Talk:Battle of Baideng

The Xiongnu Army recorded in Chinese chronicles like Han Shu or Sima Qian's Shi-ji, which is said to be 400.000, is clearly an exaggeration;

We can provide some sources based on the Strength of Xiongnu in other battles of the state and simple math calculations and geography knowledge.

According to Nicola Di Cosmo, who is an expert on East Asian History, Xiongnu army was 10 times exaggerated;

“This is an obviously exaggerated number, especially because not all the northern nomadic peoples had yet been included in the Hsiung-nu confederation. On the basis of later military encounters, I would estimate that this figure is inflated by a factor of ten.”^[1]

Another important source written by Lev Gumilev, The Hsiung-nu (1960), original version in Russian does a simple math calculation with the help of geography knowledge. Although Chinese historians write that the number of the Xiongnu army was 400,000, this number is greatly exaggerated, since the total population of the nomads would not be enough to raise such an army, and since each soldier had at least two horses and these horses would be scattered around the castle and fed with grass during the siege, the size of the Xiongnu army should have been roughly limited by the amount of meadows. Accordingly, the number of the Xiongnu army must be between 20,000 and 40,000.^[2]

I've read the other historians books, and some of them claimed the Xiongnu's army as 400.000 but these claims were based on Shi-ji or Han Shu, i think it is wrong to put debunked and exaggerated army numbers in the Battle Box. @Underbar dk Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@History of Iran Here is the explanation i hope you can understand this because while there are wrong and exaggerated information in this page, i feel bad. Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

If this user won't reply to these arguments, i will change the strength again with more information. Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@historyofiran Can you please explain why would Chinese chronicles exaggerate their own army numbers? There is no logical explanation for that i mean why would they want to make their defeat look bigger? Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Also @HistoryofIran you can screenshot the pages from the Gumilev's book and translate the image, i did that and compared it with the Turkish Print of the book. Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran I explained why Xiongnu army cannot be 400.000 before, Here is the explanation about Han Army:

'On the other hand, Sima Qian shows the Chinese army as 320 thousand warriors (this is an accurate figure, as it also includes the eastern armies, which constitute half to four-fifths of the entire army), and the Huns as 400 thousand cavalry, which is a clear exaggeration.'

Source: Gumilev, Lev (1960). The Hsiung-nu. p. 78-79

Also a lot of historians considers the Han army is 320.000 while they point that the Xiongnu army is most probably exaggerated.

Logically, why would Sima Qian, a Chinese Historian, would exaggerate the strength of his own nation/country? I mean was he trying to make their defeat look bigger?

It is not logical and reliable to use old sources written in that time to learn about the enemy army's strength, because they usually try to make their defeat less tragic or make their victory bigger by exaggerating the enemy's strength.

And while there are sources to prove that the Xiongnu Army was probably between 20.000-40.000, based on simple geopgraphy and math knowledge, it would be more accurate to use them instead of a greatly exaggerated number.

'Although Chinese historians write that the number of the Xiongnu army was 400,000, this number is greatly exaggerated, since the total population of the nomads would not be enough to raise such an army, and since each soldier had at least two horses and these horses would be scattered around the castle and fed with grass during the siege, the size of the Xiongnu army should have been roughly limited by the amount of meadows. Accordingly, the number of the Xiongnu army must be between 20,000 and 40,000.'

“This is an obviously exaggerated number, especially because not all the northern nomadic peoples had yet been included in the Hsiung-nu confederation. On the basis of later military encounters, I would estimate that this figure is inflated by a factor of ten.” Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Also @HistoryofIran you can screenshot the pages from the Gumilev's book and translate the image, i did that and compared it with the Turkish Print of the book.

How? Also, we should look for more sources, rather than just dismissing everything in favor of 1960 Soviet source. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, there is Ancient China and Its Enemies, written by Nicola Di Cosmo and published by Cambridge University Press.

“This is an obviously exaggerated number, especially because not all the northern nomadic peoples had yet been included in the Hsiung-nu confederation. On the basis of later military encounters, I would estimate that this figure is inflated by a factor of ten.”^[3]

Let me check if i can find more sources. Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Let me check if i can find more sources.

