Talk:Attila/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Son of the Valley of the Images

So, we've got a lot of images again, and still, none of them are contemporary. I would suggest that we pick 2-4 for the gallery, use none in the info box, and move the rest to Attila the Hun in popular culture, where we can treat them individually in their own context. Seems like they do not do much for this article. What do you all think? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's not get into another edit war regarding the images, please discuss before reverting. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This definitely isn't worth an edit war, but I'd personally agree with Nuujinn's proposal We have various much-later depictions, demonic or otherwise legendary, which do have a certain interest of their own. But there is nothing contemporary. The File:AttilatheHunonhorsebackbyGeorgeSStuart.jpg, a recent insertion, seems to be a generic representation of a rider in something like nearly-modern Central Asian Turkish costume. This is a personal choice, and thanks to those who supplied the image, but I don't find value in this sort of thing. I too would prefer to have the individually-notable legendary representations in the gallery (I'm not hung up on how many but my own ideas would agree with Nuujinn's), and nothing in the infobox. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean to give the impression of an edit war. The image was changed after a call for discussion was initiated. What is the real goal here with images? What is meant by contemporary? Do you instead mean contemporaneous? Such an image would be appropriate in the infobox, but I think no such thing exists for Attila so I agree that it would be best to leave the infobox image-free. I do not see much of an issue with other historical depictions placed in appropriate sections if they inform the associated section. Compare, possibly, with Boudica. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think anyone intends for this to become an edit war, and perhaps I should have been more cautious in my choice of words. In the past, this article has bseen contention over the images, and I may have overreacted. But it seems that thus far, we're generally in agreement that we don't need an image in the infobox, does anyone object to the removal of same? Also, I think some historical depictions would be fine. Taking the demonized image that appears in the coins, for example, I think one is sufficient, and it would be better still if we could fine some academic discussion of same. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Age

Why can't you guys figure out that he was born in 406 AD? Or am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.162.114 (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Attila the Hun was born in 406 A.D. and died at age 47 in the year 453 A.D. Erikowalabear (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Broken Links to be repaired

The link in Primary Sources is broken and should be replaced or removed

Priscus: Byzantine History, available in the original Greek in Ludwig Dindorf : Historici Graeci Minores (Leipzig, Teubner, 1870) and available online as a translation by J.B. Bury: Priscus at the court of Attila http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/priscus.html(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

File:Huns-1-.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Huns-1-.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Clothing versus heavy metal

I'm sorry to revert your change, and I'm not trying to argue the relative importance of clothing versus heavy metal. But we do need the clothing link because it's a redirect from a correct spelling of the clothing (and common mis-spelling of A the H}. And the metal band is covered already by the disambiguation link; its inclusion could also be argued to be an example of undesirable WP:Recentism. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Toroklevi, 7 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Helo

The true abouth Attila, is not complet. He was the king of Hun Empire and not a ruler. In all cronicels (Cronica Pictata ; Thuroczi Cronicle ; Anonymus: Gesta Hungarorum)it wroten down in latin like this :" regis Atila; Atyla regis ".

Thank you. Levente

Toroklevi (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your request; can you explain more? Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Levente wishes us to describe Attila as "King" of the Huns not "just" the "ruler" - I think it's covered under 'shared kingship'. I'm not clear at what point to distinguish between defacto ruler and King, so I'm not making any change. EdwardLane (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Defeated at Châlons???

Attila was Not defeated at the Battle of Châlons. I do not know why we still use a non-historical account of what actually happened.

The battle was for the defense of the Roman Empire. The Roman general Flavius Aëtius and the Visogoth King Theodoric I were to defend Rome.

The outcome of the battle ended with the Visogoth King dead, and the Roman general fired and not allowed lead another Roman army.

In contrast Attila continued to march on a totally undefended Rome.

If Attila was defeated then Flavius Aëtius would have been able to block Attila march on Rome, which he could not because he was defeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunnish (talk • contribs) 17:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, where to start? The death of an individual, even Theodoric's, is not the same as the outcome of a battle. The Battle of Chalons has been widely accepted by the vast majority of historians as very important in the checking of the Huns in Europe. Attila's armies were stopped, they suffered very heavy casualties, and as a result, Attila, despite repeated attempts (and further destruction), was not able to defeat Rome. If the battle was a stalemate, strategically it was a defeat for Attila, since only a clear victory would have accomplished his purpose. Until the mainstream thought of historical judgement is changed, I'm afraid you'll just have to agree to disagree. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Hunnish, you really don't know what you are talking about. The battle was for the defense of Roman Gaul. Attila intended to defeat the Romans and Visigoths and conquer Gaul. Instead, after the battle he marched his army in the opposite direction and withdrew his army back across the Rhine. He never returned to Gaul. He made a bold move and invaded Italy, but his losses from the battle, Aetius' harrassment, and possible plague made him unable to march on Rome. Why did you say he marched on Rome? He actually left Italy, never to return, having only pillaged the north. Read a book.--Tataryn77 (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Tataryn, can you provide citations for the material you've recently added? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What new material? I simply made the intro more cohesive by using info already there and info from the article. If I added anything controversial let me know. The intro had no citations to begin with so should we erase the entire introduction?--Tataryn77 (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you may be misunderstanding me. You appear to be familiar with the material, so my question was a simple one--ledes that are high level summaries certainly do not require citations, but I think they are a good idea in a lede that is this specific. I personally don't think the lede should be so specific, but if it is, some citations to the sources of the individual statements would be advantageous to readers. Extra eyes are certainly welcome here. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Finnish people, Estonians, and Hungarians speak the language Atilla spoke which is why they speak Turkic languages so far from Mongolia, we can get a little picture of what Atilla's borders were with the visigoths and the ostrogoths. Hungarians are an ethnic mix of Romans and Huns and Avars (also Turkic people) that still speak a version of Atilla's Turkic Hun language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.49.180 (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Hungarians are Magyars, and their language is not Turkic, neither is Finnish or Estonian. I wish you'd quit going around sprinkling Talk Pages with Turkish-nationalism myths. Enough. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The legend of Attila as the archetype of barbarian cruelty and terror?

