Talk:Attila/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

This sentence doesn't make sense

This article contains this sentence:

Their advance began at Margus, for when the Romans discussed handing over the offending bishop, he slipped away secretly to the Huns and betrayed the city to them.

This seems to presuppose that the reader is aware of some bishop who offended someone. But there's nothing about any such bishop earlier in the article. Can someone rectify this. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The offending Bishop was the Bishop of Margus. Contrary to the terms of the agreement discussed earlier in the section, tribute had not been paid by the Romans, refugees who had fled across the Danube had not been returned, and to cap it all, the Bishop of Margus had sent men across the river to plunder royal tombs. (Priscus tells us they were Hun graves, but the Huns made no burial mounds so it seems they may have been ancient kurgans). Attila and Breda said the Bishop should be surrendered at once, or there will be war. When the Bishop was not handed over the Huns advanced not on Margus first, as the article says, but on Viminacium, which was utterly destroyed, the survivors led away into captivity and the town was not rebuilt for a century; it is now the village of Kostolac. Thence to Margus, where the Bishop betrayed the town to save his own skin. For a reference see: Attila the Hun by John Man, ISBN 9780533816587, Chapter 5 deals with this part of the story. Cottonshirt (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dwarf ?

Where does the idea that he was about 4 foot tall come from ? The only contemporary portrait (which should be in the article) is on a coin, where he looks like a garden gnome.--Streona (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We know Huns Peoples were very small, just look at actual Asians. Huns also severely scarred their body to make them stronger, which could be a factor for their small sizes. Also, remember that back then, most people were small, since they didn't have the same nutrition as today. So it is safe to assume this. /An anonymous user that is too lazy to register./ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.114.36 (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure this was so, and even so an aristocrat would be better nourished. Historically such people tended to be lacking in vegetables but higher in protein and fat(chubbiness). --Streona (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If the coin in question is the commemorative coin issued by Valentinian and Marcian, then the figure in question isn’t Attila, but a personification of Victory. Attila would be symbolized by the snake under the figure’s foot. And for reference to “actual Asians“—the average height of a contemporary man is 5'5" for China and 5'8" for Turkey. benadhem (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this is just a head, but has a prominent beard and nose. You can search for @Attilla the Hun coin" images on google and it comes up at www.breadwithcircuses.com I know it does not give his height, but looks like a garden gnome without a fishing rod.--Streona (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The coin at breadwithcircus.com is described as “post-Roman”, and seems to be the same one that other sites identify as a 16th-century medallion from Pavia... benadhem (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Drat! Still, what is the origin of this dwarf thing, because I am not the only one to have heard this- I think in Readers Digest. Is it a total crock ? May your tribe increase--Streona (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Priscus describes him as short, but as for being a dwarf, all I can think is that someone’s confused him with his dwarf clown, Zerco. (Speaking of whom—it doesn’t seem likely that the Huns would have kept a dwarf for entertainment if Attila had been one himself.) benadhem (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have found it!

Jordanes describes him as short, broad shoulders with a big head and nose, but not as a dwarf. However Ammianus and contemporary Latin chroniclers describe all the Huns in extremely racially derogatory terms as dirty, ugly, deformed etc. - without proper eyes, just holes in their squinty faces etc.- even that they are descended from evil witches expelled from the lands of the Visigoths who have mated with evil spirits of the steppes and forests. Assuming this not to be so, it seems that the Huns were reasonably similar to anyone else. Ammianus also likens them to carved figures placed upon bridges- presumably the late Roman equivalent to the modern garden gnome. It is as if we only had Hitler to describe the appearance of Jews or allied propaganda caricaturing the Japanese as monkeys.--Streona (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Khagan"

Now that Khagan has been (anonymously) inserted in the article's lead, one wants to know, where was "Khagan" first applied to Attila? In any early source? Or just now in Wikipedia. Is this akin to "Henry VIII, Emperor of England", or is it historically accurate?--Wetman (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed. It is anachronistic. The usual rules apply: if a reliable secondary source uses it, cite and edit it back in. patsw (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Khagan means king of kings, and Huns were the confederation of tribes. in central Asian turkic unions, each tribes has khans. so Atilla was the khagan according to reliable sources. thus its not an anachronistic fault, the imperial rank "khagan" were also used in timurids and ottomans--Huckelbarry (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit like saying "the Pope is the leader of the Catholic church of Catholicism and the head of the Vatican state, the 14th Dalai Lama was the head of the yellow church of Tibetan Buddhism and the head of the Tibetan state, so the 14th Dalai Lama was the pope of the Tibetans according to reliable sources", is it not? If you don't like the Dalai Lama/Pope example, I guess it can also work for Roman Emperors and the Pope. I don't think you can just use random, possibly foreign (it's not even clear the Huns were Turks, right?), titles like that. This is probably also the reason why you have such a hard time actually presenting even just one useful citation here. Yaan (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The notion that the Huns were a Turkic people is important to Turkish national mythology. The website of the Turkish president lists sixteen historical Turkish empires, including a "European Hunnic Empire 375-469", and assigns each a flag [1]. Problems of this nature are likely to recur. Aramgar (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Huns were not Turks, the Hun Tribes are relatives of the Hungarian Tribes and they took part in an tribe alliance with the Turks in Cantral Asia about in between 0-400. A Turk-Hun dictionary was foung in Iran, and it proves tha the Turk language and the Hun were different. Rhe Hun in this dictionary is very similar the Hungarian language spoken in Hungary in which terrítory was Attila's capital. As Hungarian legend, Nimrod had two sons, Hunor and Magor. Hungarian people in Hungarian is Magyar. So, these tribes were brothers tribes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akos Varga (talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced fantasies

Attila born in 406? Quote a source! "Attila Dragomer"? What is it??? "His men diverted a section of the river Tisza"? Jordanes writes nothing about Tisza, only about a big steppe river. Who the hell edits this article? Centrum99 (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You edit this article. Or at least you are as entitled to edit it as anyone else. If you would like to make a contribution that improves the article, please feel free to do so. Cottonshirt (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Bust" of Attila

The oversize illustration in the box has no identification. Needless to say, it is no "portrait" of Attila. But what is it? Illustrations always need captions to say what they are. Without a caption, this is less than worthless: it's misleading the naive.--Wetman (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand out of many different portrayals of Attila, why a 19-th century rendering of a Caucasian image is used? 98.113.199.242 (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Early years lacking

This article seems to be curiously lacking in information about the early years of Atilla. It starts out when he is 27 years old, and becomes joint-ruler of the Huns.