This is what you said, so naturally, I'm going to wait and not respond. Yet you just resumed your edit warring . Revert yourself or I will report you to WP:ANI. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay i will revert it. Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, i checked and couldn't find it, the sources claiming the strength of Xiongnu as 400.000 is based on the Chinese Chronicles (i.e. Han Shu, Shi Ji) and nothing else. I think the most fair way would be to keep 400.000 (according the Han Shu and Shi Ji) and write the other argument made by Nicola Di Cosmo and lev Gumilev. Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to look into some WP:RS, give me a day or two. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay but let me tell you, most of the sources claim it as 400,000 referencing Shi Ji. Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to look for sources for both numbers. It's not fair/neutral only going for one of them when they have the same amount of (incredibly high) digits. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

By the way according to Shi Ji the Xiongnu army was 400.000 while Han Shu claims it as 300.000, i just realized that Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to follow what WP:RS says, it doesn't really matter whatever it's related to Han Shu, Shi Ji, etc or not. I've been a bit busy, will try to get it done before the end of this week. You're welcome to help looking. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

What I found so far;

"At Baideng, not far from today's Datong, Modu suddenly attacked with 400,00 horsemen, surrounding the imprudent emperor." - p. 12, History of Central Asia, The: 4-volume set, Bloomsbury Publishing, Christoph Baumer. The author is not really the best for this, not really his area of expertise, but the same goes for Lev Gumilev, whose cited source here has still not been verified.

..."where they camped on the flat peake of White Top (Baideng) Hill, just northeast of modern Datong. There, according to the story, he was immediately encircled by 400,000 picked Xiongnu cavalry and for seven days cut off from his larger army in a tense standoff." -p. 38, Northern Wei (386-534): A New Form of Empire in East Asia, Oxford University Press, Scott Pearce

Unfortunately Scott Pearce simply narrates the story, he doesn't give his opinion on the number, so not really of use, but I thought it was worth mentioning. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Well i am also trying to find sources, Here's what i found:

-

This is about the population of the Nomads and Han China, which can be related to Di Cosmo's opinion:

"Even though at the time the population of China was about 60 million people whereas the total population of nomads did not reach 1.5 million people, the Xiongnu managed to withstand, on equal terms, the Qin and Han dynasties. They also forced the Chinese to arrange for large payments of silk, handicraft articles and products of settled agriculture under the pretense of gifts (Barfield 1981; Di Cosmo 2002; Kradin 2002)."

Source: Competing narratives between nomadic people and their sedentary neighbours : papers of the 7ᵗʰ International Conference on the Medieval History of the Eurasian Steppe, Nov. 9-12, 2018, Shanghai University, China / edited by Chen Hao. p. 150

-

We can use Nicola di Cosmo's opinion to support Kradin Nikolay's claim about the populations:

“This is an obviously exaggerated number, especially because not all the northern nomadic peoples had yet been included in the Hsiung-nu confederation. On the basis of later military encounters, I would estimate that this figure is inflated by a factor of ten.”

Source: Di Cosmo, Nicola (2002). Ancient China and its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 192.

Di Cosmo points out that not all the northern nomadic peoples had yet been included in the Xiongnu Confederation.

If we consider that the Nomads' total population was not even 1.5 million (Kradin 2018) and Xiongnu Confederation doesn't include the entire nomadic people, it is not valid to believe that Xiongnu's strength was 400.000 (probably like half of the population). Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is it only you care about quickly finding a consensus regarding the numbers of Xiongnu, when the Han numbers are in the same digits? And who is Kradin Nikolay? There isn't a citation from him here. Please also be aware of WP:SYNTH. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

"Even though at the time the population of China was about 60 million people whereas the total population of nomads did not reach 1.5 million people, the Xiongnu managed to withstand, on equal terms, the Qin and Han dynasties. They also forced the Chinese to arrange for large payments of silk, handicraft articles and products of settled agriculture under the pretense of gifts (Barfield 1981; Di Cosmo 2002; Kradin 2002)."

This is the part written by Kradin Nikolay in the book 'Competing narratives between nomadic people and their sedentary neighbours' which i mentioned.

'Why is it only you care about quickly finding a consensus regarding the numbers of Xiongnu, when the Han numbers are in the same digits?'

Answer: I already i explained you why Han Dynasty's strength can be that much, lemme explain again:

'On the other hand, Sima Qian shows the Chinese army as 320 thousand warriors (this is an accurate figure, as it also includes the eastern armies, which constitute half to four-fifths of the entire army), and the Huns as 400 thousand cavalry, which is a clear exaggeration.'

Source: Gumilev, Lev (1960). The Hsiung-nu. p. 78-79

Also you are telling me that if Xiongnu army is exaggerated, then Han's strength also can be exaggerated and i will ask you two things,

Why would Chinese Historians (Sima Qian) or the Dynastic Historical Records (Han Shu)

would exaggerate their strength?

