Talk:List of Huns

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Central Asia Low‑importance

	Asia portal List of Huns is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Questionable individuals[edit]

I would like quotes concerning these particular individuals:

Albert the Bear (c. 1100 – 1170), the first Margrave of Brandenburg, Duke of Saxony; a grandson of Sophia of Hungary of the House of Árpád, believed to be a direct descendant of Attila
Blanche of Anjou (1280 – 1310), Queen of Aragon, daughter of Mary of Hungary, of the Árpád, a direct descendant of Attila according to Hungarian tradition
Fernando de la Cerda, son of Violant, daughter of Violant of Hungary, of the House of Árpád,[5] according to tradition, direct descendants of Attila
Helena of Hungary (died 1091), Queen of Croatia, of the House of Árpád, believed to be a direct descendant of Attila[5][6]
Henry II of Castile (1334 – 1379), a descendant of Violant of Hungary, of the House of Árpád,[15] believed to directly descend from Attila and/or the Huns
Henry the Lion (1129/1131 – 1195), Duke of Saxony and Bavaria, son of Henry the Proud, a grandson of Sophia of Hungary of the House of Árpád, believed to be a direct descendant of Attila
Henry the Proud (c. 1108 – 1139), Margrave of Tuscany and Duke of Spoleto, grandson of Sophia of Hungary of the House of Árpád, believed to be a direct descendant of Attila

Just to name a few.

Sources:

Rivera Montealegre, Flavio (2011). Genealogía De La Familia Montealegre Sus Antepasados En Europa Y Sus Descendientes En América. Trafford Publishing.
Bak, János M.; Veszprémy, László; Rady, Martyn, eds. (2010). Anonymus and Master Roger. Central European University Press.
Engel, Pál (2001). Ayton, Andrew (ed.). The realm of St. Stephen : a history of medieval Hungary, 895–1526. Translated by Pálosfalvi, Tamás. London, New York: I.B. Tauris. p. 2. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I question the reliability of the Montealegre source, as well. Google book says:"El autor es arquitecto y genealogista, es Miembro Correspondiente de la Academia Nicaragüense de Ciencias Genealógicas, Miembro Fundador del Movimiento Cultural Nicaragüense y del Instituto Nicaragüense de Genealogia e Historia. Desde 1975 comenzó a investigar la genealogía de su familia, durante esos años hizo contacto con otros parientes que hacían lo mismo, intercambiando información con ellos. Vive en Miami."

Translation:"The author is an architect and genealogist, is a Corresponding Member of the Nicaraguan Academy of Genealogical Sciences, Founding Member of the Nicaraguan Cultural Movement and the Nicaraguan Institute of Genealogy and History. Since 1975 he began to investigate the genealogy of his family, during those years he made contact with other relatives who did the same, exchanging information with them. He lives in Miami."

Therefore, Montealegre is not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas BearThe connections of those individuals to the Huns are based on their descent from the Arpad, in turn claimed to be descendants of Attila. You will never get quotes for them. You could claim this is WP:OR, but then this is just a wikilist and it would ruin the article.

Their links to the Arpad and the link of the Arpads to Attila do exist. What's debatable is whether the Arpads do descend from Attila. Which is why I always included for such entries the caution: [...] descended from the Árpád, a direct descendant of Attila according to Hungarian tradition, chronicles, legend, etc.

I created this a while ago and I don't remember about the Montealegre source. I think I included it because I just needed a genealogy to prove the known fact that those nobles descend from the Arpads. Because I know it for a fact, I probably did not pay too much attention to the source's author. Giray Altay (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is WP:OR and all information that can not be properly sourced should be deleted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear That information is a known fact, you can check it by following the genealogy of each individual (within Wikipedia) up to the Arpads and from there (allegedly) to Attila. Therefore, I oppose deleting that content since it would be disruptive.

Also, normally you would place a cn template on the page before asking for deletion. You know that the genealogy does go up to Attila; why do you want to delete those entries so much? Giray Altay (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a source states X- individual is of Hunnish ancestry then it is WP:OR.

"why do you want to delete those entries so much?"

Why are you using sources to write original research, when said information is not stated by those sources?

Either produce the quotes proving those individuals are "Huns" from those sources cited or they will be removed.

"I oppose deleting that content since it would be disruptive."

No, allowing your interpretation of information would be disruptive. I have asked for quotes to prove the information in the article is not WP:OR, and stated "You will never get quotes for them.". Thus intentionally allowing WP:OR. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear Yes, I believe you will never get quotes for them because I think no author has dealt with the matter (i.e. the Arpadian and thus Attilanic descent of each of these minor historical figures). I think rules like WP:OR were created to keep the encyclopedia reliable and tip-top. In this case, I am positive those individuals descend from Arpad and that the Arpads claimed Attilid descent, and that Attila was the king of the Huns.