I have read other sources that state that he spent much of his young years (age 10-20, roughly) as a prisoner-exchange hostage in Rome. And that he was not much a prisoner, but just a hostage -- he attended roman schools, went to public events like plays & gladiator contests, etc.

That would certainly seem to be an interesting part of the story to be included here. And might even be relevant to the question of why he didn't sack Rome later. T-bonham (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• The only thing we now need is to find an ancient author, who has left us such an information. I haven't found any so far. What about you? Don't you know him?89.235.19.212 (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Honors

Attila is a prominent male given name in Hungary. I think this is more important than the streets.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanitin (talk • contribs) 18:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Map/Colour blindness comment

Comment: One in five males is at least partly colour blind, most commonly red-green. To me and millions like me the arrows on the map of Attila's campaign in Western Europe are completely indistinguishable. Please use contrasting colours. For 20 per cent of all males, this map contains no usable information. Chris Speary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.36.190 (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Per a request at the image lab I've re-coloured the map lines black and grey, hope this solves the problem.--Goldsztajn (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

huns and magyars possible origin

I have read anthropology articles somewhere: excavation of graves of Sumeria found clay tablets in graves of noblemen with cuneiform writings understandable in the "o-magyar" or ancient Hungarian language. Other symbols such as clay statuettes of the "puli" a Hungarian shepherd dog (specific breed to Hungary) was found as well. Can you comment if there is validity here? Also the Magyars (Hungarian's seven tribes) entered the Carpathian Basin around 880 AD or 400 years after the Huns. There are regions in Hungary with slight Mongolian features. Did the Huns dilute or perhaps the Szekely (Transylvania, now Romania) Hungarian speaking to this day, are the remnants of the Huns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.53.87 (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There are no Sumerian clay tablets written in Hungarian or in an ancient Hungarian language. This would be highly unlikely on chronological grounds, since the Sumerian tablets were written during the third millennium BC, several thousand years before Hungarian is attested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.31.50 (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

forms of the name: Atli, Etzel, Atlee (?), etc.

It's well established that Atli and Etzel, respectively, are Norse and Old German forms of the name Attila. But I wonder about the article's statement that the common English surname Atlee derives from the same source. I imagine Atlee means "[dweller] at the lee" and is of English origin. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.16.177 (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The hungarian origin

The origination of his name is hungarian. The hungarian Etel word is the name of the don river. Etele is a still used form of Attila. The szekely people say that they are descendants of Attila through Csaba and the Magyar people are descendants as well just through Arpad. They say that they remained in the carpathian basin when Attila died and waited for the Magyar tribes to come back. All of the hungarian chronicles written in the middle ages don`t make a difference between the Magyar and the Hun people. They say that Attila was the king of the Magyars.

Reference:

www.kepeskronika.net/en

This is a hungarian codex written in the 14. century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.134.135.27 (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't say that Attila is Hungarian just because of his name.there are a lot of theories about his name. And about the name 'etel', the name of the don river in turkish was also 'atil'. The origin of the Huns is not cleared but we know they were different from other European clans and they were possibly not slavic and german. they were riding horses like Alans but they shot arrows too, and by this way it is very reasonable to think that they were the successor of the hyung-nu's which lived in today's Mongolia and ancestors of Turks. There are also sources explaining their attacks on Alans. In Chinese sources they're defined as Hyung-nu and in Greek sources Huns. This can prove that they were the same and the successor of Hyung-nus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.75.22.199 (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We canot say that Attial was Hungarian. Attila was Hun, and the Hungarians are relatives of the Hun, had come into the Charpatians in 896. In the Charpatians were Attila's Capital and here was the funeral somewhere. As Hungarian legend, Nimrod had two sons, Hunor and Magor. Hungarian people in Hungarian called Magyar (Magor). So, these tribes were brothers tribes. Akos_Varga 13:54 23 January 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akos Varga (talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sassanid Empire

It is written in the text that he invaded the Sassanid empire of Persia, which is false. He was defeated in Armenia (as mentioned in text) & could have not entered Persian territory

.--74.12.96.26 (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

in 435ce, Armenia was a province divided by the Roman (Byzantine) empire of Arsaces and the Sassanian (Persian) empire of Khosro. Hence by invading Persian-controlled Armenia, Atilla attacked a Persian holding and therefore entered Persian territory, which amounted to a direct attack on the Persian empire. the statement is correct.

ckar 10:34, 24 August 2009

• • I agree with 74.12.96.26 . There is some confusion over Hunnish Sassanid war.In the text it says: Shah Yazdegerd II invaded Armenia in 441. Was Armenia a part of Sassanis Empire in 440 ? If so why did Yazdegerd invade Armenia ? (Parenthetically in the article Yazdegerd II there is no mention of Huns.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Burial rites

I noticed that the burial description (diverting a river, burying him in the bed and then killing everyone involved) is almost exactly the same description as for the burial of Alaric I - is this a common practice for barbarian tribes? Should there be further mention of this practice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HerbCSO (talk • contribs) 20:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Small article

Hey what the heck this Encyclopedia article is even smaller than Hanna Montana - Miley Cirus pages!!!

