [7]
- e-mongol.com: 156 AD Xianbei (Sumbe) defeat Hunnu state and became most powerful in Central Asia. Mongolian website:
- Rise and fall of Sumbe State:
- The first state to emerge after the Huns was of the Sumbe, a Mongolian tribe who probably came from the eastern Gobi. The Sumbe State grew powerful and conquered northern China.
- Nirun State and Tureg State:
- Later, control of the Toba State passed to yet another Mongolian clan, the Nirun. The fate of the Nirun State was rather different.
- Uigur State and Kidan State:
- Control passed to the Uigur tribe, and the Uigur State became the most powerful in Central Asia, but did not control all of Mongolia.
- [8]: :The first domination state after the Hun’s collapse was the Sumbe State, which lasted until the 3rd century BC. The Toba finally took over the Sumbe state inn 250 AD and established its own state with a number of tribal allies. Sczc (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- The name "Sumbe" needs to be used in reliable and independent English secondary sources to merit usage as an English name in the article, thus there was no credible reason to move the article. You just cited a travel website and a bird watching web site from Mongolia, neither of which has sufficient credibility as source. As a foreign name, this name is highly irrelevant to the topic, there's no rational to include "Sumbe" as a WP:DICTDEF. Meanwhile, the English name directly derives from the Chinese name, since that's where most if not all known primary sources use, which makes it relevant. --Cold Season (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Did you read what i wrote? I'm not talking about moving the article!!! I say we need to keep Mongol and Tibetan names in lead section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sczc (talk • contribs) 04:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't take much common sense to know that I'm talking about exactly that, and even if you didnt.... Well, I have explicitly reffered to this section (which you originally wrote at the move request above) in my edit summary (which you saw when you reverted), so don't play stupid about it, ok? Neither did you provide a credible rationale or adressed any points (rather choose to ignore) to keep it, so it's mere an irrelevant WP:DICTDEF. --Cold Season (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- i didn't oppose moving, i oppose deleting alternative names. Sczc (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, duh... again with the evasive response. And why are you ignoring the points again, while providing no rationale? You had ample time to respond, rather than yelling "keep this and that". Which you just did again for the xth time (probally because there is no credible rationale from you). Do so, or there's no reason to keep the DICTDEF and may freely be removed. --Cold Season (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Deleting alternative names is vandalism. Sczc (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- As per above, you have just resorted to an empty attacking claim (which you know is utter bull), while completely providing no credible rationale or respond to previous points. Nice job, for making me repeat myself for a second time to your nothing (you won't be given a third time). Don't be surprised to see it deleted. Cold Season (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Deleting alternative names is vandalism. Sczc (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, duh... again with the evasive response. And why are you ignoring the points again, while providing no rationale? You had ample time to respond, rather than yelling "keep this and that". Which you just did again for the xth time (probally because there is no credible rationale from you). Do so, or there's no reason to keep the DICTDEF and may freely be removed. --Cold Season (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- i didn't oppose moving, i oppose deleting alternative names. Sczc (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't take much common sense to know that I'm talking about exactly that, and even if you didnt.... Well, I have explicitly reffered to this section (which you originally wrote at the move request above) in my edit summary (which you saw when you reverted), so don't play stupid about it, ok? Neither did you provide a credible rationale or adressed any points (rather choose to ignore) to keep it, so it's mere an irrelevant WP:DICTDEF. --Cold Season (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Did you read what i wrote? I'm not talking about moving the article!!! I say we need to keep Mongol and Tibetan names in lead section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sczc (talk • contribs) 04:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- The name "Sumbe" needs to be used in reliable and independent English secondary sources to merit usage as an English name in the article, thus there was no credible reason to move the article. You just cited a travel website and a bird watching web site from Mongolia, neither of which has sufficient credibility as source. As a foreign name, this name is highly irrelevant to the topic, there's no rational to include "Sumbe" as a WP:DICTDEF. Meanwhile, the English name directly derives from the Chinese name, since that's where most if not all known primary sources use, which makes it relevant. --Cold Season (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
These sources just say what name use the Mongols and Tibetans, I can't send you book, so read these internet articles. Don't change stable version, other members didn't resist alternative names. Sczc (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- So once again, you have no real reason and still refusing to respond to the above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Cold Season (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
This is not reason, don't change stable version, other members didn't resist alternative names. Sczc (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Sources
[edit]The language of the Tuoba Wei
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2717850
An Ordeal among the T'o-pa Wei
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/4527092
Elite Lineages and the T'o-pa Accommodation: A Study of the Edict of 495
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3631874
The Lu Clan of Tai Commandery and Their Contribution to the T'o-pa State of Northern Wei in the Fifth Century
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4528299
Identity
http://books.google.com/books?id=9yTFnuWQKvkC&pg=PA335#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=ELrRr0L8UOsC&pg=PA335#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=4-vdP2aZWhUC&pg=PA453#v=onepage&q&f=false
Xianbei language was known as Guoyu
Aristocracy
equitable fields system
Tang dynasty, mixed northwestern aristocracy vs pure northeastern aristocracy. The northwestern aristocray was mixed Xianbei and Han
Do not use the forum as a source.
