In regards to one of the quotes used, wanted to say that your interpretation would be generally considered the correct one. However, I do disagree about WP:libel specifically. I acknowledge that point 10 should not have been used in the argument. That quote would be usually associated with BLP, and many would not take a loose interpretation of it. Additionally, I want to clarify that I do respect other editors and that we are part of a collaborative project. Wukuendo (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I just wanted to give you a heads up that focusing on a single article or issue is not looked on kindly by editors. It really doesn't matter whether you have an actual conflict of interest if your behaviour is exactly the same as someone who does have a conflict of interest. It is not necessary to respond right away to comments, it is OK to wait for other editors to give their opinion. It is not the end of the world if a sentence from an article gets deleted now or in two days, because there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. TurboSuperA+[talk]06:59, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will take your good advice under consideration. Perhaps I'm being overly enthusiastic to engage, though a tremendous amount of the editing is not on the actual article content, but is in talk and related discussions. In many situations, being directly asked a question or for a response, or was being talked about by name. Often on Wikipedia, not responding when asked, also has various kinds of consequences. Certain articles also get more attention and contention than others, edits to Red (for example) don't generate lots of back and forth or talk comments.
I also took the advice, to ask teahouse about the libel question, because it can be interpreted differently. Was told that WP:Libel, including WP:BLP, applies to more than just biographies and is for any (living) person (referred to) on Wikipedia. Wukuendo (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the relevant policies. I have revised the draft accordingly and ensured it follows WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV.
I have reverted the recent edit that removed sourced information about the Huns. The claim that they were “not Turkic” is unsourced and falls under WP:OR, whereas reliable research and sources have been provided to support the opposite. Archaeological evidence, including the Slab Grave and Ulaanzuukh cultures, as well as genetic studies, demonstrate that Hunnic burials overwhelmingly show Y-DNA haplogroups R1b and Q1a1a1, both of which are widely associated with early Turkic populations. By contrast, haplogroup C2, commonly linked with later Mongolic groups, is not present in the majority of these contexts. This genetic and archaeological data strongly supports the view that the Huns had a Proto-Turkic foundation. Beyond genetics, cultural and historical continuity is clear: the Huns’ values, military strategies, nomadic traditions, and political structures were carried forward most directly by the Turkic peoples. While the Hunnic language itself remains debated, its similarities with Proto-Turkic are noted in comparative linguistics, Yeniseian features overlap significantly with early Turkic, and even the surviving Jie language materials remain broadly intelligible to modern Turkic speakers. These points demonstrate that the Huns were not only a steppe confederation of multiple nomadic groups, but also that their dominant cultural and genetic legacy was Proto-Turkic. The information provided here is based on peer-reviewed studies and reliable academic work, and additional details have already been explained on this talk page for transparency. For these reasons, the removal of sourced material and its replacement with an unsourced categorical claim is inappropriate. Please do not continue to vandalize the article; if you disagree with this content, you are welcome to present credible sources here on the talk page for discussion. Repeated unsourced removals will be treated as disruptive editing.
First of all, accusing others of vandalism when it isn't is considered a personal attack.
Second, you were the one who removed long-standing, and as far as I can tell, sourced content that cites secondary sources. You did not provide a reliable source to support your edit, instead, you based the edit on your own reasoning.
Third, after an edit has been reverted, you have to start a talk page discussion and gain consensus for your edit. Alternatively, you can provide a secondary reliable source that directly supports the edit.
I checked the first source, The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe and it is hardly conclusive on the topic. In fact, the author says that they consider "Huns" as a primarily political and ethnic category, while "Turkic" they consider to be a broad linguistic term referring to speakers of groups of languages (belonging to language families and not specific ethnic appellations (p.7).
All the other sources, other than Chinese Architecture, are primary sources so I doubt they directly say Huns are Turkic, but if they do you should quote the relevant part. I am going to revert your edit again and you shouldn't reinstate it until you have gained consensus on the talk page. I see you have started a discussion on the talk page which is good. TurboSuperA+[talk]12:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is deeply concerning to see yet another manipulative and obstructive response to well-sourced contributions. The archaeogenetic evidence from excavated graves and tombs has been clear and consistent, showing that the dominant paternal lineages in these populations are Y-DNA haplogroups Q and R1b. These results are not speculative interpretations but the outcome of peer-reviewed genetic studies published in respected scientific journals. They provide direct and verifiable insight into the ancestry of these groups and therefore must be treated with the same weight as any other academic source. Unfortunately, contributions based on this body of evidence are being reverted, not due to any methodological weakness or lack of reliability, but seemingly because they do not conform to certain entrenched editorial preferences. This practice is widely recognized within the Wikipedia community and is incompatible with the platform’s stated principles of neutrality and verifiability. To disregard established genetic data in favor of subjective narratives undermines the credibility of the article, misinforms readers, and erodes trust in Wikipedia as a neutral resource. I respectfully urge administrators to take notice of this ongoing issue. The scientific record is transparent, reproducible, and unambiguous; to dismiss or obscure it because of personal agendas or ideological motives sets a harmful precedent for the treatment of all scholarly research on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is to remain a reliable and trustworthy source of knowledge, neutrality and respect for peer-reviewed academic work must be upheld without exception. AsianTiele (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about genetics.
I respectfully urge administrators to take notice of this ongoing issue.
I understand your perspective, but genetics are not something that can simply be dismissed—they are the very foundation of identity, heritage, and historical continuity. Ignoring this aspect leaves the discussion incomplete and misleading. I’ve already clarified my position thoroughly, and at this point, I will not be making further edits until the administrators review this matter. AsianTiele (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators aren't going to "review this matter", that is not how Wikipedia works. I posted a notice at WP:NOR/N and editors are going to see the discussion and weigh in on it with their opinion.
I understand your perspective, but genetics are not something that can simply be dismissed—
This matter has also been raised at the Administrator’s Noticeboard for wider review. I have already provided the relevant research and made my position clear. Since the response was to dismiss genetics outright rather than address the sources, I will not be making further edits or comments until uninvolved editors weigh in. AsianTiele (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^Kim, Hyun Jin (18 april 2013). The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-511-92049-3.
^Steinhardt, Nancy Shatzman (14 mei 2019). Chinese Architecture: A History. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-19197-3.
^Robbeets, Martine, Bouckaert, Remco (1 juli 2018). Bayesian phylolinguistics reveals the internal structure of the Transeurasian family. Journal of Language Evolution 3 (2): 145–162. ISSN:2058-4571. DOI:10.1093/jole/lzy007.
^Hucker, Charles O. (1994). China's imperial past: an introduction to Chinese history and culture. Stanford university press, Stanford (Calif.). ISBN 978-0-8047-2353-4.
^Savelyev, Alexander, Jeong, Choongwon (2020). Early nomads of the Eastern Steppe and their tentative connections in the West. Evolutionary Human Sciences 2. ISSN:2513-843X. DOI:10.1017/ehs.2020.18.