Attila was an important figure in history its people like him Encyclopedias should be all about and not dopey TV characters. So what about expanding it to include more enriching information. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.220.143.23 (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible origin of the name Attila

Attila looks like the diminutive of Gothic atta 'father'. This is not a loan-word from a Turkic language, but is an inherited Indo-European stem; cf. Hittite atta- 'father', Russian otets (also with a diminutive suffix), etc. What do etymological dictionaries say about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.31.50 (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You are pretty right but some words has vey old history so we cannot determine orgin. For example: in english "me" all hindo europe language you can see as diffirent types. Moi, men, mir ... and in Anatolian Turkish 'ben' but in asian Turkish 'men'.In swahili "mimi" So you cannot say men is a loanword. Some African and Native American tribes use that word either. "ME" is very old word so it is very common. Same state is valid for father. Dada, Dad, abu, Vater, Pader, peder, papa, baba, fu...very similar. maybe it comes from baby sounds. Because sounding these words are very easy and these word are as old as humanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.8.140.194 (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

There appear to be fairly high levels of vandalism on this article, and I'm tempted to semi-protect it (meaning IPs and new editors can't edit). However, the article may be benfitting from edits by those who will be disenfranchised by semi-protection, so what is the thinking among regular editors here? Nev1 (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's true that there is a fair amount of rubbish in the history, and that I can't find anything useful added by an IP, but that's fairly standard for Wikipedia in general and at the moment I feel it's under control here. It's for you to judge though. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

CE vs. AD

Regarding this edit: What's the consensus regarding changing "CE" (presumably meaning Common era, but could also mean Christian era, which, somewhat confusingly, redirects toAnno Domini) to "AD"? The difference between the two seems unimportant to me, in terms of encyclopedic use. I do think it is important to have a consistent style between and within articles, and also to not have unnecessary edits made (e.g., changing British English to American English and vice versa). Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I was directed to this part of the Manual of Style: Wikipedia:ERA#Year_numbering_systems. It states:

• Do not use CE or AD unless the date would be ambiguous without it. E.g., "The Norman Conquest took place in 1066." not 1066 CE orAD 1066.
• BCE and CE or BC and AD are written in upper case, spaced, and without periods (full stops).
• Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but not both in the same article. AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106,106 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (106 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC).
• Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors.

The last point is of note. However, since the change has already been made, I see no reason to undo it. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See this edit. Let's not have an edit war about AD vs CE.

• I agree with the removal of the extra "AD"s.
• The change from "AD" to "CE", while supported by a rational argument, with which I agree, does have the potential of violating WP:ERA, described above.

In the interest of harmony, I encourage editors of this article to not change "CE" to "AD" again. I am going to leave a note pointing to this discussion on the talk page of the IP that made the latest change, in hopes of getting his/her point of view so we can document consensus on the format. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 10:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this makes a change from vandals and nationalists. I'd suggest keeping the CE - to me it feels a bit more intercultural by avoiding direct reference to the Christian god - but I'm not sure that Attila's religion is relevant.

This isn't a good subject for an edit war!Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Image

Renaissance depiction of Attila. Cabinet des Médailles.

Renaissance depiction of Attila. Cabinet des Médailles. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 04:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Change of Picture

I just changed the main picture in Atilla's infobox. If anyone has problems with it, then respond to this, although I feel that it is a much better representation than the previous one, a conceptualized image which may not have even been Atilla. 70.161.15.239 (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

“ The Huns, who had been plundering Italy and who had also stormed a number of cities, were victims of divine punishment, being visited with heaven-sent disasters: famine and some kind of disaster. In addition, they were slaughtered by auxiliaries sent by the Emperor Marcian and led by Aetius, at the same time, they were crushed in their [home] settlements....Thus crushed, they made peace with the Romans and all retired to their homes.[23] ”

After Attila left Italy and returned to his palace across the Danube, he planned to strike at Constantinople again and reclaim the tribute which Marcian had stopped. (Marcian was the successor of Theodosius and had ceased paying tribute in late 450 while Attila was occupied in the west; multiple invasions by the Huns and others had left the Balkans with little to plunder.) However Attila died in the early months of 453. The conventional account, from Priscus, says that at a feast celebrating his latest marriage to the beautiful and young Ildico (if uncorrupted, the name suggests a Gothic origin)[24] he suffered a severe nosebleed and choked to death in a stupor. An alternative theory is that he succumbed to internal bleeding after heavy drinking or a condition called esophageal varices, where dilated veins in the lower part of the esophagus rupture leading to death by haemorrhage.[25]

Another account of his death, first recorded 80 years after the events by the Roman chronicler Count Marcellinus, reports that "Attila, King of the Huns and ravager of the provinces of Europe, was pierced by the hand and blade of his wife."[26] The Volsunga saga and the Poetic Edda also claim that King Atli (Attila) died at the hands of his wife, Gudrun.[27] Most scholars reject these accounts as no more than hearsay, preferring instead the account given by Attila's contemporary Priscus. Priscus' version, however, has recently come under renewed scrutiny by Michael A. Babcock.[28] Based on detailed philological analysis, Babcock concludes that the account of natural death, given by Priscus, was an ecclesiastical "cover story" and that Emperor Marcian (who ruled the Eastern Roman Empire from 450-457) was the political force behind Attila's death.

Jordanes says: "The greatest of all warriors should be mourned with no feminine lamentations and with no tears, but with the blood of men." His horsemen galloped in circles around the silken tent where Attila lay in state, singing in his dirge, according to Cassiodorus and Jordanes: "Who can rate this as death, when none believes it calls for vengeance?"

Then they celebrated a strava (lamentation) over his burial place with great feasting. Legend says that he was laid to rest in a triple coffin made of gold, silver, and iron, along with some of the spoils of his conquests. His men diverted a section of the river, buried the coffin under the riverbed, and then were killed to keep the exact location a secret.

His sons Ellac (his appointed successor), Dengizich, and Ernakh fought over the division of his legacy, specifically which vassal kings would belong to which brother. As a consequence they were divided, defeated and scattered the following year in the Battle of Nedao by the Ostrogoths and the Gepids under Ardaric who had been Attila's most prized chieftain.

