Talk:Hunnic Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ukraine Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Doesn't this just duplicate what already exists in Huns? Adam Bishop 04:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit weak. Is there anything of independent value, and if so could it be moved to the main Huns page, with a view to deleting this one? Richard Keatinge 11:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Map

Who drew the map? Why is Danmark, the Baltic region and southern Sweden under Hunnic rule? Where is the evidence for this? Krastain 09:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

-I guess this map suggests that since the German peoples were under Hunnic rule, so must have been their territories. However, in the particular areas that can be disputed as being Hunnic, the German peoples must have left during the Migration Period and there wouldn't have been any real dominant peoples, except for the Huns.

I seem to recall Attila claiming rule over the northern islands, presumably on the grounds that he was boss of all Germans anywhere. But the map is definitely dodgy. I note the Jutes are placed in Yorkshire for some reason. Bede puts them on, or off, the south coast. Richard Keatinge 11:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the second map is grotesquely inaccurate. At the time of the battle of Chalons Kent Anglia and Ebrauc (York) would all still be in Brythonic hands, The Amoricani who where affectively independent at this time (who participated in Chalons) are also falsely recorded as being under Visigoth hands. This particular rewriting of history presumably by Saxonophiles goes beyond even the half fiction history recorded by Gildas centuries later. 70.187.156.140 23:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Bloody Sacha 7/17/2007

[edit] Name is wrong

There are

Big Hun Imperial State and European Hun State

This article is European Hun State Aceflooder 08:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Nomadic Empires of Central Asia

Ive restored this category as both this article and Huns refers to the people as being "of Central Asia". Aside from the Category itself being misnamed (i.e. the empire was not nomadic) what reason is there for it being removed? Is the category itself being emptied or changed? István 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the travel

The huns were traveling with hores and boads to the other countries. The went with boads over the black see so that they could come to >Europ and be there. So they came from Mongolia in to Hungray and then from there to the yet Germany adn the gaul that's now Fance. But when they were on land they went with their horses to other countries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.233.32.85 (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Really? Oh wow...

[edit] Bulgarian Empire

I strongly object to the comment that Bulgarian Empire was created by remnant Huns. This theory was rejected at least 10 years ago. Please do have in mind that Bulgarian people were nomadic, yes, equstrian, yes, but their participation in Hunnic raids is strongly disputed, to say the least.

```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naurinho (talk • contribs) 10:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

== Mongolian == he was Mongolian not Turkey

hey funny fucks... why does it state nowhere else that the Huns are supposed to be Turkic
? maybe cause the other articles are locked and you cant edit them with your funny little turkish propaganda? HEHE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfking123 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

I have protected this page from editing until the present dispute is resolved as all I see is edit warring without any discussion. Please try and reach a consensus for how this article should read through discussions on this page and go through the dispute resolution process if necessary. Once you are in agreement you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. WjBscribe 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this was the only solution to stop this edit-war. As one of the two participants has asked me for help today, I had a short look on the problem (which was till now not my favorite topic in Wikipedia). Before turning to the facts: I regret, that asdfking did not know the right manners for Wikipedia, as after some edits its the normal procedure to start a discussion HERE on the talk-page, bringing some facts and sources (instead of starting an endless edit-war). Unfortunately he got in rage, and did things which obviously do not fit well in here. But that shall not cover the fact, that his main intention - the removal of a turkish POV - was maybe much better than his manners, and we should clear the facts.
About the topic itself: Its obviously a discussion about the question, if Huns were also Turkic peoples or not. First of all: Those people who think so, should bring some reputable sources which can be consulted by other Wikipedia-Users (a quite normal procedure here). I made a quick research in the references of this article, and the The Columbia Encyclopedia has an interesting entry in which I found no statement about a direct connection between Huns and Turcs, quite contrary its said:
"Despite the similarity of their tactics and habits with those of the White Huns, the Magyars, the Mongols , and the Turks, their connection with those peoples is either tenuous or—in the case of the Magyars and the Turks—unfounded"
But maybe someone has better sources? -- Rfortner 19:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
If you check the main Huns article, and the Hunnic language article, all the relevant sources, regarding the Turkic origin of the Huns are there. The Colombia encylopedia article you mentioned, if you continue to read onwards, is self contradictory, which is why it is not used in any of the articles regarding the Huns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.66.144 (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you be so kind to give us a more detailed reference (with a source which is accessible for us via Internet) instead of refering quite general to looooong articles with a very diversified reference list. I brought a concrete citation. Also I dont see any sign for the Columbia Encyclopedia to be "self contradictory", so please bring also a concrete quotation which proves this statement.
And first of all its more serious for me to discuss such a delicate ("political") topic with an established user as with an anonymus IP. -- Rfortner 11:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The references are numbered so if you check the references according to numbers in each of the articles, you can tell which reference is for which part of the article :) I do not have the time to list every single one of them for you at the moment. Just check the Huns article, there is one section in the Origin and Identity part which tells you about the Turkic origin, all the references are labelled there. Same goes for the Hunnic language article. 58.110.66.144 12:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
"I do not have the time to ..." is not an appropiate argument when editing articles in Wikipedia. If you have the time to make edits, you will also have to have time for proving your sources in an appropiate way, otherwise your edits are at worst worthless for the Wikipedia-community. There are some rules her in Wikipedia, especially about NPOV, and a discussion like this is always the first step to decide if critical edits will survive or not. And its not up to ME to check your sources by searching articles - I am not the Sherlock Holmes of Wikipedia. Its up to YOU to prove your sources in an appropiate way!
By the way: Maybe the Huns-article is also POV-influenced and needs an in-depth check of its sources? We dont know it, but in the long run nothing rests uncovered in Wikipedia ;-)-- Rfortner 12:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
PS: Please learn to structure the discussion by using an appropiate number of ":"-signs.

[edit] Category:Former empires

{{editprotected}}

Could an admin please change the category for this article from Category:Empires to Category:Former empires. Thanks. I am sorting out the entries in the empire categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! --Timeshifter (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] There is nothing wrong with this page

this page gives adequate information on the history of the huns.and should be left alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atilla hun (talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)