Talk:Huns

Why the Huns cannot be Mongols

The Huns' language may have been related to Turkish. Possibly. Or not. One of the main troubles with this page is that nationalist claims about the Huns have been made without good evidence. We really should avoid making such claims and we should stick to scholarly consensus. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Richard but the main problem here is that its just impossible to claim the Huns as Mongols since the Mongols were not around during that era, the chance that the Huns were Turkic is very high in this case. Redman19 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

They are related with the Category:History of the Turkic people, not Category:Turkic peoples itself. Takabeg (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Whats the difference actually? I suggest you should not remove categories until there is solid proof. Redman19 (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed it for now, I hope you can provide me sources stating the opposite thing, since there are many sources that are backboning my edits. Redman19 (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

redman19 your intentions are good but i think takabeg is right, huns are ancient people, there many sources stating they are turkic thats correct but they just dont fit in the turkic peoples category because they were ancient people. the turkic people article already mentions huns so there is no need to mention them here also as turkic. 188.202.146.57 (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Massive citation cleanup

2010 Jan 16-17, I have improved the formatting of footnotes and bibliography — they were in an atrocious state. Some of the principles used are antiquated. Aside from that, they were carelessly done: information omitted (e.g., publisher; year), entire publication citations repeated from one footnote to another. The omission of page numbers in footnotes — of which I found close to two dozen examples, it seems — is an academically irresponsible practice; and it provokes the suspicion that many of these sources were not really consulted, or that much of the article text has been copied from other publications.

• For example, there was a putative "second author" named only "Verlag"; "Verlag" is just German for "publisher".
• There were several examples of substituting URL's for genuine publication information.
• There was a case in which the long name of the research institution of the authors was given — which is an improper thing to do in bibliographies or footnotes — but the names of the authors themselves were not given!
• I have deleted one cited source for being unfeasible to trace. It apparently is an article in a collective volume published in Hungarian, and even Google Scholar doesn't have the article. The citation used the article author and the volume title — the article title and the volume editors were missing. I have found the volume title and editors, but there is no table of contents on the Web (Őseink nyomában : a vándorló, honszerző és kalandozó magyarok képes krónikája. Author: István Fodor; György Diószegi; László Legeza. Publisher: [Budapest] : Magyar Könyvklub : Helikon, [1996]). As for the article author, András Róna-Tas, while he is a prominent specialist in Hungarian linguistics and history with possibly hundreds of articles, I couldn't ascertain whether any of them was published in the year of the collective volume and bears on Huns; i.e., which would be consistent with the abortive citation in the Wikipedia article.

It is extremely contradictory to Wikipedia practice, and to common professional practice, to put multiple citations into a single footnote (it used to be standard practice, a generation ago, and some Luddites in philosophy and literature still do it). Give each citation its own footnote.

At least one source is a blog. I have moved in out of the bibliography and into External Links. Hurmata (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As for the Hungarian book that may contain relevant information, information which in turn may have been authored by A. Róna-Tas: I may have spoken too soon. I now find there are several recent books sharing the phrase, Őseink nyomában, approx. "on the trail of our ancestors" as the opening two words of the title. Another is Érdelyi István, 2004, Őseink nyomában: A magyar őstörténet Kutatása a XX. században (20th century research on Hungarian ancient history). And maybe the three authors of the above cited 1996 work really are coauthors, and not editors, and maybe it's not a collective volume (now that I notice it's a képes krónika, "illustrated chronicle"). But then, where would a book or article by A. Róna-Tas come in? Hurmata (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to go through this. I'm not sure I entirely agree with switching to that specific style of citation though. Readers have to now scroll down and look at the bibliography whereas before they could just roll their mouse over and see the source information, thereby capitalizing upon the electronic/hyperlinked medium Wikipedia is utilizing. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Huns are masters of Ahirs and Gujjars

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=vRwS6FmS2g0C&pg=PA229&dq=gujjars+are+ahirs&hl=en&ei=KQB_Td2zMsfirAeyxvm5Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=gujjars%20are%20ahirs&f=false http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=bmeVTbq_Cs7srQfPqYXsCw&ct=result&id=gxA3AAAAIAAJ&dq=abhira+history+of+rajputs&q=abhiras+

A history of Panjabi literature (1100-1932): a brief study of reactions between Panjabi life and letters based largely on important MSS & rare and select representative published works, with a new supplement-page-177

Locations of Hun successor states in 500 AD (map)

I was interested to see more of this map, but unfortunately whoever posted it appears to have cropped or truncated it. Parts are missing, including part of the key to identification of smaller states. Does anyone know where is the original of this map? Can it be restored to its full extent? Ptilinopus (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Map

The maps, as they were, were highly questionable. Simply - the Huns did not rule Saxony, Denmark, the southern Baltic or anything east of the Dnieper-Don interfluvial (ie the Huns did not rule central Asia); according to literary and archaeological evidence. The old maps were based on Spehperhds historical atlas (made in the 1970s)- which has been affirmed to be of questionable historical precision, and John Man's book which is more a pop-history book for the everyday reader. Thus I present a map based on Peter Heather's recent work. Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)