Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uysyn

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. with no prejudice against recreation as a non-POV/OR article. SpinningSpark 23:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uysyn

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article qualifies for deletion in many ways. It is first of all a POV fork of Wusun. While nominally about a modern sub-tribe of the Senior Juz of the Kazakhs, almost the entire article is a about the Wusun of the Han era. The article Uysyn was created by Barefact, who has created numerous similar POV forks before, like Masguts[1] and Kangly[2] both of whom have been deleted. On these articles false etymology is used to claim ancient origins for various Turkic tribes; the Wusun are supposedly identical to the Uysyn, the Kangju to the Kangly, and the Massagetae to Masguts etc. Many of the sources used are outdated works from the 19th century, or non-English sources provided without links that are very hard to verify. The most frequently used source is a certain work "Ethnic History of the Usuns" by Yury Zuev (the article on Zuev is also created by Barefact). Googling this work leads one to this blog (identical to turkicworld.org) Much of this article seems to have been copied from that blog, compare paragraphs about "outstanding historian" N.A. Aristov. This blog claims that Turkic people share common origins with not only Scythians and other groups considered Iranian by mainstream scholars but even Etruscans, Celts, Sumerians and Native Americans! It is utterly pseudoscientific. The blog also contains a separate "Wikipedia" section where articles created by Barefact that have been deleted are saved.[3] Wikipedia is accused of being dominated by "Iranian supremacists". It seems likely that Barefact has a close connection to this blog, if he's not actually the owner of it. He is probably thus using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote his nationalist fringe theories. This qualifies the article for deletion as per WP:NOT and indicates that Barefact is not here to build an encyclopedia. The article also fails WP:N; searches for "Uysyn" yields no relevant results at all. In addition to the problems already mentioned, the article seems to be based on severe misreprentation of sources at worst, cherrypicking at best. A frequently used source is the work "History of the Hun People" by Lev Gumilev. Gumilev's work actually contradicts the basis of the entire article, as he writes that the Wusun dissapeared from history in the 5th century AD and probably became submerged into modern Tajiks (После этого почти исчезают упоминания об усунях, только под 436 г. сообщается, что под давлением жужаней усуни покинули родные кочевья и переселились в "Луковые горы" [13], т.е. в западные отроги Тяньшаня. К этому времени они стали так малочисленны, что на них никто не обращал внимания. Остатки их, видимо, ассимилировались с таджиками.).[4] Also see the chapter on the Wusun in the UNESCO published History of Civilizations of Central Asia, page 458-462, which like Gumilev state that the Wusun dissapear from history in the 5th century AD. No relation to a Kazakh sub-tribe is mentioned in any modern reliable source. It is quite shocking that an article like this has stood on Wikipedia for so long. Krakkos (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Krakkos (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Incoherent, impenetrable twaddle, the usual Turanist rubbish. The article is unsalvageable and pointless. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~strong keep, cleanup~~ This is a content dispute, not a notability issue. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, notability is not the major issue here. The main problem is that the article is a pov fork based on original research and unreliable sourcing created for soapbox purposes, as thoroughly explained above. It thus fulfills numerous sections of WP:DEL-REASON. Krakkos (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my opinion after trying to read other wikipedias. I immediately noticed that turkish and azeri artiles are about wusun; so I re-interlinked them. I have troubles with kazakh veriosn, but also have an impression it is basically about wusun, only with a bit more kazakh nationalist opinion. Also, reading around, it seems that there is no such kazakh tribe now. I found Сары-үйсін ("yellow Uysyn"), but no detail. So I guess cleanup no any time soon possibe, so deletion is an option, to avoid major confusion. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I would simply delete the Wusun part unless there are unambiguous sources linking the two. There won't be much left, but someone else can always rebuild the article. Hzh (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice for recreation in a form that is not a violation of the POV and FRINGE policies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK, WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAP. If it has any reliable content, those content should be used on the main article Wusun. --Zyma (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm confused here - nom claims "almost the entire article is a about the Wusun." The Wusun were a people who, according to all sources, disappeared/died out/were last heard from around the 5th century; however the article on the Usun/Uysyn discusses them going up until recent times. Therefore; the article does not appear to be about the same people. As Staszek Lem pointed out, this is a content dispute. If the issue is that Yuri Zuyev is not a reliable source, I don't understand the sentence that this article is about the Wusun. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete aside from Wikipedia:POVFORK, this article has major issues concerning its references. Four Studies on Central Asia, by V.V. BARTHOLD, page 80, makes NO mention of the Uysun, page 81 however mentions them in brief passing but makes no mention of 3rd century BC(misrepresentation). Hans J. Van de Ven. "Warfare in Chinese History", Brill Academic Publishers, 2000, Page 118, makes no mention of the Uysun(misrepresentation), in fact, Ashina Helu revolted against the Tang, declared himself khagan of the Western Turkic Khaganate and was later defeated by Dingfang. "Reference" #7 is not a reference but simply a statement, "Tsilyan (Qilian/Kilian etc.) mountains is Richtgofen ridge in Nanshan mountains"(no source). China in Central Asia: The Early Stage: 125 BC - AD 23, edited by Anthony, page 145, makes NO mention of, "were among the people of the Usun state Zhetysu"(misrepresentation). I am curious where the creator of the article found, P. Pelliot, "A propos des Comans", Journal Asiatique, April–June, 1920, since it is not listed on JSTOR(unverifiable). All in all, judging from the outrageous amount of misrepresentation of the sources to write this "article", woven into the Russian/unverifiable sources, this reeks of original research. Just from checking the "sources" that can be checked, I believe this is not a viable article, it has sources taken out of context, sources that are not available even on JSTOR, blatantly misrepresented information and in fact has shown to be lying about what the sources actually state. No, there is no "clean up" that will fix this mess. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thanks to Kansas Bear, I checked out Four Studies on Central Asia. On page 81, it says: “After this, the name of the Wu-sun as an independent people disappears from history. As is well-known, their name has survived only in the name of the great Qirghiz-Qaysaq horde (the Uysun).” Therefore, one can conclude that the Uysun 1) exist; 2) are a great Kyrgyz/Kazakh horde/tribe; 3) are indeed not the same thing as the Wusun, but apparently descendents or somehow related (as they take their name from them); and 4; this is well-known. So to me this supports this article existing. However, I do believe that Barefact, in violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, cited Pelliot directly from Zuyev's work (which is available online here).—Мандичка^YO 😜 01:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So you took the only verifiable source that actually mentioned the Uysun and stated what I already said, ignoring that it didn't support the sentence in question. Wow. Pity you didn't check the other sources. Undoubtedly highlighting source misrepresentation was the real reason you didn't. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Bear: I don't see why it matters that it didn't support the sentence in question; that the Wusun were around from the 3rd century BC is mentioned in multiple places and does not affect the notability of the Uysun. The creator of this article may have done shoddy, lazy or downright false referencing, but that doesn't mean the Uysun didn't exist or this is somehow a "fringe theory" as has been claimed. As for checking "the other" sources - why exactly would I need to do that? You did a good job of pointing out they suck. Vasily Bartold is, by all appearances, a highly reliable source; he wrote about the "well-known" Uysun as distinctly separate from the Wusun; why would I challenge him as a source? —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"that the Wusun were around from the 3rd century BC is mentioned in multiple places and does not affect the notability of the Uysun", "I don't see why it matters that it didn't support the sentence in question..". Source misrepresentation? Sources that I have checked state Wusun, not Uysun. Sounds like you have proven this article is a mish-mash of switched names & terms, Wikipedia:OR, Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS and Wikipedia:POINT. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear: "Wusun" is the sinological transliteration of the people who disappeared in the 5th century; Uysun/Үйсін/Усун is the Russian/Kazakh etc word for "Wusun"; it's also the name for the modern Uysun people, who have apparently been hanging around much more recently. I'm sorry if that confuses you. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"You did a good job of pointing out they suck." Actually, I thought the blatant source misrepresentation was clear enough. Such edits border on disruptive editing and should be addressed as such. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing should be dealt with at WP:ANI. It is not criteria for deletion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"but that doesn't mean the Uysun didn't exist..", I never said they did not exist. That strawman was created by you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, at AfD we are here to evaluate whether an article should be deleted or kept based on certain criteria. Misrepresentation of sources is not a reason for deletion, as long as suitable sources are available. If WP:RS support the Uysun existing and having a separate identity to the Wusun, which seems to me to be the case here, then the article should be kept. Please review the criteria for deletion at WP:DEL-REASON. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