Either produce the quotes proving those individuals are "Huns" read better the article. It states: This is a list of Huns (a Central Asian people who lived in Europe between the 4th and 6th centuries AD) and of people of Hunnish descent. Those individuals are of Hunnish descent not Huns.

No, allowing your interpretation of information would be disruptive It would not. Because the statements speak the truth, and you also know it. Like I said: those individuals are proven to descend from the Arpads, and the Arpads are proven to have claimed Attilid descent, and Attila is proven to have been a Hun king of the Huns. With the appropriate caution (according to Hungarian chronicles, legend, etc.), it is fine to keep those individuals in the list.

But removing content from an article, which we know is actual (like you wanted to do before I intervened) would be definitively disruptive. Giray Altay (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It would not. Because the statements speak the truth, and you also know it."

Nope. If these individuals are of "Hunnish" ancestry then you need a source that states that. Plain and simple. Anything else is your interpretation. See WP:TRUTH.

"But removing content from an article, which we know is actual"

Actual what? Fabrication? Legend? Wishful thinking? Wikipedia is written using reliable sources not your truth, your opinion, your personal "knowledge" or "actuals". You can continue to throw around the word "disruptive" all you want it will not stop me from removing original research. You were asked to provide quotes and you said, "You will never get quotes for them. You could claim this is WP:OR, but then this is just a wikilist and it would ruin the article." If an article is based on original research, then it should not exist.

FYI, please refrain from continually pinging me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replied below Giray Altay (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actual what? Fabrication? Legend? Wishful thinking? Wikipedia is written using reliable sources not your truth, your opinion, your personal "knowledge" or "actuals"

Do not start criticizing Hungarian historians or accusing users of wishful thinking and fabrication. You keep missing the main point. Wikipedia is about building. If I see in an article that "x" information is unsourced and highly unreliable or even "fabrication" I will probably get rid of it. If I am not sure I might add a template. But if I am positive the information is correct, I may or may not leave it at that, but I certainly won't remove it, as you intended to do here.

You can continue to throw around the word "disruptive" all you want it will not stop me from removing are you here to help improve the article or what? By the way, are you interested in Hunnic topic too? How did you find this article? It was created nearly 2 months ago so I wonder

Finally, stop distorting things. First you say the article claimed that e.g. Albert the Bear was a Hun, whereas the article clearly states it is about Huns and people of Hunnish descent. Now you say If an article is based on original research, then it should not exist. But you are disputing only a few entries in the article. Also, consider that this article is a wiki list, which implies original research.

[...] according to Hungarian legend; [...] according to Hungarian tradition

(*)for each of the disputed entries (I am quoting from the article)

The land stretching between the Danube and the Tisza used to belong to my forefather, the mighty Attila.
— Árpád, Gesta Hungarorum

"Finally, stop distorting things. First you say the article claimed that e.g. Albert the Bear was a Hun, whereas the article clearly states it is about Huns and people of Hunnish descent."

I am not the one distorting anything. This article does not differentiate between "Huns" and "Hunnish descent", that is your distortion. Have you read the article? Clearly not. Which is meaningless since you can not provide any source(and quote) stating Albert the Bear was of Hunnish descent, muchless any of the other listed names.

"Do not start criticizing Hungarian historians or accusing users of wishful thinking and fabrication."

More distortion. You were asked to provide quotes to prove certain individuals were Huns or of "Hunnish descent"(since your article does not differentiate), and you refused. Ergo, this information can only be considered original research since it fails WP:V.

" Also, consider that this article is a wiki list, which implies original research.

Uh, no. List articles do not imply original research and per WP:Stand-alone_lists#Content_policies, "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines.". And with that we are done here. Your insistence that you are free to write whatever you think is appropriate is pure nonsense. As such any information that fails verification will be removed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there reliable sources describing the above individuals (for instance, Albert the Bear) as Huns? Are there reliable sources describing members of the Árpád dynasty as Huns? Borsoka (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear

Yes, you are distorting things! Because this list-article, which I created as list of Huns and of people of Hunnish descent (1) includes both Huns and people of Hunnish descent. The differentiation is not needed for each entry, because each author can check whether an individual is Hun or of Hunnish descent by checking the relative article. Furthermore, the Huns lived between the 4th and 6th century in Europe (which is also stated in the article's lead [...] Huns (a Central Asian people who lived in Europe between the 4th and 6th centuries AD) ), all Europeans born after the 6th century cannot be Huns, ergo, they are of Hunnish descent (This is a list of Huns [...] and of people of Hunnish descent).