And there is no logical explanation of your argument unfortunately, Han Dynasties strength can be 320.000 due to its population which is 60 million, but Xiongnu's strength can't be, again due its population. Nikolay Kradin tells us that the entire nomadic population hadn't reached 1.5 million people, Di Cosmo points out that not all the northern nomadic peoples had yet been included in the Xiongnu Confederation (During the Battle of Baideng). They wouldn't use like half of the confederation's population for a campaign am i right? Conclusion: since the total population of the nomads would not be enough to raise such an army, and since each soldier had at least two horses and these horses would be scattered around the castle and fed with grass during the siege, the size of the Xiongnu army should have been roughly limited by the amount of meadows. Accordingly, the number of the Xiongnu army must be between 20,000 and 40,000.

And i downloaded 6-7 PDF's, i will check them. Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Answer: I already i explained you why Han Dynasty's strength can be that much, lemme explain again:

In Wikipedia we follow WP:RS, not our own personal deduction, nor a mix of it with WP:RS, that would be WP:SYNTH. That Gumilev citation is still unverifiable. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, another explanation is that the Han population was more than 60 million while the entire Nomadic population didn't even reach 1.5 million. Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry what? Please re-read my previous comment. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry my bad. Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, Xiongnu's strength was most probably exaggerated since the total population of the Northern Nomads didn't even reach 1.5 million^[1], and as Di Cosmo, who is an expert on these topics, points that not all the northern nomadic peoples had yet been included in the Xiongnu confederation.^[2]

ChanyuofXiongnu (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Johnle9822345667 (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

32k xiongnu vs 320,000

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bekirozturkgagauz: Please revert yourself and participate in the talk page, as you have not gained WP:CONSENSUS for your changes, which still smells of copyvio violations, WP:VER issues, such as "ENCYCLOPAEDIA XIONGNU" (which amongst other things conveniently makes it impossible to look into further copyvio violations), and last but not least, unsourced info. Per WP:ONUS; "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." To make it worse, there are many similarities between you and a former sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hunnic Enjoyer. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran If you think I'm violating copyright, you can look at the sources I've given, if there is a place where I've copied and pasted, I'd appreciate it if you tell me with the source and page. I know Hunnic Enjoyer, but that's not me. 2001:930:15A:171:DC57:6A9:D8FA:C3C4 (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

And like Hunnic Enjoyer you are not paying attention. Read my edit summaries and comment a few times. I'm reporting you for edit warring (same as I did to Hunnic Enjoyer, another coincidence?). HistoryofIran (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I will too, since you keep deleting sourced articles Bekirozturkgagauz (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The Huns were a newly established state. Explain how there will be 400,000 people and show more than 3 sources about the population of the Huns exceeding 400,000 at that time, then we will believe it. Moreover, China is an older civilization, so naturally it would have a larger population. Moreover, you have provided 1 source about this. I think you should change it instead of giving people wrong information. Tarih sevdalısı 123 (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The article seems to short and source lacking. Should it be enlarged with Background and Aftermath parts? NebelGuard (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be the result of previous bickering. See above and maybe reinclude information previously blanked from the article. It could certainly use a cite noting that the numbers are way too high. — LlywelynII 10:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

This

• Yap, Joseph P. (2009), Wars with the Xiongnu, a Translation from Zizhi Tongjian, AuthorHouse, pp. 71–76, ISBN 978-1-4490-0604-4.

was previously parked in an uncurated "Further reading" section. Once it's formatted, it throws out errors complaining about the publisher and its works' general unreliability. Kindly only restore this to the article once it's been checked as being a WP:RS (publisher notwithstanding) and is being used to verify some point in the running text. — LlywelynII 10:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran Hi bro You have no right to correct this edit of yours. I cited the source. It's from Gumilev's "The Huns." You always said you need a source. I cited the source. And you're correcting it again. I ask you to put it back to its previous state. I'll say it again. I cited the source. I wonder if you're just waiting for me to edit it. Are you so careless that even though I edited the Huns' victory correctly, you first made it unclear and then realized it was a mistake and put it back as the Huns' victory. I think you probably thought that my edit was going to be edited incorrectly. You probably didn't even look at my source. I think this is a gross bias. I'll ask you to put everything back in its place. If you reject it, you and I will move it to the talk section. What will happen? So, everything. put it back in its place, I cited the source BBotirk (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You have no right to correct this edit of yours. I cited the source. It's from Gumilev's "The Huns." You and Malik always said you need a source. I cited the source. And you're correcting it again. I ask you to put it back to its previous state. I'll say it again. I cited the source. I wonder if you're just waiting for me to edit it. Are you so careless that even though I edited the Huns' victory correctly, you first made it unclear and then realized it was a mistake and put it back as the Huns' victory. I think you probably thought that my edit was going to be edited incorrectly. You probably didn't even look at my source. I think this is a gross bias. I'll ask you to put everything back in its place. If you reject it, you and I will move it to the talk section. What will happen? So, everything. put it back in its place, I cited the source BBotirk (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