The article is historical but it never discusses the fact that Attila remains today the archetype of the relentless vicious conqueror or who took what he wanted when he wanted and destroyed everything promiscuously. The legend alone is worth discussion, but also the question of its historical basis. Docnixon (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Greg Nixon

I think the description of Attila's military attacks is ample evidence of his wanton destruction for personal gain for he and his legions. If the article accurately reflects history, no one will come away with a wrong impression of him. His raids were for plunder and (apparently) destructive out of sheer sadism; he didn't replace 'conquered' territorial gov'ts with anything constructive, and his deeds were simply the acts of an uncivilized barbarian taking advantage of an old, highly civilized state in decline. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Hitler was 100 times more barbarian than Attila .if you don't consider hitler s actions as barbaric then you cannot consider Attila as a barbarian at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.97.247 (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Difference between Hunnic and Hunnish?

So I've always knew it as Hunnic. But then I see this article trading off between Hunnish and Hunnic. A quick search of google has Hunnic showing up in thefreedictionary.com as the first hit. However Hunnic's dictionary entry shows up about 6 hits down and it is merriam webster saying that Hunnic doesn't show up in their dictionary :/ . So I move to Change all Hunnic instances to Hunnish to bring consistency to this article. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Herwig Wolfram ref`

Hello, I have reverted this edit because this data is located in the source that is present with this sentence. How did you concluded that this data is not in the source? Please check this source where it states: The description of Attila by an eyewitness confirms his Asian origin and etc... you can see it in the source the whole text. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the original quotation from Priscus (through Jordanes). The description of the author of what appearance may resemble as Asian is way too subjective and broad, and cannot be extrapolated from the original source from Priscus. Another source describes - based on the same description of Attila by Priscus - the Huns as most closely related to other nomadic steppe peoples who lived in the same area at similar time: [Huns] were closely related to ‘Altai’ horseback nations like the Scythians, Sarmatians, and Alans — who preceded the Huns — and the Bulgars, Avars, Chasars, Magyars, Turks, and Mongols — who all would play a significant part on the border of Europe and Asia after the Huns. Jordanes describes [Attila] as a small but broad man, with a large head, small eyes, a partly grey, thin beard, a flat nose, and tanned skin. Contemporary authors frequently denote the Huns with “Scythians”, mainly because the Huns inhabited the former Scythian area, but maybe also because they resembled the Scythians. It's plausible that, as far as culture and appearance are concerned, the Scythians and Huns didn't differ that much. source FonsScientiae (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate Adrian's point and his reference, per FonsScientiae I suggest that we should omit secondary speculation not found in the primary sources. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if this info should be omitted, but if you 2 think so then I guess it can be done. Adrian (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Story of Attila in headlines

Hi:

What I read about Attila was this:

Attila was born in Kyiv ("Kiev" in Russian Language) and was named in translation from Ukrainian/Old Slavic "Gattylo" meaning: "one who hits strong as with a large log". There was a story when he was young and cleared a few saddlers, who attacked him, from horses with a few swings of his "dowbnyia" - log. So from this verb (actual Ukrainian word pronounced as "gatyty" - to hit hard) and his giant stature, he was named Gattylo - and the accent of other nations pronounced him Attila, including English. While this might not be important, what is important is that Attila was born in the Great Kyiv, and was a son to a tsar, went out to steppes of Tatars and Mongols and won big victory there and, then he went west to the other side of Carpathian Mountains all the way to Rome, and did not take the Rome not because he could not, but because of negotiation between Attila's army and Romans, war did not occur. I do not remember clearly and do not have the chance to review the book; though, as far as I remember, Attila with his army lost many soldiers at Constantinople; though, was not defeated and did not loose the battle.