Attila's many children and relatives are known by name and some even by deeds, but soon valid genealogical sources all but dry up and there seems to be no verifiable way to trace Attila's descendants. This has not stopped many genealogists from attempting to reconstruct a valid line of descent for various medieval rulers. One of the most credible claims has been that of the khans of Bulgaria (see Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans). A popular, but ultimately unconfirmed, attempt tries to relate Attila to Charlemagne. [edit] Appearance, character

There is no surviving first-person account of Attila's appearance. There is, however, a possible second-hand source, provided by Jordanes, who claimed Priscus described Attila as:

Short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with grey; and he had a flat nose and tanned skin, showing evidence of his origin.[29]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.16.54 (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Dates of Attila the Hun

Right now, the dates say that Attila the Hun lived from 406-453 until an age of 47 but a book I read stated that Attila died near age 70 Nardo, Don ed. "The End of Ancient Rome." Turning Points in World History. Green Haven Press, San Diego: 2001. "Attila, who had retired on the promise of a tribute, was dead: marriage at the age of seventy to a lusty young German girl had proved too much for the man who had ravished half Europe. He was found in a fit on the bridal bed." (Stewart Perowne 79) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PakoPenguin (talk • contribs) 16:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The date of his birth should be removed or equipped with "circa". No date of Attila's birth exists and all the numbers that appear in liturature are only esitimates. Besides that, where does the statement "Bleda died, killed in a hunting accident arranged by his brother, Attila" come from? I really don't recall any description of Bleda's death. This is pure fantasy copied from some popular historical book. Centrum99 (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

What did attila wear?

im woundring what he wore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coji246 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

see [2] Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Was Attila a Christian?

right|thumb|300px|Bleda and Attila while praying by Tulipán Tamás

I seem to recall having read somewhere that Attila was a Christian. The halos in the painting probably wouldn't have been there if the (Hungarian?) painter hadn't thought so. The article doesn't say one way or the other. Does anyone know? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see the table says "Unknown". Could more be said about the matter than one word in a table? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Attila himself did not mention the matter, or at any rate not to anyone whose writings have survived. In short, there are no records of what if any religion the Huns had or how much it meant to them. Christianity seems amazingly unlikely and anything else is speculation, usually based on the speculator's idea of what their own ethnic ancestors worshipped. Various groups claim the Huns as their ancestors and the issue tends to get muddled up with ethnic pride. Not as badly as the unsettled question of what languages(s) the Huns spoke, but still, a one-word comment seems entirely appropriate and indeed is a fairly complete description of what is known. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Images "of Attila"

We now have six, none even remotely contemporary and none that seem to make much use of the only contemporary description, or of the available archaeology. I propose to move these images to a section on Mediaeval and later portrayals, with a subsection on Iconography. If no comments appear soon I shall be bold. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. The image you removed, "Bleda and Attila while Praying", was removed and replaced a couple times, and is now back in the article. I am removing it, once again, because:

1) The fair use justification of the photo doesn't explain the source of the painting, or why the uploader, Finn Diesel, feels he is justified in placing a high resolution photo of a painting in Commons and Wikipedia.[3] There is some Turkish(?), Czech(?), description, but that is brief, not comprehensible to typical English readers. Also it seems unlikely that he obtained permission to reproduce the painting. On Richard Keatinge's talk page, Finn Diesel wrote "wikipedia has bought the rights from the artist". (I've never heard of this happening.) But in reverting the edit, Finn Diesel says instead:

2) Finn Diesel's Edit Summary explanation, replacing his photo in the article is "(Shared kingship: its free to show artist works acording to wikipedia policy.)" Many artistic works are most definitely not free to be displayed in Wikipedia. Finn Diesel, you need to be quite specific about which Wikipedia policies you refer to. Also, probably you need to change the justification for the photo you made in Commons.

3) Given that the above are satisfied, I agree with Richard Keatinge that there are open questions whether the image belongs in this Wikipedia article at all, even if it was legal:

3a) As noted in the section just above, there's no evidence in the article that Attila was religious and prayed.

3b) As Richard Keatinge notes, the image doesn't even seem to be a representation of existing events or make much use of existing description.

3c) There may be some pedagogical purpose to including conjectural images in news articles, textbook, or social history. However that reasoning does not apply to a formal encyclopedia. The best portraits of Cleopatra or Abraham Lincoln are the subject of scholarly debates. Cleopatra, we can get an notion from coinage. Lincoln, from contemporary artists. The images in the Wiki article show quite different representations, most of which, therefore, must be wrong. I'm not sure whether a separate section Iconography is as much to the point as removing the inaccurate images entirely. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

i dont want to start an art war beetween hungarian and english wikipedia and i think it's better for you show a little respect to hungarian art and artists.--Finn Diesel (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Finn Diesel, copyright is a matter of international law, it's not a matter of what you interpret as "respect". What is done in another Wiki is not necessarily relevant to what is done in the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia has a zero tolerance policy for copyright violation. The burden of proof is on you to satisfy the law. Please state the source of the image you uploaded here.[4] That does not mean where people can get a copy on the Internet, but who owns the original photo of the painting.

Also I note, apart from the copyright violation, you have not answered any of the other issues raised by Richard Keatinge above, or by me. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

i wrote an e-mail to the publisher of the original content and i'm waiting for the reply now. since everything looks normal, i have had no clue about that picture and you will be deeply secure after the feed-back. thanks for inmorming back.--Finn Diesel (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

he replied. as i guess, theres no legal or wikipedian limitations about this art work.--Finn Diesel (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, Finn Diesel, what someone wrote to you personally is not relevant at all. It's not an agreement between you and him, it would be a written agreement between him and Wikipedia in a formal Creative Commons license. The image must have a proper copyright justification as specified in the English Wikipedia rules, which I pointed you to WP:COPYRIGHT. A Wikipedia administrator has reviewed the situation and has marked the photo for deletion from Commons, and by extension all other English Wikis.[5] Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What operation Attila?

