Talk:Attilid dynasty

Who were the Attilids?

I have found some books using the term "Attilid" but none of them define it. Three books were written by Hyun Jin Kim ([1], [2], [3]), one book by Peter B. Golden ([4]), one by Panos Sophoulis ([5]), and one is a monography about Turkish languages ([6]). Most cited book mention the adjective in the context of the alleged descent of the Bulgarian Dulo clan from Attila. Could anybody refer to books defining the term or writing about the Attilid dynasty? Just a side remark, when writing of Attilids many books refers to the Attalid dynasty of Pergamon. Do we need an article just to present the Dulos and Árpáds as members of the so-called Attilid dynasty? Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Genealogy Section

Its neutrality is disputed and it was judged to be a "POV section" by Borsoka.

Let me be candid! I myself made many contributions to this POV section as well (the most alarming being me classifying both the Árpád dynasty & the Aba clan as descendants from the legendary Hungarian Prince Csaba (as per my own recommendation) (based on my reading of the medieval Hungarian chronicles by Simon of Kéza and Mark of Kalt, instead of reliable secondary sources by historians well-versed in Hungarian history & pre-history) (even though I actually think that Prince Csaba is a fictional person and never existed at all). Reason: I was trying to be as "diplomatic" towards Giray Alray as possible, to the point of me being complicit in POV-pushing.

I'm not trying to re-ingratiate myself here. I earnestly think (1) Borsoka's judgment to be accurate and (2) this section needs to be:

• (a) completely rewritten; or at the very least
• (b) heavily footnoted with reliably sourced warnings like (i) Prince Csaba, the alleged ancestor of Árpád dynasty & the Aba clan, was a legendary person, not historical; (ii) the Hungarian chronicles which claimed Attilid ancestry for the Árpád dynasty & the Aba clan are not reliable; (iii) while many historians identify the historical Ernak with Irnik, the legendary ancestor of the Dulo clan, that identification is not universally agreed upon and therefore the Dulo clan were not necessarily "Attilids".

Aesthetics be damned!

Thoughts? Erminwin (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

As my above remarks indicate I think the existence of the article should also be verified. I have not found a source using the term Attilid dynasty. Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Merging

Hi Borsoka!

Yes I think we can merge if we can adapt important informations from this article to the Attila article. I see you are very expert in medieval history, and you know well the Hungarian-Hun connection of the Arpad dynasty was the standard in the medieval literature, and until the end of the 19th century until the Finno-Ugric theory became the mainstream. So I do not understand why should we silent about this, morover in a related article. You removed only the Hungarian things there, why? You removed secondary sources which are published with recent dates by many scholars [7], you can check the provided sources, I used that content. Btw you know well we can find thousand of secondary sources and historians who say "According to medieval Hungarian chronicles... the Huns, Attila, Arpad dynasty..." simple because those documents stated this and refering them why would be a problem in a related article? Also there are many articles with quotes from primarly sources, if we have some related quotes which are related to the secondary sources, I do not know why should we delete all of them. [8][9]

According to the recent genetic studies (and many international, non Hungarian genetic studies) the Arpad dynasty had Hun connections. And genetic is science. Those are very prestigous international science journals. Helyion for example Heliyon is a very prestigious Q1 ranked journal, a top ranked journal where only 17% of the articles are accepted.

• The genetic origin of Huns, Avars, and conquering Hungarians: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00732-1
• Genetic evidence suggests a sense of family, parity and conquest in the Xiongnu Iron Age nomads of Mongolia: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-020-02209-4 “East Eurasian R1a subclades R1a1a1b2a-Z94 and R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 were a common element of the Hun, Avar and Hungarian Conqueror elite and very likely belonged to the branch that was observed in our Xiongnu samples. Moreover, haplogroups Q1a and N1a were also major components of these nomadic groups, reinforcing the view that Huns (and thus Avars and Hungarian invaders) might derive from the Xiongnu as was proposed until the eighteenth century but strongly disputed since.”