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/topic/1614-on-the-ethnicity-of-the-sui-and-tang-emperors/page-16
http://books.google.com/books?id=sV48AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA74&dq=northwestern+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3KXRUvqGLI7ksASy5YL4Cw&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=northwestern%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=ou-hq_FlQY4C&pg=PA75&dq=northwestern+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3KXRUvqGLI7ksASy5YL4Cw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=northwestern%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=ou-hq_FlQY4C&pg=PA75&dq=northwestern+aristocracy+tang+mixed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3KXRUvqGLI7ksASy5YL4Cw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=northwestern%20aristocracy%20tang%20mixed&f=false
Other
04:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia editor sockpuppet using more many IP different accounts
[edit]Moderators please be aware. Wikipedia SOCKPUPPET accounts WHO EDITS EVERYTHING WITH A PRO-TURKIC BIAS VIEW. He is the same person who had been blocked/banned but comes back to edit Turkic origins on what he wants.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/5.112.183.249
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.95.8.240
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.95.8.187
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.229.190.37
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/193.171.130.114
it is the same person who is ALWAYS edits anything with Turkic origins and rejects any other theories that is non-Turkic. He pro-Turkic nationalist and biasly edit everything as having pro Turkic origin and tried to edit Northern wei as Turkic dynasty, Xianbei and it's people as Turkic but reject every other theories and doesn't allow anything that is different to it. He still does this despite his edits being removed many times he uses different ip address to keep editing Turkic origins for everything he wants.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.192.16 (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Genetics section in violation of WP:SCIRS
[edit]The genetics section of this article is currently in violation of WP:SCIRS, which requires that genetic information only be added based on reliable secondary sources, meaning mainly review articles. The articles cited here are all primary sources according to the terms of WP:SCIRS, as they are written by the researchers who found the results. Unless someone can find articles on Xianbei genetics that satisfy WP:SCIRS, the genetics portion of the section will need to be removed.
Also, is there a source for that "lineage of the Xianbei" image? It looks like it might be WP:OR.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Are peer-reviewed studies primary or secondary sources? And Because that is not really clear for me. WP:SCIRS says nothing about peer-review. The study[1] was puplished by US National Library of Medicine (National Institutes of Health) and supported by various chinese science organisation and assisted from the Department of Integrative Biology of the University of California-Berkeley. So my question is: Can we use this study? If not, why? Maybe I misinterpret the WP:SCIRS or the meaning of Secondary sources?
- About the picture: It seems to be the work of @Qiushufang:, maybe he can say something about that?--AsadalEditor (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- About my question, the study was originaly puplished by the Journal "PLOS ONE" (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information).--AsadalEditor (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- So according to WP:SCIRS, "A secondary source is a source presenting and placing in context information originally reported by different authors. These include literature reviews, systematic review articles, topical monographs, specialist textbooks, handbooks, and white papers by major scientific associations. News reports are also secondary sources, but should be used with caution as they are seldom written by persons with disciplinary expertise. An appropriate secondary source is one that is published by a reputable publisher, is written by one or more experts in the field, and is peer reviewed. University presses and other publishing houses known for publishing reliable science books will document their review process. Do not confuse a scientific review (the article/document) with peer review (the activity)."
- A primary source, on the other hand, "is one where the authors directly participated in the research. They filled the test tubes, analyzed the data, or designed the particle accelerator, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, journal articles are primary sources—particularly original research articles."
- According to the rules, "primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead." The reasoning is that individual genetics studies often come to very different conclusions, so that it is necessary to have a secondary source come and declare the overall trend of genetic research. The reliance on secondary sources also weeds out a lot of bad studies that are simply ignored by other scientists.