I demand deletion of the part reading "In Turkey many military operations were named after Attila. When the Turkish army invaded in Cyprus in 1974 the operation was nicknamed Attila as well. Hundreds of streets and regions use his name across Turkey." because as a Turkish citizen at the age of 36, I have yet never come across any street or region named "Attila" or "Atilla", which is the more commonly used form of this name in TR. Besides, I have never heard of any military operation named after Attila, before, during or after my military service, and it is only the foreign - well, er.. namely, Greek - sources that claim that the operation of the "invasion" of Cyprus in 1974 was nicknamed Attila. In TR, it is not regarded as an invasion of Cyprus, rather than an intervention to protect the Turkish Cypriots, and therefore has been and is still called "Peace Operation of Cyprus". The name "Operation Attila" is a claim that Greeks usually mumble without sourcing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etchgow (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Destruction of the article by Alpha Ralpha Boulevard and Richard Keatinge

i really dont care if those guys are the members of pope's crew or not but im sure they have a big problem with Attila himself. they removed the copyrighted art works of Attila and they removed all the things they hate. i call action to all people against these holly warriors. --Finn Diesel (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The images of Attila were insufficient anyways. Finn Diesel, if you want to remedy this situation you should find an image of a coin depicting Attila. --Tataryn77 (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

i agree with Finn Diesel.--195.174.105.53 (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Finn, I moved the images (and the saga details) to a more appropriate place, without deleting any of them. Please reach a consensus on this page before reverting again. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Again I have reverted edit by an IP who agrees with Finn Diesel. Please reach a consensus before reverting again. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard, don't remove anything, please leave this page in peace. If you want to remove pictures from wikipedia, discuss it in talk page first.--Finn Diesel (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Finn, this edit war is especially tedious because you seem to be under the impression that I have removed material. I haven't. I have rearranged, as I proposed over a month ago, see above. I'd quite like the opinions of other editors at this point. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

please check your rearrangement style then because it gives new problems to the original content.--Finn Diesel (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Takabeg, thanks for your recent work, definite improvements. I propose to repeat Alpha Ralpha Boulevard's removal of the picture that lacks any copyright information. I also wonder if it is appropriate to put in the infobox a nineteenth-century portrayal of Attila that seems designed simply to portray him as a traditional Christian devil. I would really prefer something that simply tries to represent the best modern understanding, rather than either heroic or demonic iconography. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

those pictures are respesents the image of Attila in various cultures around European continent. (as Hungarian, Latin, Germanic, Greek). So theres no reason to remove any art work of Attila in the article especially the one whose rights has been bought by wikipedia.--Finn Diesel (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

These pictures are indeed later representations of Attila and are now in a suitable section on iconography. The current picture in the infobox *File:Brogi, Carlo (1850-1925) - n. 8227 - Certosa di Pavia - Medaglione sullo zoccolo della facciata.jpg) strikes me as not related to his actual appearance, but simply shows him as demonic. I think that it too would be better placed in the later section on iconography.

The issue of copyright status for File:Buda es Attila.JPG is separate; until satisfactory copyright information can be provided, this picture should not be used at all. Can you provide any such information? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Finn, please either provide copyright information or stop re-inserting this file. Its deletion is simply waiting for an admin to notice that it's overdue. Also, as I mentioned above, it seems to have nothing whatever to do with the historical Attila and can only belong in a section on later iconography. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Before just undoing, please check what other edits are involved. Minor improvements included the name of Attila's wife (from Priscus) and removal of speculation about religion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Finn, again I express my hope to engage in a more meaningful discussion with you about ways to improve the article. At present I, and I suspect others, really do not have a clear idea of what you are trying to achieve nor why you object to certain edits. For example, do you feel that the name of Attila's wife should be in the article? I feel that it should, but you have removed it. I don't think that the article should include unreferenced speculation about Attila's religion. And I have suggested that the images which have no clear relation to what we know of Attila's appearance should be placed in a gallery where they can illustrate later iconography, not where they have misled people into interpreting them as historical.

I and other editors have pointed out that an image (File:Buda es Attila.JPG) without copyright information should not be used, and indeed should be deleted until copyright information is made available. I appreciate that you may be having some trouble getting the needed permission and that communicating with the author may not be easy, but I certainly don't feel able to act against Wikipedia policy on this point. I really would be glad of discussion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Finn, again you have simply reverted my edit without any comment. You have re-inserted a file that lacks appropriate copyright information, put back some unreferenced speculation on Attila's religion, and removed a pertinent comment on the picture presently in the infobox. I reiterate: please discuss how to improve this article.

I do appreciate that English is not your first language. I and other editors are very happy to make all possible allowances for difficulty in communication. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

AttilaTheHun.jpg

As to the description of File:AttilaTheHun.jpg in commons, He seems to be pictured as a European, though his features must rather have been of a Mongol or Central Asiatic type. This picture causes misleading his feature. We don't have to use it in the information box. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

takabeg , he was not mongol or germanic(funny).he was turkic origin . he was leader of turkic nations in middle asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.31.180 (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Buda es Attila.JPG

This file still has no copyright information. Per policy I have deleted it. I suggest that it should stay deleted unless and until appropriate copyright information is provided.

I also note that it seems to bear no resemblance to any record of what Attila actually looked like or how he behaved. On this basis, if it belongs anywhere in Wikipedia, it should be in an article on modern iconography of Attila. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And as an example of iconography it is utterly non-notable, if, as the uploader claimed, it was created by some other Wikipedia user. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

problem has fixed.--Finn Diesel (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture in infobox?

Let's take things one at a time. Recent suggestions of a picture for the infobox have included an early modern picture that seems to be simply a representation of the Christian devil - it even has horns. We have no picture of Attila that even tries to represent what is historically known of his appearance. I suggest that demonic or heroic representations are of only marginal notability even at the end of the article, and are quite unsuitable for an infobox.