I think this, maybe reworded, should be in the head passage about Attila on the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mops 11 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it should. All we need is to demonstrate a consensus among reliable sources. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Czech point of view.

http://geolib.geology.cz/cgi-bin/gw?ST=03&SID=0039F9ACDA&L=02&KDE=037&RET=Raman+spectroscopic+provenance+determination+of+garnets+from+the+scramasaxe+scabbard+%28The+treasure+of+Barbarian+Prince+from+C%C3%A9zavy%2DBlu%C4%8Dina%2C+Czech+Republic%2C+late+5th+century%29%2E+%5C%5CRIV%2F00023272%3A%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%2F09%3A%230000893%5C

http://templ.net/english/texts-sword_from_blucina.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial Good day, my written English is not the best. So can someone please update this Atila the Hun. This is the only atifact that I know about that dates from Atilla the Hun, and the AVAR period 5th to 8th Centry. It is located 8kn from Brno Moravia. No aritfacts have ever been found on Bohemian soil to my knowledge. But maybe someone should read history more carefully. Because I am far from an expert. But didn't Atilla the Hun and the later Avar's first enter Europe through the Silk road to raid the Roman Empire. It's written in Latin and Greek but there are many citie's and rivers named. None are on todays Czech Lands, http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048 . The rivers named are the Volga, Rhina, Danube. Also the chronicle of fredegar "slavic" "Befulci" can mean many things page 149 here: http://www.ffzg.unizg.hr/arheo/ska/tekstovi/fredegar_paul.pdf :https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m1955&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF or even google:define:Benfulci. If anyone can help in updating I will be greatfull. Casurgis from Sydney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.0.254 (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This is interesting, may I suggest that you add further details to Blučina burial where the sword is clearly relevant? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

edit request --- character and appearance

Another second hand source of Attila's character and appearance survives from the Bishop Kalan of Pecs who wrote a history of Attila in 1197...He apparently also read Priscus's first hand account history and meeting with Attila before it was lost, he quotes both Priscus and Jordanes

"Yet, Attila, as Iordanes and the aforementioned Priscus the historian narrate, was a king of proud gait, rolling his eyes hither and thither; he was such an arrogant in all his matters, that his boastful pride could be recognized even by some stranger from his body gestures. And even if indeed he was a warlike, he was also circumspect in judgment and temperance, utterly sagacious in character, gracious and easily entreated to those whom he once admitted to his protection. If however someone proved his trust void, he would never show mercy; for he detested, like savage beasts, those who systematically attempted to deceive either him the conqueror or the fatherland with any trick. He had short body, but almost proper stature, broad chest, large head; his eyes were small, his ears long and sharp, his hair shaggy and rough, so it was commonly called doggish by everybody; his beard was thin, but hanging down according to his habit, and also sprinkled with gray hair; he was snub-nosed, ruddy in color, his manners were savage; he was prone to bold actions, and showing the signs and characteristics of his true origin; he had small mouth, but broad lips, with one of his teeth, which was protruding, creating a slight deformity to his face more than is right." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.40.121 (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources of the quote, the execution of the edit request will be possible. FonsScientiae (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been out of country for a while....Hello Fonscientiae, you must of missed this part of my text.."Bishop Kalan of Pecs who wrote a history of Attila in 1197...he quotes both Priscus and Jordanes" If you are looking for an online version, there are none. It is still in it's original Latin form. There is a 15th century copy, Ms. Codex 67 - Ragone, Jacopo - [Regulae artificialis memoriae] : Istoria Attile Hunnorum regis at UPenn, Permanent Link: http://hdl.library.upenn.edu/1017/d/medren/1473941. I have a english translation but it has not been peer reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.79.70 (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The only thing it seems to add to what we have from Priscus and Jordanes is poor translation ("doggish") by the good bishop. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Categorization as Turkic

I've just reverted my last overenthusiastic edit, but there is no scholarly consensus that Attila's Huns "were" Turkic, though something related is certainly a possibility. We don't need to make these confident statements. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There is no scholarly consensus that the Huns were Turkic. I believe you will find that this "new" editor Erim Turukku[1] is actually user:EMr_KnG[2], who was previously pushing a Turkic/Turkish POV over numerous articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request - Bad Source - Sarcouhagus

I can't fix this because it's semi-protected, but the latest revision " 20:14, 26 March 2014‎ Esprix (talk | contribs)‎ . . (48,134 bytes) (+252)‎ . . (→‎Invasion of Italy and death: Added reference to discovery of grave)" and it's reference to the finding of the tomb is from the world news daily report, an unlabeled satirical source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.1.81.178 (talk)

I am an inexperienced editor, so I am hoping a more experienced one will see this. There is a reference to and citation of an article about his grave. It is citing a single news source, World News Daily, that is a known tabloid type site that fabricates stories. No other credible news agency has mentioned the grave being found. It would be globally significant news. Wildwose (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Location of Death Discovery/False

The tenth paragraph under Invasion of Italy and death reports a false citation from known satire news agency World News Daily Report. To date, discovery of tomb is unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelLux (talk • contribs) 22:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2014

Neonoir99 (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Chech Republic was part of Germania Magna. Look at Potlemys maps no cites or rivers are named.