BBotirk, can you please read WP:VER for starters? I mentioned it in my edit summary and you ignored it. You also cited the source wrongly, so please don't accuse me of being "careless". You're not wrong, I technically didn't look at your source, because there is no page cited. You linked a Ebay sale of the book, I hope you don't expect me to buy it and read all of it. Please mention what page you cited, and show that it is verifiable, so the same show up above with the sock Hunnic Enjoyer doesn't resume. Please also read WP:CITE. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give you the real source now, I hope you won't try to edit it again, because Gumilev really estimated that the Hun army was 40 thousand, take care, I'll give you the real source now, you can read it, wait a minute and I hope you won't edit it. BBotirk (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Please just show it here in the talk page first. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

If you tell me more, bro, I'll show it to you. Is it in the discussion section of the Baideng battle? I have another question. I found Russian and Turkish versions. I hope this doesn't hinder your reading. I'll show you the Russian version to be original. BBotirk (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, just in this talk section please. Yes, the original one is the better choice. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

OK bro no problem BBotirk (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Here is the source of the book, on pages 40-41, where it is stated that Modu Chanyu's army was 20-40 thousand. I hope you will find it soon and we will end this discussion. I also hope that you will revert the edit to its previous state so that others will not change it. After all, I don't know anyone on Wikipedia except you and a few others. So I'm waiting for you to revert the edit.https://thelib.ru/books/gumilev_lev_nikolaevich/istoriya_naroda_hunnu.html BBotirk (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran Hi bro Here is the source of the book, on pages 40-41, where it is stated that Modu Chanyu's army was 20-40 thousand. I hope you will find it soon and we will end this discussion. I also hope that you will revert the edit to its previous state so that others will not change it. After all, I don't know anyone on Wikipedia except you and a few others. So I'm waiting for you to revert the edit. https://thelib.ru/books/gumilev_lev_nikolaevich/istoriya_naroda_hunnu.html BBotirk (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Attention, I recently included an alternative version of the number of Modu Chanyu's troops in the Battle of Baideng, 20-40 thousand, and as a source for this I cited Lev Gumilev's work "The Huns". Before making changes to my edits, please read the work. I have left a link to it and I will leave it again https://thelib.ru/books/gumilev_lev_nikolaevich/istoriya_naroda_hunnu.html For your convenience, I will say that the numbers for Modu Chanyu's army are given on page 41. If anyone tries to make changes to my edits, I consider it unfounded. BBotirk (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Military history RUS Hey, what are you changing this based on? Please search a little and read the work of the historian Lev Gumilev "The Huns" that I included. You have no right to edit it. There was a discussion about this and it has already been confirmed by the administrators. Gumilev wrote in his work "The Huns" that 400 thousand was too many for the nomadic confederation and that it was far from the truth. He suggested a number of 20-40 thousand troops based on the Hun population at that time. Do not edit this at all. BBotirk (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Military history RUS Attention, I recently included an alternative version of the number of Modu Chanyu's troops in the Battle of Baideng, 20-40 thousand, and as a source for this I cited Lev Gumilev's work "The Huns". Before making changes to my edits, please read the work. I have left a link to it and I will leave it again https://thelib.ru/books/gumilev_lev_nikolaevich/istoriya_naroda_hunnu.html For your convenience, I will say that the numbers for Modu Chanyu's army are given on page 41. If anyone tries to make changes to my edits, I consider it unfounded. BBotirk (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