There is therefore no picture that is suitable for inclusion in this infobox. I have moved the present examplar again to a later section, though I really feel that it is of no interest whatever and propose to remove it in due course. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. There are sometimes people who feel that any article must have an image just for the sake of having an image – as if readers couldn't stand the horror of facing a page without a speck of colour in the top right corner. I see very little value in that. In the case of historical personalities, I can see a couple of legitimate reasons for a depiction in the infobox, and none of them applies here:

1. An actual contemporary or near-contemporary portrait, purporting to be an authentic likeness: nice if we have it, but most cultures in most historical periods simply didn't do portraits (basically, everything outside ancient Egypt, classical Rome, and western Europe since the 15th century is out).
2. Contemporary depictions that aren't realistic likenesses but reflect authentic contemporary practice in some other way (e.g. European medieval rulers, for whom we might have statures or miniatures from illuminated books or the like – heavily typified and non-naturalistic but nevertheless culturally authentic in a way)
3. Fictional later depictions that reflect a notable and coherent tradition in iconography (like what we often have for saints or other religious figures)
4. A fictional later depiction, which in itself, as an artwork, is particularly valuable, well-known, and conventionally associated with the historical personality

Generic, artistically low-quality vignettes from 17th-19th century book illustrators, like what we have now, are normally useless. They say more about the ideology and aesthetics of their (usually mediocre) creators than about the figure itself. Of course, if some tradition of demonifying iconography exists and is particularly interesting from a "reflection in later culture" perspective, a representative example of that tradition can be put into the relevant section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur--a picture is worth a thousand words, but we don't need thousands of bad words. Unless we can source and develop a section documenting historical representations of Attila to place these in context, the pictures we have currently should be removed. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nuujinn and Future Perfect. I note that Finn Diesel has reverted my removal of File:AttilaTheHun.jpg. I have removed it again and invited Finn again to participate in discussion here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Finn for doing it for me, before I got there. Could I ask if you have any comment on the ideas in this section? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Religion

As far as I know there is no direct evidence on what religion if any the Huns had, nor whether Attila paid any attention to it. I suggest that this item should be removed from the infobox entirely or simply recorded as "unknown". Speculative and unreferenced comments on Tengriism seem to be based on a reconstruction of ancient Turkish religion, itself sufficiently vague to be easily confused with Proto-Indo-European religion. The item does not seem to be suitable for inclusion anywhere in the article and I am removing it. I will appreciate discussion and consensus before anything of the sort is re-inserted. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian people were Tengriist like all other Cental Asian people were.--Finn Diesel (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Anything that's not totally straightforward and certain should never be in an infobox. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Article title

BTW, why is this article at "Attila the Hun" and not simply "Attila"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's widely used and is unambiguous; Attila redirects here - but all the other Attilas were named after this one, so there is an argument for moving this article to just Attila and having a link to a disambiguation page. I don't feel strongly about it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

omg, im so sad about Attila's faith in here wikipedia. But we can be quick for Alexander the Great before his title turns into Alex or sth like that.--Finn Diesel (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of valueless images, relocation of others to where they are referred to by the text

We had two line drawings of no historical, iconographical, or artistic value. I have removed them. I have also moved the image from the Chronicum Pictum to where it is referenced by the text, that is to the subsection on Attila as culture hero. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

valueless images? those pictures are preserved in european history archives for hundred years.--Finn Diesel (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Finn, the images concerned were AttilaTheHun.jpg and Atli.jpg, both appearing to be produced in the last hundred years or so by "artists" who had no interest in depicting what we actually know of Attila's appearance. They are not notable for what they show nor are they notable in themselves. They are of no use at all and I really find it difficult to imagine why you think they are worthy of anything other than oblivion. Please produce some better arguments or leave these images out.

The file Buda es Attila.JPG still lacks copyright information; it should be removed for that reason alone. It also shows nothing of any historical relevance. I suppose it might illustrate something about a modern Hungarian perception of Attila, but we would require a reliable secondary source even for that purpose. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely concur with Richard, as stated before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Finn Diesel protects articles. But Fut.Perf. and Richard Keatinge are giving nothing to the articles, they never developed anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.124.146 (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

there is no valuesless images in the article. all images are priceless for Hungarian Art Society of Budapest. We can discuss it.--Finn Diesel (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Priceless Images

Article contains art works from various cultures around Europe. Those art works represents priceless elements for European archives.--Finn Diesel (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No other editors seem to share this extraordinary judgement. Additionally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not for archiving artworks. Please either engage in meaningful debate or accept the judgements of multiple other editors. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also becoming the leading archive web site according to their new press statement, they shared it with users in the beginning of this year.--Finn Diesel (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You may be confusing wikimedia, esp. commons, with wikipedia. Regardless, the article on Attila is not the appropriate venue for an art gallery. I personally see no reason for having these pictures unless one could write a section on the iconography of Attila with citations to discussions of each image in reliable sources. Short of that, they do not add anything to the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I support all edits that will improve the article.--Finn Diesel (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

sorry if i just stoked the flames with my revert, but I think the main concern here is that Finn keeps changing Atilla to Atilla the Hun, he maybe known as that throughout history but its POV, it refers to him as a the bloodthirsty warlord he was famous as, the article mentions some people knew him as a hero so it should be kept as Atilla to maintain neutrality--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

you are right.--Finn Diesel (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Finn but why have you put it back, (I won't revert again as I was wrong to stoke the flames in the first place) also why the picture in the infobox, we only have a picture in the infobox for people we have freely avalible photos of, Atilla died HUNdreds (see the pun there lol), of years ago so we can't have an infobox picture, not sure what the policy is though--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the pictures are an issue, I've reverted back to the version preferred by the majority of editors participating in the discussions here. I think we have rough consensus that the pictures per se do not help the article (unless someone cares to write up a section that is sourced covering iconography). --Nuujinn (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of etymology of name

I have changed the text to reflect what the references actually say using extensive quotations, removed one reference which doesn't in fact give any account of the name Attila and another which is a blog post of dubious origin. The result still provides no definitive answer but is I hope a much better account of the available credible discussion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

--Finn Diesel (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)== images redux ==

Finn is back again, i've only reverted once under BRD so now I have added this secion to discuss the Finn's argument --Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

you can find iconography in every kind of historical article in wikipedia. so i think there are some other problems we should know about--Finn Diesel (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC).

the point was that the images you supplied were painted by biased artists, consensus from previous arguments has said those particular images can't go into the article.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

this is a new mail from commons; Dear Finn Diesel,

Thank you for your email. We have received the permission for the image and have made the necessary modifications to the image page.