- So, to answer your question, if the scientists are directly invovled in the study, we can't use it.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you for the explanation.--AsadalEditor (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- About my question, the study was originaly puplished by the Journal "PLOS ONE" (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information).--AsadalEditor (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Genetics
[edit]This information has been removed, with the following edit summary: "Deleted genetics section per WP:SCIRS, following lead of Xiongnu." I think it is relevant and should be included.
Genetic studies have revealed that the Xianbei were overwhelmingly of East Asian origin. According to Zhou (2006) the haplogroup frequencies of the Tuoba Xianbei were 43.75% haplogroup D, 31.25% haplogroup C, 12.5% haplogroup B, 6.25% haplogroup A and 6.25% "other."[2]
Zhou (2014) obtained mitochondrial DNA analysis from 17 Tuoba Xianbei, which indicated that these specimens were, similarly, completely East Asian in their maternal origins, belonging to haplogroups D, C, B, A and haplogroup G.[3]
A genetic study published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology in November 2007 examined of 17 individuals buried at the Murong Xianbei cemtery in Lamadong, Liaoning, China ca. 300 AD. They were determined to be carriers of the maternal haplogroups B, C, D, F, G2a, Z, M, and J1b1. These haplogroups are common among East Asians, and to a lesser extent Siberians. The maternal haplogroups of the Murong Xianbei were noticibly different from those of the Huns and Tuoba Xianbei.[4]
A genetic study published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology in August 2018 noted that the paternal haplogroup C2b1a1b has been detected among the Xianbei and the Rouran, and was probably an important lineage among the Donghu people.[5]
References
- ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418768
- ^ Zhou, Hui (20 October 2006). "Genetic analysis on Tuoba Xianbei remains excavated from Qilang Mountain Cemetery in Qahar Right Wing Middle Banner of Inner Mongolia". FEBS Letters. 580 (26): Table 2. doi:10.1016/j.febslet.2006.10.030. PMID 17070809.
- ^ Zhou, Hui (March 2014). "Genetic analyses of Xianbei populations about 1,500–1,800 years old". Human Genetics. 50 (3): 308–314. doi:10.1134/S1022795414030119.
- ^ Wang, Haijing; et al. (November 2007). "Molecular genetic analysis of remains from Lamadong cemetery, Liaoning, China". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 134 (3). American Association of Physical Anthropologists: 404–411. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20685. PMID 17632796. Retrieved April 11, 2020.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|layurl=,|laydate=,|nopp=, and|laysource=(help) - ^ Li, Jiawei; et al. (August 2018). "The genome of an ancient Rouran individual reveals an important paternal lineage in the Donghu population". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 166 (4). American Association of Physical Anthropologists. doi:10.1002/ajpa.23491. PMID 29681138. Retrieved April 11, 2020.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|layurl=,|laydate=,|nopp=, and|laysource=(help)
Thoughts? @Hunan201p:, WP:SCIRS is an essay, not one of Wikipedia's policies. @Krakkos:, link to the archived discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_273#Using_of_primary_genetics_sources_at_Uyghur_(and_many_other_Eurasian_pages). I think there is still no consensus. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- WP:SCIRS is indeed an essay, not a policy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- ^ Misleading. The statement in WP:SCIRS pertaining to genetics and human origins (relevant to this discussion) reflects strong community consensus:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=862831707#RfC:Genetics_references - Hunan201p (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- "...should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial." Why is the origin of Xianbei controversial? -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps English isn't your first language, but "controversial" is used here to describe "human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like". These subjects are controversial. Any genetics studies concerning these subjects has to be a secondary source. - Hunan201p (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- I just don't think that genetic research of ancient populations is controversial, at least when it comes to ethnic groups such as the Cumans or the Xianbei. WP:SCIRS is just an essay anyway. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- An essay is an essay, not a policy. Policy says that journal articles can be used. Local consensus does not override policy. Period. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- I just don't think that genetic research of ancient populations is controversial, at least when it comes to ethnic groups such as the Cumans or the Xianbei. WP:SCIRS is just an essay anyway. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps English isn't your first language, but "controversial" is used here to describe "human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like". These subjects are controversial. Any genetics studies concerning these subjects has to be a secondary source. - Hunan201p (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- "...should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial." Why is the origin of Xianbei controversial? -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Is the name of this people also sometimes spelled Xianbi? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Ma Long
[edit]At the end of the Three Kingdoms section, the article states: In 279, the Xianbei made one last attack on Liang Province but they were defeated by Ma Long. For some reason, Ma Long is an intentional link to a disambiguation page. Wikipedia does not have an article about this Ma Long, and the cited source does not mention Ma Long either; in fact, the entire book does not mention the Xianbei at all. I can't find anything about a warlord called Ma Long online, either. Unless someone can find a source that supports this statement (and identifies Ma Long) it might be best to remove the sentence (or the mention of Ma Long). Lennart97 (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've hidden the entire sentence (i.e. between <!-- -->). It can be displayed again if and when someone finds a proper source. Lennart97 (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
"proto-mongolic"?