What 41, there is no such page there Military history RUS (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Please take a closer look, look at page 40, if you need to, read the book, it's there, if you haven't read Lev Gumilev's work, go read it, it's there BBotirk (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, you put the correct dash, secondly, you indicate the page correctly. Then there will most likely be no questions for you. Why should I finish your edits? Military history RUS (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, Hey, have you visited Wikipedia before, is it even historically backward? Re-enter that link at the bottom of page 5 (the reason for the change was previously pdf, now it has changed to another format) if you can't find it, here is the quote from that place: "Baydyn[186] sostronochilis vse voennye deystviya, prichem Syma Tsyan opredyal chislennost kitayskoy armii v 320 tys. voinov (i eto kak v eto chislo vklyuchalas voyskovaya obsluga v vostochnyx ot poloviny sostava), chislo je khunnov - chto yavno preuvelicheno 30x40 km, t.e., it is estimated that there are no factory buildings, and the price of 30 m2 is calculated in the middle. stoyal i otbivalsya chinese squad, - eshche menshe. Absurdnost ochevidna. Veroyatno, Syma Tsyan preuvelichil hunnskie sily v 10-20 raz. No. esli prinyat etot koeffitsient i predpolojitelnno opredelit sily Mode v 20-40 tys. vsadnikov, stanovitsya ponyatno, pochemu on iskal mira: ved zomnyaya tayyskaya armiya, rastyanuvshayasya pochti na 600 km, daje pri polnoy potere avangarda byla silnee ego. Gaotszu i Mode zaklyuchili agreement «mira i rodstva» (diplomatic formula capitulyatsii)."If you try to change it after that, it will amount to vandalism and cause a fight. BBotirk (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Nothing else will be reverted here, everything is fine now. In short, your mistake was that you incorrectly presented this source (Gumilev) by your edits; it was unclear where you got the numbers from. I have corrected you. And I have included the author's link: in your edits, I hope you consider the author's identity, Google information about them, look at the sources they cite, and the book's publisher - all of this is important. If not, you should. This is for the future, and regarding your past edits,- I hope everything is fine with them. Military history RUS (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I won't even apologize for my haste, many local veteran wikipedians have already shown themselves; I will just blend in with the crowd. And there are plenty of vandals here, so do not be surprised by such rude and hasty pent-up actions. Wikipedia is still a dump at the moment. Military history RUS (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey Hey Oh my God you're so arrogant, this reference to Gumilev, be a little more careful, I already gave you the link I gave you, do you know how to use Wikipedia or are you just making it up? Wikipedia's own article cannot be a source, please check the edit history, I gave the source under the name The Huns, it would lead to the real PDF you read, oh my God, please don't edit it BBotirk (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Calm down, all is fine. Understand how to format references correctly. Military history RUS (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Everything is fine now, don't edit it. BBotirk (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with it. Military history RUS (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

You wrote the book title where the author should be, and then in the page title, you wrote the book title again... I made it so there was a link to the page in the book where there's information about 20-40,000 men. Whatve you done...then you wonder why there are so many questions for you. Military history RUS (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Look, you put the link wrong, instead of sending the link to the pdf of the work, do you know the Wikipedia rules that direct you to Gumilev's Wikipedia article? According to Wikipedia rules, another Wikipedia article cannot be a source for another article, it's better not to edit it. BBotirk (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, what are you doing? Why is the link redirecting to Gumilev's Wikipedia article? Why is the link invalid? This link is not working. The link should redirect to the work. What are you doing? I can complain about you. You can see the link. It redirects to Wikipedia. Why don't you understand why it doesn't work? It doesn't redirect to the Huns' work. Do you know Wikipedia? Please restore it to its old state right now or I will report you to the administrators. It is wrong to indicate the Wikipedia article as a source. Please restore it to its old state right now or make a link that points to the Huns' link. BBotirk (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh my, do not click on the author, click on page 5 (at the very end of the reference!!!!) Military history RUS (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, but still, the main link also contains Gumilev's Wikipedia article, which is prohibited on Wikipedia, and there shouldn't be another Wikipedia article on the Wikipedia source. BBotirk (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understand now, thanks, but still, someone change the part that refers to Gumilev's article. BBotirk (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

1) Why was I pinged? 2) What in the world are you talking about? If you continue this inane ranting I will report you to the administrators. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, sorry, we agreed, since you have experience in Wikipedia, I invited you to resolve the discussion, that is, for help, to be more specific, someone edited the Battle of Baideng article incorrectly, reverted it and this could have turned into an edit war, and I recommended that he read Gumilev's work The Huns, and when he saw the source, he reverted it back to its previous state, but now I was explaining that this was wrong, saying that Gumilev had also added the Wikipedia article. BBotirk (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Where are you from anyway? I do not even understand what is going on here anymore. Military history RUS (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I called him, don't ignore him until he pins you. BBotirk (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

No, no, this is not nonsense, I just wanted to ask you for help. If you put the article back in its old state and I fix it again, as you explained, this could turn into an edit and I could be blocked, that's why I asked you for help in the discussion. BBotirk (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Hello, sorry, we agreed, since you have experience in Wikipedia, I invited you to resolve the discussion, that is, for help, to be more specific, someone edited the Battle of Baideng article incorrectly, reverted it and this could have turned into an edit war, and I recommended that he read Gumilev's work The Huns, and when he saw the source, he reverted it back to its previous state, but now I was explaining that this was wrong, saying that Gumilev had also added the Wikipedia articlethis is not nonsense, I just wanted to ask you for help. If you put the article back in its old state and I fix it again, as you explained, this could turn into an edit and I could be blocked, that's why I asked you for help in the discussion BBotirk (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2026 (UTC)