http://geolib.geology.cz/cgi-bin/gw?ST=03&SID=0039F9ACDA&L=02&KDE=037&RET=Raman+spectroscopic+provenance+determination+of+garnets+from+the+scramasaxe+scabbard+%28The+treasure+of+Barbarian+Prince+from+C%C3%A9zavy%2DBlu%C4%8Dina%2C+Czech+Republic%2C+late+5th+century%29%2E+%5C%5CRIV%2F00023272%3A%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%2F09%3A%230000893%5C

http://templ.net/english/texts-sword_from_blucina.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial Good day, my written English is not the best. So can someone please update the so called Migration Period. This is the only artifact known that dates from Atilla the Hun, and the AVAR period 5th to 8th Century (Blucina Sword note German man). It is located 8km from Brno Moravia. No aritfacts have ever been found on Bohemian soil to the best of my knowledge. But maybe someone should read history more carefully. Because I am far from an expert. But didn't Atilla the Hun and the later Avar's first enter Europe through the Silk road to raid the Roman Empire. Documents at the time were written in Latin and Greek and many citie's and rivers named. None of these are on todays Czech Republic's Lands. http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-ptolemy-s-geography-fotostrecke-59994-2.html , http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048 . The rivers named are the Volga, Rhina, Danube. Also the "Chronicle of Fredegar" "slavic" "Befulci" can mean many things page 149 here: http://www.ffzg.unizg.hr/arheo/ska/tekstovi/fredegar_paul.pdf :https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m1955&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF or even google:define:Benfulci. If anyone can help in updating I will be greatful. Casurgis from Sydney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.12.8 (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Typo on the medal and Latin text under it

The medal has a "typo" in it, and so does the text under it. Flagellum is spelled/spelt as flagelum, which is wrong. I think that should be noted in that box. At least it bit me. I have copied the text from there (not knowing that it is incorrect). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.169.86 (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to have an infobox without an image, no image is remotely contemporary. But we do give an accurate report of what's on the artifact. I don't think it's worth explaining a Renaissance typo here, but would anyone else agree that removing the image from the infobox is a good idea? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe remove the image from the info-box?

Do any of you think it's a good idea to just simply remove the image from the infobox? There are too many depictions around and maybe it would just be best to leave Attila the Hun up to the imagination of the reader who reads the article? --Iritakamas (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the best way to go. We've had a lot of contention about what image best represents Attila, but as far as I can determine, no one really knows what he looked like. We do have Attila the Hun in popular culture where most of these would work well, but the infobox is a particularly prominent placement. The coins are nice, but not neutral, and we just don't have any good images to use there. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Though I wonder if it would be okay to put File:AttilatheHunonhorsebackbyGeorgeSStuart.jpg in the Gallery section? --Iritakamas (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't myself, but I also wouldn't revert it if you want to. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

May we please be consistent? the info-box image caption states that it is a medallion. However, the SAME image (cropped to show only the human form) is repeated at the base of the article and having a caption stating that it is a "statue". It is clearly a bas relief and NOT a statue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.16.120 (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

While the iconography is obviously similar, they do look like different images and the second one could be a statue. Anyway, in view of the similarity, we certainly don't need both. I have removed the second one (which has less information) and moved the infobox one to replace it. I think this works well; his personal appearance recorded by a contemporary eyewitness is now the first section after the lede, and later representations are wisely put in a gallery at the end of the article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"Mongoloid"

The section "Appearance and character" (apparently misnamed, as it only discusses his appearance) uses the word "Mongoloid". I thought that term was pretty derogatory; the only other places I've heard it used were in an old encyclopedia classifying the races of the world and as another word for Down's Syndrome. If it really is a slur, we should remove it or qualify it (so-called "Mongoloid" traits). Does anyone else know if it's a current term in anthropology? Charlotte Aryanne (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It is referenced to (one) secondary source, but it goes beyond the available primary sources and it hints at pseudoscientific racism; other secondary sources more cautiously just use the comments made by the primary source. I have removed it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If the term Mongoloid is so offensive than I suggest someone delete this wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid ( Yes " Mongoloid " wiki page which had existed since 2005 ) including removing that term that had been edited in hundreds+ ( possibly thousand ) of wikipedia pages since the beginning of wikipedia. I honestly don't see what's so offensive about this " Mongoloid " term. Being part Hungarian and 1/4 Chinese myself ( I look nothing like Asian by the way). Many historians have already acknowledged the description of Attila as being Asian ( in other word " Mongoloid " ) this ain't just based on the fact that Romans had described these invaders with a totally different appearance to theirs but is is also evidently backed by our Hungarian anthropologists aswell which proved Huns were from two races: Mongoloid and Turanid ( predominately Caucasoid with Mongoloid admixture )

Anthropology[edit]

Hungarian archaeologist István Bóna argues that most of Europeans Huns were of Caucasoid and that less than 20-25% were of Mongoloid stock.[47]

Turanid was most common among the Hun, ::According to the Hungarian anthropologist Pál Lipták (1955) the Turanid type is a Caucasoid type with significant Mongoloid admixture, arising from the mixture of the Andronovo type of Europoid features and the Oriental (Mongoloid).'

[48] Eickstedt's concept on this race as a variety of the Turanid type, transitional between the Europeoid and Mongoloid.[49]--Spiritclaymore (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see your point, and nobody would argue that people from different parts of the world do tend to look different and have identifiably different though slight genetic differences - especially out of Africa, we're a very homogeneous species. However, the kind of firm racial divisions (that Bóna and Eickstedt appear to have used several decades ago) are not scientifically supportable and they are strongly identified with pseudoscientific racism. On the specific issue of references for an "Asian" interpretation of Attila's appearance, Wolfram from 1990 is a suitably reliable source and uses acceptable language. Magill is a tertiary source, from 1998 and quite possibly uses Wolfram's comment as a basis. I'd suggest keeping it short, using some form of words like "At least one modern scholar has suggested that this description confirms Attila's Asian origin" and just using Wolfram as a reference.