Thank you for providing this to us, and for your contribution to the Wikimedia Commons.

Yours sincerely, Leo Koppelkamm.

i will tell about your manner. this is unacceptable. --Finn Diesel (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Finn Diesel. Again I ask you to take part in meaningful discussion so as to make edit-warring un-necessary. To reiterate the consensus, the images under discussion are neither notable in themselves nor useful as illustrating anything useful about Attila himself.

I assume that your comment above relates to Buda es Attila.JPG, which now appears to have acceptable copyright information. I have inserted it into the article Attila the Hun in popular culture, where it may possibly illustrate something notable about modern Hungarian and/or Turkish perceptions of Attila. It would be really useful if you could produce some reliable sources about these modern perceptions, and use those sources to improve that article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ricky I agree it should go in Atilla the hun in popular culture article from now on, i hope we can all agree on this--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

this pictures are not taken from comic books, all of them are valuable art works for European history, so theres no need to move them to "Popular Culture" section.--Finn Diesel (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Finn, could you explain what value these pictures have to anyone? Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

why dont you ask it to the Hungarian, Richard? --Finn Diesel (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I could ask Granville if you like Finn--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Finn, if you want this stuff inserted into this article, you need to do two things. First, provide some reason, based on reliable sources, why these pictures are notable in themselves and give useful information on Attila himself. As far as I can see they aren't and don't. Second, persuade other editors that this is correct. You will notice that the pictures by Mor Than and in the Chronicum Pictum seem to have been accepted without problems. Failing that, I repeat my suggestion that you improve the article Attila the Hun in popular culture, which needs more information on his representation in modern Hungarian and Turkish culture. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

this article looks so simple, we should improve it. if my arguments are not satisfying for you, just replace them with your's. but please don't remove any of these improvements.--Finn Diesel (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Finn, the problem is that you haven't put forward any coherent arguments. I live in hope. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Again you reinsert the stuff under dispute. I repeat, far from being a valuable part of anyone's heritage, these pictures were done fairly recently by artists of very limited talent who made no obvious attempt to actually portray the real Attila. I remain open to anything constructive you may choose to write. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

why dont you find better pictures instead of removing APPROVED ART WORKS?--Finn Diesel (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Finn, it really would help if you would engage with the issues. I don't know what you mean by approved art works - who approved them and on what basis? The point is that they are neither notable in themselves, nor valuable to the article. I have removed them again. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for reverting some parts of the article, this is obviously double-edited. I agree with Richard, Finn, you don't need to mess up the article with too many pics - if someone is interested we can put a link to the picture. Or you could open an article "artistic demonstration of Attila the Hun" nobody is stopping you... Abdulka (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Abdulka, thanks. Could I just point out that the Flagellum Dei text is also duplicated, and per discussion above, rampant speculation on what Attila's religion may have been seems inappropriate. I propose to remove them both. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a head's up, I reverted Finn again. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Finn, just to repeat, we are open to any constructive ideas that you may wish to express. Your recent re-insertion of poor-quality material does not seem to offer any help towards a better encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverted him again. Am I mistaken that Finn in the edit summary said to see the talk page, but that he has not put up any material on the relevant talk pages? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, yes. I'm not sure it's fair to describe his editing as vandalism even at this stage. I have the impression that he just doesn't understand why the stuff he's trying to insert is rubbish, nor that the consensus so far doesn't include him. I'm not sure that he's ready to learn, but I feel that he's doing his best and would like to offer him the opportunity to improve. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I admire your optimism, but hopefully he will begin to engage in constructive discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

i improve the articles with reliable sources but you remove them with no reason, thats the difference. if you want to remove sth. just point out the reason. so it will fix this edit war.--Finn Diesel (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see that you're willing to engage in dialog. As an example of a reliable source, you mean this? It is not a reliable source, really, and I believe it does not even mention Attila, and thus does not support your edit in the info box.

As for:

• His story, that the Sword of Attila had come to his hand by miraculous means, was reported by the Greek writer Priscus.

and

• n much of Western Europe, he is remembered as the epitome of cruelty and rapacity. However, in Hungary, Turkey, and other Turkic-speaking countries in Central Asia, he is regarded as a hero and his name is revered.

you are not providing a source. Can you provide reliable sources?

In regard to the pictures, we have discussed those at length, can you make any argument for their inclusion, base on wikipedia policies? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

ok, i will take care about it.--Finn Diesel (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Finn, you have again inserted text and images that are rejected by other editors, for reasons detailed above. Yet again I have reverted this. Thank you for responding, but could you provide some meaningful comment, preferably something that actually addresses the issues? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please, Finn, provide some justification and sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

ok, the links are attached. by the way, i want to stop this edit war. thats why i always add some referances.--Finn Diesel (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Finn, the sources you present do not support your edits. [6] does not mention Attila. [7] is a circular ref, since wapedia is us, recycled, and we're not reliable. [8] doesn't look reliable, but in any case just describes the name. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

these are the sources and they are reliable as spring water. please tell me the real reason why you want to see a fragmanted article.--Finn Diesel (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Finn, answer me this--[9] does not mention Attila at all, how can it be a source for this article? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggested lead change

Regarding the sentence "In much of Western Europe, he is remembered as the epitome of cruelty and rapacity. However, in Hungary, Turkey, and other Turkic-speaking countries in Central Asia, he is regarded as a hero and his name is revered.[citation needed]" I'd like to drop it entirely. It's not sourced, possibly OR, and purely value judgments. Any objections? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Mind you, I think it's all true, but we should have reliable sources for this and so far none have been provided. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's largely true, and if we get good sources, a section on this would be appropriate. It just seems too heavy handed for the lead, even sourced. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Go for it! Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit War with Finn