OTOH, you claimed that the list states that the disputed individuals are Huns (2), which is a pure distortion aimed at discrediting the article to achieve removal of content. I shall remind that those individuals are of Arpadian descent, that the Arpads claimed to be of Attilid descent and that Attila was a Hun. I shall also remind that each of those entries has a caution regarding the Hungarian chronicles that claim the Arpads are Attilids since, though this claim is generally accepted in Hungary and by a number of modern scholars, not all Western scholars agree with this genealogy.

Further distortion came when you claimed this article is based on original research (3), with complete disregard of the fact the disputed entries are a few.

I will now give some context to the passing readers: Kansas Bear and the user who just joined below just participated in an ANI case where my edits were disputed. It was not the first case they opened or took part in a case against me. This case, like the other, ended in no sanction against me. When Kansas Bear started criticizing this article I thought it was a chance they came here. But when Borsoka also teamed up with them against me here, I was sure this was not a case: as they themselves stated at the ANI, and as the evidence of stalking on Borsoka's part induce to think: they looked through my thousands of edits, and of dozens of pages created, and of all they chose this page to attack, because, I think, this is the only place where they could find some cavil to disrupt my articles.

The matter is clear: we know that "x" individual is descended from the Arpads, and we know that the Arpads descend from Attila (the fact the Hungarian chronicles, claiming so, are not contemporary, is expressed in the caution according to Hungarian legend, tradition, etc., which I always reported for each entry), and we know Attila was a Hun. Therefore, we know those individuals are of Hunnish descent (passing through a possibly legendary link, which is stressed for every entry). These users, to remove content from the articles, are looking for cavils, such as that there is no specific source stating that "x" individual is of Attilid/Hunnish descent. Surely, there is no source stating that because "x" individual is a minor historical figure, or at any rate, nobody, that I know of, wrote a biography on them detailed enough to include such details (the origin exists but is remote).

Imagine having an article titled "List of Abrahimic people". And imagine you adding, idk, Gamaliel IV to the list. It is like if somebody came to you arguing for removal of the entry because 1) there is no source stating that Gamaliel IV descended from Abraham, and 2) the extant copy of the Bible was not written during the time of Abraham.

Now they know Gamaliel IV is of Abrahimic descent, so why removing stuff from the article when you know how things are? When even excessive caution is taken by reporting that x statement is according to chronicles, tradition, legend, etc.? Policies were created to prevent disruption, but in this case disruption would come by applying strict policies.

If the user who wants to remove Gamaliel IV from the list of Abrahmic people had just argued against you at an ANI case, and if the only other editor, out of tens of thousands, to intervene in the discussion against you had just lost two arguments against you and participated in the same ANI case against you, it would leave you wondering reader, wouldn't it? Giray Altay (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Giray Altay: based on your lengthy text I understand you cannot refer to reliable source listing Albert the Bear, etc. and the Árpáds as Huns. If this is the case, we should delete them from the list. Borsoka (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer replying to you Borsoka. Just be aware that I don't like being stalked, that tag-teaming is frowned upon, and I am saving diffs of you. Being an older editor has given you the edge so far, but if you keep with your habits you might get a concise WP:Hounding case at the ANI open for you. Giray Altay (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above discussion, I deleted all those names. Borsoka (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you should not have done it, and I will revert it, since conversation is still ongoing, and Kansas Bear has not even replied yet. Giray Altay (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember WP:Edit warring, especially because two editors are opposing your poorly sourced additions. You may request for comments. Borsoka (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No genius, the other editor has not supported your action. They quite vaguely said that content that's wp:or will be removed. They had yet to reply to my last reply, and even if they agree with you, it would be wise to wait to see if anyone else has something to say.

You both came here after arguing against me at ANI, and another, previously uninvolved editor's opinion is definitely needed before acting on this page.

I doubt that Kansas Bear agrees with your action and the timing thereof, since they just placed a template on this page (1), which you didn't even remove. How are other editors supposed to join and help find sources to preserve the disputed content if you got rid of it? Giray Altay (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Borsoka's removal of original research from this article. Giray Altay has chosen to ignore

my request not to be pinged
and ignored what I said,
"Unless a source states X- individual is of Hunnish ancestry then it is WP:OR."
"Nope. If these individuals are of "Hunnish" ancestry then you need a source that states that. Plain and simple. Anything else is your interpretation."
"You were asked to provide quotes to prove certain individuals were Huns or of "Hunnish descent"(since your article does not differentiate)".

So much for supposedly calling for proof of them being Huns! Giray Altay has cherry-picked the conversation to find an argument. Pity they can not find sources to support their opinion!
Clearly I am not the one distorting anything. I asked for quotes, I asked for evidence, and was told there are no quotes or evidence. All this nonsense proves bad faith editing by an editor whose edits already reek of POV pushing. I would strongly suggest they focus on facts and not on other editors.

@Giray Altay: you are again edit warring. You should add sources describing those individuals as Huns before reverting. Borsoka (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]