Other pages need discussion elsewhere, but I don't think that we should be using decades-old sources that I can't check and which can only have been using outdated and dubious methods (modern DNA testing wasn't available then and craniometry is dubious for several reasons). I'll consider the Huns page. The Mongoloid page is remarkable, the final sentence of the lede is almost all that saves it from being a catalogue of pseudoscientific racism. I'm not sure if I feel brave enough to tackle it, but thanks for drawing it to my attention. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no scientific racism at all since they even admitted the majority of Huns were Turanid, Caucasoid with minority being Mongoloid. One would think that majority of Huns should have been Mongoloid instead based on the description given by Romans which described them like a Alien race but this could be due to variety of reasons, maybe Mongoloid Hun were at one time more significant before absorbing the majority conquered population. A minority of Huns were indeed Mongoloid but most Huns were still Caucasoid and Caucasoid-Mongoloid admixture. We also have recent facial reconstruction of Huns showing strong Mongoloid features in our Museum which proves Bóna and Eickstedt were scientifically supportable. Not just Hungarian anthropologist but even Russians had discovered Huns with Mongoloid skulls and Euro-Mongoloid skulls which isn't surprising since they came from South Siberia/Central Asia. Hungary had also made a documentary of Huns in our history channel using anthropology evidence and claimed most of the skulls were found to be Caucasoid and part Caucasoid. The only problem is we can't decide for sure who were the original Huns although Russian claimed original Huns were Mongoloid aswell as some Hungarian historian who believed Huns were originally Mongoloid and claimed the discovery of Caucasoid Huns were results of incorporating Alan soldiers (after having conquered from Volga region and North Caucasus region)long before they even invaded Europe and settled in Hungary. Many agreed that Germans and Alans would make the majority of Hunnic army. But regardless of which race was the original Hun all I know Attila was described as Mongoloid from the description and was the ruling core and the discovery of Mongoloid skulls of Huns from Hungary to Volga region supports this fact.

Here were some modern reconstruction of Huns

A Hun women

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kMnXiF51Ni8/UPbvQjOYkNI/AAAAAAAAGMM/B3ucKgm1hQ4/s1600/hunnin.jpg

Skull elongation of Hun man and child

http://i49.tinypic.com/2wrde9l.jpg -- Spiritclaymore (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC).

I'm sorry not to have made myself clear. Classifying people into defined races is pseudoscientific racism. Classifying people in this way from skulls is dubious for several reasons. First, because I can't check the references to see what they did or how well they did it. And a facial reconstruction, even by a museum, is not a reliable source by itself. Second, especially with skulls that have become distorted in the ground, it's very easy to make measurements that confirm whatever the measurer was hoping to find, particularly relevant to someone like von Eickstedt who seems to have spent his entire professional career desperately trying to classify skulls into "races". Third, back to the point about references, identifying any particular skull as that of a Hun requires evidence. I note for example that the title of Lipták's work indicates that he thinks he's talking about Avar skulls rather than Attila-period skulls. I propose to copy this debate to Talk:Huns, where we may profitably continue it, but in the meantime I propose to make the edit that I suggested above. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think most people don't see it as pseudoscientific racism because if they were than why do all wiki pages allows it? Also one can easily say every skulls is distorted including the Scythians and Vikings not just Hun. He was definately talking about the Hunnic skulls from Attila period, those pictures of Huns I shown you were from Attila's time with more advance reconstruction. I can find you plenty of book sources. Mongoloid skulls and Mongoloid-Caucasoid appeared in Hungary since the 5th century long before the appearance of Mongoloid skulls in the 7th century by the Avars. The Mongoloid skulls from the 10th century in Hungary are attributed to Avars however. " Thanks to Pál Lipták's researches it has been known for almost half a century that only 16.7 percent of 10th century human bones belong to the Euro-Mongoloid and Mongoloid types.[62][63] "

THERE IS NOT ONLY ANTHROPOLOGY EVIDENCE BUT GENETIC EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS UP

A Mongoloid genetic marker of Huns in Hungary could very well be haplogroup Q. You can find in book sources and even genetic articles about this claim. This could be a link that proves the Huns of Europe were descendants from the Xiongnu Huns due to the fact the excavation showed they carried a great number of appreciable frequencies of Y-DNA Q.

Haplogroup Q reachest highest frequencies in Hungarians in the Balkans at 3% and sometimes 2.5% however is 2x higher in some villages although still small.

Black Terror White Soldiers: Islam, Fascism and the New Age books.google.co.uk David Livingstone - ‎2013 -

" One hypothesis is that Q came to Europe with the Huns in the fifth century "

A genetic article on Hungarian Y-DNA frequencies.