At this point, we are basically in a slow moving polite edit war with Finn. Finn has chosen to repeated insert material against consensus, added POV material that is not supported by sources, and declined to engage in discussion despite repeated requests to do so. This needs to stop one way or another, does anyone have any ideas on how to deal with this, other than going to ANI? That's clearly an option, and might get his attention, but I am unsure as to whether or not it is a good long term solution. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is not helping anyone to build a better encyclopedia. I have asked User:Courcelles for help, and hope that he can assist us to a resolution. Failing that, maybe ANI is the best bet. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

1RR

Enough is enough, this article is almost stalled due to the constant reverting. We're going to try something new. Starting now, this article; under the discretionary sanctions authorised in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren; is hereby placed on a 1RR restriction. This means one revert, per user, per day. There's been a lot of discussion here, which is good, but also a lot of reverting. The most obvious vandalism is excepted from this restriction, and I do mean obvious. This restriction applies to all users, and I will place an edit notice of this for the article. Any appeals should be directed towards Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Courcelles 14:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The timestamp above has intentionally been moved forward 15 years to stop automatic archiving of this section. Courcelles 14:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Reboot

Ok, I've made some changes, basically a revert of Finn's last edit, but also deletion of some other material that I think was a bit pointy. I think we do need a section on views of Attila through history, but I figure we should perhaps work on that on a subpage here, assuming others agree. I also remove the negative image from the 16th century. What do others think? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree, a section or article on views of Attila would be good. The article Attila the Hun in popular culture would be a good one for expansion (possibly renaming also). The only problem is that I'm not presently familiar with good secondary sources on portrayals of Attila or his Huns. It would be easy enough to do some fairly straightforward and uncontroversial comments, but they would be, at least, playing around the edges of original research. We might manage to come up with something - I'll keep my mind and an eye open. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

AttilaTheHun.jpg

Thanks Redman19 for your contribution. I have removed this image. See lots of discussion above. Basically, this image is not notable in itself and it presents nothing relating to what we know of Attila's appearance. It appears to be a quick job by a mediocre artist who was asked to produce an image of a barbarian king. The only good place for it would be in a history of third-rate historiography. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Atilla_fléau_de_dieu.jpg

does depict the widespread demonic perception of Attila, and I suppose that a 15th-century item in the Louvre can claim notability of its own. But it has little to do with any depiction of the real Attila, and it could be said to be a distinctly one-sided portrayal. Does anyone feel that it is well or badly placed here? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I'd say it meets the standards to stay there, only it needs a description to make clear it is not a reflection of the true image of the subject; but its being a loyal or not portrait of Attila is of no importance. Lets keep in mind that in antiquity portraits were extremely rare, Romans emperors excluded, and thus the issue is a bit bogus; it's not like the statues of philosophers or famous persons preserved from antiquity or any closer to the "true" image of the person they claim to represent.Aldux (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, portraits were extremely rare. Personally, I see no reason for a portrait, since we don't have a contemporary one. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sagas and Attila

Quote from the article, section Later folklore and iconography:

Some histories and chronicles describe him as a great and noble king, and he plays major roles in three Norse sagas: Atlakviða,[33] Völsungasaga,[34] and Atlamál.[35]

Atlakviða and Atlamál are not sagas, they're heroic lays or poems from the Poetic Edda. The sentence should be rewritten, maybe like this:

...and he plays a major role in the Völsung cycle of Norse heroic myths. He is portrayed in two poems of the Poetic Edda, namely Atlakviða and Atlamál, as well as in the prosaic Völsungasaga. He is also featured under the name Etzel in the Nibelungenlied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mockingbird86 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Images

We now have three images of coins with basically the same rendering. Indeed, I think there are too many images in generally--none are contemporary, and the coins are a negative representation. I can live with one, but three seems too many. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, and thanks to Redman for his help, I agree. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

We now have yet another image, almost identical and conveying a identical "demonic" message. Sorry, but I think that two should be deleted. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Of three images derived from the same archetype, I have removed two. I have also moved his description to the beginning, followed it with the etymology, and then gone on to his career, ending with later representations. While I was there, I wikilinked to the Nuremberg Chronicle. I hope this is useful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Cant we leave atleast one coin on the page? I think its very interesting, for example the Alexander the Great article also shares many coins. Redman19 (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this article needs a top image in the infobox, I suggest we just search for one, its really sad that a historical person like Attila doesnt have a large wikipedia page, there has to be an image. Redman19 (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I left one coin on the article and moved one pic up to the infobox including description. Please feedback me, lets discuss the result here. Redman19 11:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I have left the infobox image in, but removed the near-duplicate on the coin. Really, all three images were almost identical. One is interesting though I personally wouldn't have put it in the infobox. But I can't think that any article would need two or three such similar images, and I propose to reduce the number in the Huns article to one as well. Again, as a non-contemporary image, it belongs in the history of iconography relating to Attila, not in the historical section.

The Alexander article has three coins, but each is different and each illustrates a different part of the story.

I suggest that the article already contains a good summary of everything we know about Attila. Sadly, as you point out, that isn't very much. The sources don't exist. I'm sure that we should not "pad" the article with duplication simply to reflect Attila's importance. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you there mate, thank you for your feedback. Redman19 (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've cut back the number of images to four, and tried to balance the representations. Really, I don't think we should have any images in the article, but if we are to have images, we should keep the number small. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it back to its original shape, I had permission from Richard to insert the coins in the gallery because they have a story. Redman19 (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have misread Richard's comment, if I read the above correctly, he's advocating use of one coin. Really, if we must have images, we need to balance them. I see no point at all in having three images that are essentially duplicates of one another, and of the one in the info box. All four of them are demonic in their representation. How is the article better with their inclusion of all four? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

you are right I left out the bronze coin. Redman19 (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I really like those coins, but I know you are right mate, I got a whole collection of these things at home, I developed a love for it. Redman19 (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)