actually in Barthold'd work, the mentioned p.81 has a footnote that says this opinion is inconclusive. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Staszek Lem, in my opinion the footnote on 81 is only in regards to identifying them as Qaysaq/Kazakh; notice its positioning; it's not at the end of the statement or after the word Uysun, just after "Qaysaq." Since he claims it is "well-known" it would seem strange to state it was at the same time "uncertain." Considering there are additional references to the Uysun such this one, I don't see why we should believe their existence is a fringe theory. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Üysin a.k.a. Usun or Wusun, is one of the founding boys(tribes) of Kazakhstan. along with Üysin, Kanglı, Argun, Kıpçak, Alban, Konra You can see it in historical documents, articles and poetry. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- yes? We get that they existed? The question is about the CFORK with Wusun. --dab (𒁳) 07:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You wish to keep Uysyn, while earlier blanking Armenian Genocide as "unnecessary".[5][6][7] Your interpretation of WP:N fascinates me. Krakkos (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was 12, by that time. If you like digging through, i suggest you Minecraft Without Envy Edition. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While you've probably grasped the futility of blanking you're still describing information on the Armenian Genocode as "not necessary" and "described excessively".[8] Your fascinating interpetation of encyclopedic relevance continues. Still 12? Krakkos (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a CFORK, created by a problem user based on dodgy sources. The article is at Wusun. After this, there can still be debate on the article title or possible split of the existing "Wusun" age within the normal editing process. Regarding the Uysun 1) exist; 2) are a great Kyrgyz/Kazakh horde/tribe; 3) are indeed not the same thing as the Wusun, but apparently descendents or somehow relate is not sufficient defence of the article as it stands. This is barely enough for a "Legacy" section under Wusun and a list entry in some "list of Kyrgyz/Kazakh tribes". The point is that the "Uysyn" article purports to be about some separate group, but then goes on to discuss the Wusun regardless. --dab (𒁳) 07:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- merge-redirect — I took the liberty of looking at the article content and its sources, and removing all the material that was clearly off topic, pertaining to the Wusun. What remains is a very straightforward situation. The Uyshun are a subdivision of the Kazakh Senior juz. They first appear in Persian historiography in the 13th century. Some (Russian?) ethnographers have speculated that the name may derive from that of the ancient Wusun. Our Senior juz page has a list of clans, and may very well be expanded by substantiated additions. There are some bona-fide references in the Uysyn page as we found it, but these are Soviet-era ethnographic papers written in Russian, only accessible to us via dodgy English translation hosted on some cranky Turkic-nationalist website. It's enough to establish the Uysyn are a bona-fide subgroup of the Senior juz, so we can redirect the page there, and of course we should welcome any additions on their demographics etc. that is actually based on verifiable sources. --dab (𒁳) 08:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for taking the time to look at this. Zuyev's work is available at Suyun, which is not a "cranky Turkic-nationalist website" but by all appearances a neutral website devoted to studying the ethnicity and anthropology of the Bashkirs (correct me if I'm wrong). I also don't think there is a reason to discount things as "Soviet-era" (which produced a large body of useful information, especially in regards to ethnic studies of the Soviet Union) if they have not been replaced/refuted by newer, better sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems like the Suyun website is run by User:Bulat Muratov.[9][10] The "cranky Turkic-nationalist website" is run by article creator User:Barefact.[11] They are both Bashkirs and promoting work by the controversial Anatole Klyosov (see Russian WP).