[edit]so according to some wikipedia users who always attach the term proto-mongolic to nomadic peoples, are you trolling? this page clearly states who the so called modern descendants are of these then nomadic people. according to this article mongols are not one of them... interesting, how come? i thought they were "proto-mongol" or whatever? isnt this contradicting or not? any person out there without a clear bias lens that is not a mongolian nationalist that can look into this? Sakaask (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
explain
[edit]could someone explain how xianbei are considered proto-mongolic, when this page clearly explains that xianbei became chinese and/or otherwise. it links no connection to mongols — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menggu (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Xianbei Words (Modern Türk: Hanbeyi)
[edit].Sukhbaatar was sinologist of Mongolia and he restored some Xianbei words (G.Sukhbaatar, Mongolian history sourcebooks, Volume I, 1991). Some word similar with Turkish word too chjichjen (Chinese pronunciation) — Mongolian: tsetsen (wise) bidechjen — Mongolian: bicheech (typist) chjeguichjen — Middle Mongolian: juuchin Modern Mongolian: zuuchin (letter carrier) fuchjen — Middle Mongolian: buurchin. This word used in Secret History of the Mongols. (cook) Türk: Burcin fuchjuchjeni — Mongolian: örtööchin (relay stationist): Ortoo Türk: Orta hulochjen — Mongolian: horchin (weapon keeper/carrier) Türk Hortcu kebochjen — Mongolian: haalgachin (doorkeeper) Türk: Halkaci Halkacu pudachjien — Mongolian: bogtagchin (woman who keeps noble's clothes) Türk: Bagdakci bağlamak örgucu syanchjen — Mongolian: zamchin (guide, middleman) tsihaichjen— Mongolian: gesgeegchin (executioner) Türk: Keskenci modern: Kesici tsivanchjen — Mongolian: helmerch (translator) uaichjen — Mongoian: üizen (title of clerk/noble) yazan yanchjen — Mongolian: yamutan Modern Mongolian: yazguurtan Türk: yazıcu yazicı yazdıran (noble) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cethe (talk • contribs) 04:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC) 2A02:85F:E0BA:F04A:2CEA:4D8B:748F:DE1E (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Merge proposal
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was merged.
In terms of consistency, it's odd that the Xianbei and their state are separate articles while their counterparts, the Xiongnu and their empire, are compiled into a single article. I'd argue that there's vastly more information about the Xiongnu empire than the Xianbei state that would warrant it such treatment, but I find that the content on the Xiongnu article have been adequate at addressing both the people and their empire. Admittedly, someone else could argue this point better than me, but in terms of the Xianbei as a "State", they were only (and very briefly) a unified polity under Tanshihuai, Helian and Kuitou, with very little information regarding the last two's reigns. Besides, most of the information of the Xianbei State article are already mentioned in some way on the Xianbei article, with the exception of the "Culture" section, which can easily be intergrated and seem more approriate here. Zangxuangao (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support per precedent of Xiongnu Gazingo (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support seems the sensible option. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Almost all of the topics discussed at Xianbei state are already covered here. Esiymbro (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class Mongols articles
- Top-importance Mongols articles
- WikiProject Mongols articles
- C-Class Central Asia articles
- Top-importance Central Asia articles
- WikiProject Central Asia articles
- C-Class China-related articles
- Mid-importance China-related articles
- C-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- C-Class former country articles
- WikiProject Former countries articles
- C-Class Ethnic groups articles
- Low-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- C-Class language articles
- Low-importance language articles
- WikiProject Languages articles