• Xiongnu Y-DNA connects Huns & Avars to Scytho-Siberians: https://indo-european.eu/2020/08/xiongnu-ancestry-connects-huns-avars-to-scytho-siberians/ The study is confirming the presence of Andronovo or Scytho-Siberian ancestry in the Asian Huns. Moreover, these haplotypes also matched those of ancient Hungarian rulers, which indicate the persistence of some Asian Hun paternal lineages in the gene pool of early Hungarian conquerors. The database search also revealed a shared haplotype between a Hun person in the cemetry and King Béla III of Hungary (1172–1196) as well as a matching haplotype between an another Asian Hun person in the cemetry and another male individual found in the Royal Basilica in Hungary where King Béla III was buried. More Asian Hun individuals also carried haplotypes similar to those carried by the 10th century Hungarian conquerors and by 7–8th century Avar individuals. The genetic study suggests that some modern subclades, those related to Avars or Hungarian Conquerors became first integrated among Scythians. The Eurasian R1a subclades R1a1a1b2a-Z94 and R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 were a common element of the Hun, Avar and Hungarian conqueror elite and belonged to the branch that was observed in Asian Hun samples. Moreover, similar haplogroups were also major components of these groups, reinforcing the view that Huns, Avars and Hungarian conquerors derive from the Asian Huns as was proposed until the 18th century and declared in medieval documents.

File:King Ladislaus I Hungary - Haplogroups.jpg

According to the MyTrueAncestry the most similar haplogroups were found in the local Carpathian Basin, in Scythian, and in Hun samples to King Saint Ladislaus.

Please listen this video about the recent researches, they are making a good proposal how we can combine the Finno-Ugric theory with the Hun theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6V6X9b0RqU

I know, this is POV, just this is a feedback, just I would like tell that the genetic test of my family and I saw many genetic result of other Hungarians, these results confirm the international genetic tests and medieval chronicles. Of course the genetic of Hungarians are very complex, I see 3 main components in the Hungarian genetic: lot of local Carpathian Basin Bronze Age samples + lot of Iron Age Scythian folk samples from the whole Eurasian steppe (Scythian, Sarmatian, Avar, Hungarian conqueror, Hun, Saka) + German and Slav. Btw my family made a personal DNA tests, and several members has genetic matches with Hun samples from Carpathian Basin, Asian Hun, Asian Scythian, Asian Scythian, Sarmatian, Avar samples. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you refer to reliable sources connecting the DNA of Attila with the Árpáds? Borsoka (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka! Of course not, because we do not know where is the body of Attila. I did not say that this thing is fact, I say Hungarian medieval chronicles from the Hungarian royal court and the ruling Arpad dynasty claimed the ancestry of Attila (so not the insignificant simple blacksmith in the forest village wrote that). This is fact. But you know well that Hungarian chronicles. I wrote "according to the Hungarian chronicles" in the legacy section, as the marked secondary sources write the same: "according to the Hungarian chronicles". If true or not true, it does not matter, we can add many kind of scholar opinions, but it is fact that this medieval claim is part of the legacy of Attila. Could you tell me what is the reason why we should be silence about this what the full Hungarian medieval literature and the Hungarian state founder royal family claimed? I do not understand.

And you know well that Hungarian medieval literature claimed the Hun-Hungarian-Scythian connection, and it was the mainstream until the end of the 19th century. Even the Hungarian national anthem mention this medieval legacy, Hungarian parliament has Attila room...etc.

You know well almost all Hungarian related medieval topic mention these old Hungarian chonicles and relevant contents, images, and this content is very relevant regarding to Attila, legacy section. Why do you think it is not?

We have already many modern genetic researches, which is science, a math. Those genetic studies found genetic connections between the Hungarian conqueror elite and the Huns which was also claimed in the mentioned medieval literature.

Did you watch the linked video? Please watch an another one, which talk about these modern researches:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Niwa2CSPA OrionNimrod (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

If there is no genetical evidence of the link between Attila and the Árpáds, we should not refer to genetics. Yes, that the Árpáds claimed Attila as their forefather from the late 12th century could be mentioned in the article about Attila in a sentence. However, one sentence does not make an article. Borsoka (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes we do not have Attila-Arpad genetic. But I mentioned the genetic because those medieval documented claimed the Hun connection, and those modern genetic studies confirmed the Asian Hun connection of the Arpad dynasty. I collected many links here regarding this: User talk:Norden1990/Identification of Hungarian royalty

We have already many articles, Attila, Árpád dynasty, this article etc, addig some relevant sourced sentence would be good I think. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the alleged Hunnic connection could be mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the collaboration! OrionNimrod (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Status

This Article fell in the category "Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists", it has now been completed. It has been promoted to B-Class.

