This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mongols, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Mongol culture, history, language, and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MongolsWikipedia:WikiProject MongolsTemplate:WikiProject MongolsMongols articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please
join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to
ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
"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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Anonymous users' edits
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
More Anonymous users' 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)reply
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)reply
Added Tibetan name "Sumbe" , it might be more close to real name of Xianbei
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)reply
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)reply
The Xianbei claimed to be descended from the Yellow Emperor
The Xianbei claimed to be related to the Chinese through descent by the
Yellow Emperor
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, ...
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 ...
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.
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]
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.
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)reply
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
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Wikipedia editor sockpuppet using more many IP different accounts
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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]
^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.
PMID17070809.
^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.
"...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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
explain
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)reply
Xianbei Words (Modern Türk: Hanbeyi)
.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)reply
Merge proposal
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)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.