" Ornella Semino, Giuseppe Passarino, Lluís Quintana-Murci, Aiping Liu, Judit Béres, Andreas Czeizel, and A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti. "MtDNA and Y chromosome polymorphisms in Hungary: inferences from the palaeolithic, neolithic and Uralic influences on the modern Hungarian gene pool." European Journal of Human Genetics 8 (2000): pages 339-346. This particular study's Hungarian samples carried the R1a Y-DNA haplogroup at a frequency of 60 percent. Abstract: "

" There are some Hungarian villages where the inhabitants possess small frequencies of Y-DNA haplogroups from Central Asia and Northern Asia such as those in the N, Q, and C families. " ( C is heavily related with Mongols, N with Uralic people, Q is related with Siberian Turks and Turkmen Oghuz Turks, the Huns were believe to have spoke Oghuz Turks this seems like a strong link)

I have copied the above to Talk;Huns where it is directly relevant. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but claiming " at least one scholar " is a bit far-fetched. It is far more that, I have read at least 3 Hungarian historian who claimed Attila appearance was Asian although 2 of them used the word "Mongolian" instead but I don't know if using Hungarian reference from google book is okay when you can't translate the text into English. Even in our Hungarian wikipedia of Attila we translated the description of Attila ( his image ) a typical of Mongolian/East Asian since 2007. I think the English wikipedia should be more honest and fair considering we have no problem suggesting it as East Asian. Let's stick to the original post until find something extra. -- http://i49.tinypic.com/2wrde9l.jpg -- Spiritclaymore (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC).

We really do need to stick to reliable sources. We also need to stick to relevant sources, and an illustration of Hunnic headbinding practices is not relevant. At present we quote the only primary source for Attila's appearance, and one scholarly speculation that he was of East Asian appearance. That seems like a good guess to me and to many other people, but anything more really is undue weight for Wikipedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have changed "at least one" to "some" scholars. I hope this helps. We may need another opinion if it doesn't. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge, I had talked with the other moderator before and he agrees the English Wikipedia could do more to describe what Priscus description of of Attila mean't. The fact that this English wikipedia page doesn't translate the appearance as typically Mongolian or Asian shows how biased this page is. It doesn't mean that Attila was 100% Mongoloid but is great evidence that he could be. There is anthropology and genetic evidence of Mongoloid skulls and DNA. Head-binding isn't the same as facial deformation anyway because it doesn't deform the eyes and noses, It only makes the head look weird a;sp the goths and Germans practiced facial deformation but we know those were Caucasoid. It's obviously not only one scholarly speculation like you claimed. As as I know there ain't no scholar who even dared described Attila as Caucasian and claimed his description didn't the typical image of a "Asian" or " Mongolian ". Why can't the English wikipedia be more honest like the Hungarian wikipedia?

https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_hun_kir%C3%A1ly

This had been editted since 2007 Dec.

Translation from Hungarian

Attila külső vonásai valószínűleg kelet-ázsiai, pontosabban mongol származására utalnak. Szóba jöhet még a mongol és a közép-ázsiai népek embertípusának keveréke. Bizonyos, hogy a kelet-ázsiaiakra jellemző sajátos arcformája volt, melyhez az európaiak nem voltak hozzászokva, így gyakran durva jelzőkkel írták le. A bizánci történetíró leírása Attila alázatosságáról és egyszerűségéről Priscus félreérthetetlen csodálatát fejezi ki.

To English

" Attila external features are likely to refer to East Asia, specifically Mongolian origin. It could be a even mix of Mongolian and Central Asian peoples man type. Certainly, that was typical of the East Asians face specific forms that the Europeans were not used so often rough indicators reported. The Byzantine historian's description of Attila alázatosságáról and ease of Priscus unmistakable expresses admiration. " -- http://i49.tinypic.com/2wrde9l.jpg -- Spiritclaymore (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC).

Let us bear in mind that we have only one original comment on Attila's facial appearance and anything further can only be speculation, however reasonable it may be. Separately, on the Huns page, good references for the appearance and genetics of other Huns would be welcome. Here, let's get a third opinion. Would you like to do that, or shall I? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That one original comment is strongest best evidence we got besides mountain of evidence. If you don't mind how about we add Mongoloid genetic and anthropology evidence of Huns on the Attila section because ths only makes the evidence of Attila being described " Asian " much stronger. Claiming only one scholar said Attila appearance was Asian is incorrect, we don't know the correct number but however is very clear many authors of google books had no problem agreeing the description of Attila being clearly Mongoloid given by Priscus. Is very misleading to say only 1 modern scholar have said that since I have know 3 Hungarian scholars from google book ( Hungarian ) to a youtube video claiming Attila description fits typically those Mongolian race ( we use the word " Mongolian " to refer a individual with East Asian appearance ) something extra should be Attila in the physical appearance section -- Spiritclaymore (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

We need reliable sources and due weight, we also need on this page to stick to the point of Attila's personal appearance rather than that of other Huns. I have asked for a third opinion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion

AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Richard Keatinge

Sorry, no I'm not Charlotte Aryanne; I had not realized that she was still watching this page. In any case I agree with her viewpoint and reasoning. In extenuation of Spiritclaymore, I suspect that in Hungarian literature, racial classification of human skull shapes is still part of respectable scholarship. In English, it is regarded as heavily contaminated by pseudoscientific racism and by straightforward bad scientific practice, and additionally as telling us in general very little useful information. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge:, could you rephrase your viewpoint, for my ease, like: I want "a sentence" in "section" of the article because "arguments in favour" and the alternate viewpoint of Spiritclaymore is disagreeable to me because "argument why it is less suitable". Thanks! --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies again. I would like the sentence "Historian Herwig Wolfram has suggested that this description confirms Attila's Asian origin" or something similar, because it neatly summarizes defensible scholarly speculation on the subject of his appearance. Spiritclaymore's desire to include a definite assertion of Attila's appearance is not supportable by the primary sources, and we should be very careful about the use of terms such as Mongoloid that are part of Race (human classification) with all its baggage of poor science and pseudoscientific racism. We should also not use, in this article, work on the appearance of Huns other than Attila. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Spiritclaymore

1. Mongoloid is used in every anthropology book to describe people of East Asian, Southeast Asian, Siberians and to a certain extend in Central Asia, especially those from the north ect Is used even today in every article in wikipedia and in every scientific anthropology so regardless even if it was racist before it is now no longer racist. If that was the case no one would be using them.

2. I have yet to read one scholar that disagree the appearance of Attila doesn't suggest a person of Mongoloid appearance. Would it be okay if I use a source of Hungarian scholar who claimed Attila's appearance points to someone with Asian appearance ( although the word " Mongolian " was used instead ) it is from Hungarian google book, I can't that source in any English google book.

3) Anyone with eyes and commonsense will know that the features of Attila and with it's specific combination points to someone who look Mongolian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese ect it's a typical trait, anyone who isn't biased will know that. Claiming it doesn't point to someone of Asian origin it's like saying someone described with " black skinned, wide nose, thick lips, curly hair " doesn't point to someone of African origin.

4) Also not just description but the genetic evidence, anthropology and combined with the great possible connections with the Xiongnu greatly contribute to the idea of what Attila would what have look like Mongolian, so the suggestion should not be discluded --Spiritclaymore (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Spiritclaymore: could you rephrase your viewpoint, for my ease, like: I want "a sentence" in "section" of the article because "arguments in favour" and the alternate viewpoint of Richard Keatinge is disagreeable to me because "argument why it is less suitable". Thanks! --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to mention Mongoloid in the section just to be more clear when they described him as Asian. I disagree with Richard Keatinge viewpoint that Mongoloid shouldn't be used when it's used in thousand of wikipedia pages and the anthropology term is still used by any science anthropology. Is general knowledge that when the term Asian is used in reference to Attila's ( and Huns ) appearance it always means people that look like Mongolian/Chinese/Korean and there is no source to suggest that it doesn't. There is no source tha suggest description of Attila's appearance priscus isn't someone of Mongoloid description, anyone who isn't biased will know it sounds typical of someone of East Asian appearance and not someone who is Caucasian --Spiritclaymore (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion by AmritasyaPutra

Is "east asian" agreeable to both -- if we keep Mongoliad word aside for a moment?

It would be agreeable to me. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Spiritclaymore: is it agreeable to you? --AmritasyaPutra^T 04:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be more agreeable with me if we use both East Asian and Mongoloid. East Asian refers to people of Mongolian, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Manchus. But the Mongoloid Turks refer to Central Asians, and other Turkic tribes, Uralic, Paleo-Siberians are Siberian Mongoloid. Although they all share similar traits such as small eyes, shortness, tan skin etc. Spiritclaymore (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

At present we should restrict to East Asian in my opinion. Spiritclaymore what is the Hungarian publication you are referring to, which directly uses Mongoloid for Atilla's appearance? If it is a good university publication or peer reviewed journal it is acceptable on English Wikipedia despite being in Hungarian language. While that is discussed it is best to leave it to a broader "East Asian" term. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Is okay if we use East Asian but I'm strongly against using only 1 historian ( not only Austrian historian like Herwig Wolfram ), we also have Hungarian historian as well as Denis Sinor, a world leading historian of central Asia who also claimed Attila appearance ascribed to Mongoloid but my head hurts with all the translations, and sooner or later someone is going to remove it only because it's in a different language or may even accuse me of nothing a proper translation. So I will stick with English sources. There is more than enough. The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Volume 1 edited by Denis Sinor; this is what he said " ::::The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Volume 1 edited by Denis Sinor

This is what he said:

" The eye-witness description of Attila given by priscus is that of a Mongoloid "

" Denis Sinor, noting the paucity of anthropological evidence, wrote that:

"there is no reason to question the basic accuracy of the western descriptions, and the absence of massive supporting evidence by physical anthropology cannot weaken the point they so tellingly make. It is the unusual that most attracts attention,.[45] "

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ST6TRNuWmHsC&pg=PA202&dq=denis+sinor+attila+asian+appearance&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zIVLVNyWAquV7Abb4oDgCA&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=denis%20sinor%20attila%20asian%20appearance&f=false --Spiritclaymore (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge:, I see your comment above I have changed "at least one" to "some" scholars. I hope this helps. but the change was not retained in the most recent edit, maybe you can keep it as "some" unless there is a new argument since then to not do that change. @Spiritclaymore: If your source is a reputable source (peer reviewed journal or reputed academy publication by subject experts) and it is not available in English it can still be used (sparingly). Sorry, but I could not follow that Google books link. It is probably not accessible from where I am editing. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that seems fine. I am able to check the Sinor reference and it seems reliable. Sparingly seems good. I have slightly shortened the sentence and removed the inappropriate use of racial classification of humans. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Denis Sinor claimed the Alani were Europoid but not true Huns just conquered people that made up most of their army eventually. We have another English historian Hector Munro Chadwick who also claimed Huns/Attila were Mongoloid and Alani Europoid. in his own words said ( In reference to description of Attila and Huns by Priscus Cf . the description of the Huns and Attila given by Jordanes, cap. 24,34. )