[12][13] I would not be surprised if Barefact and Bulat Muratov are somehow acquainted with each other. Krakkos (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Dbachmann for that excellent cleanup at Zhuz and related articles. Based on (unsourced) info at Zhuz it seems that the name Uysun has sometimes been applied to the Senior Zhuz. The article Uysyn has then appearently been a dual-CFORK of both Wusun and Senior Juz. I agree with you that a redirect to Zhuz is good solution. That would leave us with the Sary-Uisyn, which according to an earlier version of Zhuz is the smallest Zhuz tribe, and would probably fail WP:N. The current content of Uysyn is still problematic. Most the history section is about the separate tribe Dulats and based on an unverifiable source, while much of the rest is copied from Barefacts website; compare the nonsense sentence about "Alano-Toharian problems" of "Eastern Iranism". We are still dealing with an article obviously created for WP:SOAP purposes, and containing as Kansas Bear illustrated systematic WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources (WP:NOTRELIABLE). I suggest WP:TNT could be applied by deleting the article and then creating a redirect to Zhuz. Krakkos (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have come to the same conclusion, Uysyn is an alternative name for the Senior juz. It was a weird conflation between Wusun (the ancient tribe) and Senior juz (the Kazakh group). The historical information is garbled and unreferenced, but I assume most of it has some sort of factual nucleus as it was clearly posted by an "insider" (I suppose it is even plausible that the name Uysyn continues the name Wusun, at least it seems some Soviet ethnographers have suggested this. It's just that, well, the name of the Belgians also continues that of the Celtic Belgae, and yet the article Belgians does consist of 80% unreferenced rambling about the Celtic Iron Age). Well, this is what the ethnic nationalists on Wikipedia always do. Then we spend hours of our time cleaning up after them, because if I learned one thing in a decade of this, being "ethnic" means you cannot grasp the concept of "encyclopedia" for some reason, and in the end we get abuse for writing the article on their precious tribe for them. It has been years since I last touched the administrative "user conduct" side of things, but I must say the fact that User:Barefact (who has been doing this, and only this, for years) has not been permabanned yet does not inspire confidence. --dab (𒁳) 06:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Dbachmann: Yes, this seems like another ethno-pov classic of using false etymology to claim ancient origins; i. e. Kurds are descended from Gutians (Kurdu?) and so on. Barefact of course has an additional motive in providing "evidence" that Kangju, Massagetae and Wusun were Turkic. Remember his article Scytho-Iranian theory. Barefact has done extensive damage to Wikipedia's Central Asian coverage and is a clear example of WP:NOTHERE. How he has avoided being banned is indeed a mystery. It seems like the Zuev work which Barefact used as the root source, has creatively combined every mentioning of names similar to Uysyn to create a comprehensive "ethnic history". These combinations seem spurious, i. e. the "Ushi" (allegedly Wusun) are supposed to have been expelled from Shaanxi by the Yuezhi in 410 BC (i have largely written the Wusun article and this expulsion isn't mentioned anywhere else). Appearently names resembling Uysyn are quite common in Central Eurasia; the table on "Uysyn appelations" in the History section insinuates that there are Uysyns also living in both the Caucasus (Nogais) and Siberia (Bashkortostan). Based on certain contradictions, i'm also unsure if the "Uyshun" mentioned in the 14th century Jami' al-tawarikh by Rashid-al-Din Hamadani are the same as the Uysyn/Senior Juz. Rashid-al-Din Hamadani is the first author to mention the Dughlats (the leading Uysyn tribe). He refers to the Dughlats as a tribe from Mongolia and appearantly not as a sub-tribe of the Uyshun. The term Senior Zhuz is clearly more common than Uysun, while the Uysyn/Sary Uysyn are usually mentioned as a Senior Zhuz sub-tribe together with Dughlats, Jalairs etc. Given these contradictions and the fact that it has been contributed by Barefact, with all it's implicatations of OR and misrepresentions, i doubt much of the remaining content is salvageable. Krakkos (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:CFORK. Barefact has been known for many years to forge/manipulate historical information to suit his nationalist agenda. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty apparent it's not a content fork. Barefact's record shows he's created multiple articles on presumably notable topics that have not been deleted. If he's forging information this should be addressed at WP:ANI, rather than to delete articles he's created. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similar articles Barefact created, like Masguts ("Turkic Masguts are descended from Massagetae")[14] and Kangly ("Turkic Kankalis are descended from Kangju"), were deleted as POV-forks.[15][16] Shortly after creating the article Uysyn ("Turkic Sary-Uisyn/Senior Zhuz/Uysyn are descended from Wusun"), Barefact recieved a long block for "content forking, NPOV violations, fringe theory advocacy."[17] Nobody is suggesting deleting all articles created by Barefact, only those that fulfill WP:DEL-REASON (WP:POVFORK, WP:SOAP, WP:OR, WP:NOTRELIABLE). Krakkos (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it is an OR mashup of two unrelated ethnes separated by an immense gulf, each of which already has their own article. Ogress _smash! 22:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, much of this article overlaps content in other articles; some small portion of the material might be used in Zhuz, but this article is difficult to follow even after all the recent clean-up; so I can't recommend merge, just delete - maybe with an 'alternate name' redirect to Zhuz? Ghostwheel ʘ 01:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.