SEKDIS (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Lede section

@Borsoka: Your version of the lede does not explain the subject at all and breaks all of the standards of WP:Lead section, by not explaining what the Attilid dynasty is. I don't know and I don't care about this particular bit of history, but you can't just leave the lead section obviously incomplete. If the "Attilid dynasty" is a Wikipedia invention, you should nominate the article for AFD. If the Attilid dynasty is a romantic notion since superseded, you should say something like "19th century writers believed in an Attilid dynasty of Hunnic rulers related to Atilla, but scholar XYZ wrote in 2002 there was no such thing". If the Attilid dynasty was a thing but you think it's poorly named, then just say so, citing your sources. Which is it you're claiming? SnowFire (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

And your version contradicts our basic policy WP:NOR. The article was nominated for deletion but it was kept. However, this decision does not mean that it may contain original research. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Borsoka: I already told you I'm not an expert on the Attilid dynasty! I can't find any evidence this article was ever nominated for deletion, so it sounds like you should just nominate it yourself using the procedure described at WP:AFD. Even if you do so, though, you need to present the Attilid dynasty as the supporters of such a thing perceive it. Wikipedia has articles on completely bogus, false, outdated concepts. If you think that the idea is false, then we should restore the old lead section but also include "According to source XYZ, there is no such thing and this is a romantic invention of Hungarian nationalists," similar to articles like Flat earth or Bosnian pyramids. SnowFire (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you verify your preferred version with a reference to a reliable source? Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Are you even reading what I'm saying? How many times do I have to say that I don't have a preferred version, that I don't know this topic, but that I do know basic Wikipedia layout that every single other article has that your lead is violating. I'm asking what your version would say and attempting, and apparently failing, to defer to you. (I was just here to add the hatnote to Attalid dynasty, really, and as a passerby saw that you truncated the lede section.)

I don't know how much blunter I can be. I'm asking you what you think the article should say. Re-read my first paragraph I wrote above and answer that question. The first sentence should say something like:

The Attilid dynasty is (FILL IN THE BLANK HERE)...

It's okay if you want to say "The Attilid dynasty doesn't exist but Wikipedia made it up" or "The Attilid dynasty exists but only as a crazed fever dream of nationalists." But you have to tell the reader what it is, something, anything. If you refuse to say what you think the Attilid dynasty is, then the old version that you dislike is going to win by default. SnowFire (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I do not have to and I cannot tell anything that is not and cannot be verified with a reference to a reliable source. It is you who want to write something about the Attilids so it is your task to verify it. Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• I am going to hope this is a language issue rather than you being a troll. This is not a hard question to answer - what do you think the Attilid dynasty is. If you think this topic doesn't exist, just say so, and nominate it for AFD. If you think this topic does exist, then write a lede that says what it is. SnowFire (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Do it. Borsoka (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Do... what? AFD? I was repeatedly asking for you to offer your opinion, which you were resolutely refusing to do. I already said several times I was a passerby editor who just saw a wildly inappropriate, nonsensical lead that opened with "They" with the fact that "They" was the Huns cut off by your edit. For future reference, if you dislike an article so badly as to refuse to give it a proper lead section, you need to AFD it, not remove the lead section, not argue with passerby editors who see an obvious problem and restore a proper lead section. Anyway, fine, since you seem intent on being contrary... a Google Books / Google Scholar search doesn't come up with much for "Attilid dynasty", and the citation to Hyun Jin Kim was a passing minor comment in a footnote. It seems like this article could probably be redirected back to List of kings of the Huns and possibly a section included somewhere about the claims of the Arpad dynasty - maybe an article like "Claims of Attilid descent of the Arpads," similar to Claim of the biblical descent of the Bagrationi dynasty. Or just Claims of descent from Attila in general. It could be included at the List of kings article, but might be off-topic there, so maybe more of a move? Could also be said that this claim was just too minor to warrant a separate Wikipedia article. Thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)