" What he says of the Huns is an unsympathetic description —in fact a caricature—of a typical Mongoloid people, ugly, beardless and stunted, though very strong and barely human in form. The Alani, on the other hand, are tall, handsome, more or less fairhaired,5 and with steadily flashing eyes. "

The Nationalities of Europe and the Growth of National Ideologies By H. Munro Chadwick http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=flUHAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA74&dq=H.+Munro+Chadwick+attila+mongoloid&hl=en&sa=X&ei=49BLVK3TAZCS7AbSjYGgBw&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=H.%20Munro%20Chadwick%20attila%20mongoloid&f=false

My opinion is Mongoloid should be edited or at least use East Asian. It's very obvious these historians are referring to their race like they were physically Mongolians or Siberian Turks. Anyone who look at the pictures of these people will know that they fit the typical stereotype of being short, small eye, flat nose, tanned skinned, big head--Spiritclaymore (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I've used East Asian. Just to repeat, this use of "mongoloid" is offensive. At least from the 1970s, in most of the Anglophone world, it it is strongly associated with bad science and with racist stereotypes. I note that Chadwick's book was first published in 1945. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Than we might as well not use Negroid and Caucasoid that have been used in so many wiki pages. I've seen the word "Mongoloid" in hundreds of Wikipedia so what makes this page so special that it isn't allowed here. I honestly don't agree " Mongoloid" is offensive and the word is obviously not banned from Wikipedia and still used as a anthropological and racial term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid ( why isn't any moderator deleting this so called " bad science and with racist stereotypes " wiki page?)

" Mongoloid /ˈmɒŋ.ɡə.lɔɪd/[1][2] is the general physical type of some or all of the populations of East Asia, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Siberia, the Arctic, the Americas, parts of the Pacific Islands, and small parts of South Asia. Individuals within these populations often share certain associated phenotypic traits, such as epicanthic folds and neoteny. In terms of population, it is the most widely distributed physical type, constituting over a third of the human species.

This is exactly why I prefer using the term Mongoloid for Attila not just East Asian as Central Asia from the North are also Mongoloid even though Northern Central Asian Turks and East Asian look very alike in general." Spiritclaymore (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not wise to revisit what we have all agreed upon after more than a week's discussion with no new reference/argument. --AmritasyaPutra^T 04:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

comment by (Charlotte Aryanne):

There seem to be two issues - the use of the term Mongoloid and the ethnic classification of Attila.

1. Both Mongoloid and mongoloid describe "mongoloid" as offensive and dated. No reliable source using the term has been presented in this dispute. Use of "mongoloid" to describe Attila is therefore original research, scientifically inaccurate and offensive.

2. Wolfram is an apparently reliable secondary source, but no other reliable references have yet been presented, so "some modern scholars" is weasel words. He also doesn't explain his reasoning (are these features typical of Asians? exclusive to Asians? is it the features themselves or their specific combination?) so the sentence fragment about "Due to the description being typical to the Mongoloid race" is unwarranted. With that in mind, I'd put "Historian Herwig Wolfram has suggested that this description confirms Attila's Asian origin"

The rest of the dispute belongs on Huns, if anywhere. Charlotte Aryanne (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Charlotte Aryanne: 3O is only for content dispute between two editors. Are you Spiritclaymore or Richard Keatinge or an uninvolved third editor? --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware of that. I'm neither of them. I'm the one who originally brought up the issue. --Charlotte Aryanne

MY TAKE ON THIS: Without a skull or other bones that are reliably identified as Hunnish, through craniometric and/or DNA identification, this whole area is mere naked speculation and has no place here. Kortoso (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Etymology Wrong

Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen's claims are dead wrong. Besides, he accuses people to be wrong. His comments are unjustly expanded to two paragraphs. The name is Turkic. His son and grandsons name are Turkish. Can't be a coincidence. See it here: http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/huri/files/vvi_n4_dec1982.pdf --Kafkasmurat (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Religion

I know it's not officially a fact, but can we not say for his religion that it is "Unknown, but likely Tengri"? KarstenO (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No primary source even alludes to the matter, no respectable secondary source has given us an opinion, and, while I suppose we could guess that as pre-modern humans Attila's Huns had some sort of religion, and as Asian plains nomads they might have included some sort of sky god somewhere in it, quite possibly using a known Turkic word for the concept, that really isn't enough. Short answer: no. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2015

dates need clarity as in 4xx CE. 108.180.199.227 (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.
• I do not see the need to explicitly state that Attila lived in the common era. Per WP:ERA, in general, do not use CE or AD unless required to avoid ambiguity. Since this is a potentially contentious edit please get consensus on this. You can start a new section with the title "Era" and discuss why you believe it should be explicitly stated. Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)