Talk:Attilid dynasty

Recent new edits

Hi @Erminwin, thanks for your contributions. I have a couple of remarks:

1. 1. You changed "It is [...] considered that [...] Ernak [...] be the same person as Attila's youngest son. The Bulgar khan was, at any rate, of Attilid descent." to: "Irnik [...] is often considered to be the same person as Ernak, Attila's youngest son; therefore, the Bulgars' ruling dynasty Dulo were members of the Attilid dynasty." But I think that is no good. I took that content from the article Dulo clan, from a line that reads:

The royal family and rulers of Old Great Bulgaria (632–668) and the first half of the First Bulgarian Empire (681–1018), in their prince lists (Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans) claimed through Irnik, who was probably related to or was Attila's son Ernak himself, or at least of Attilid descent.

Therefore, the Dulo might have descended from Ernak, that is, Irnik might be Ernak and, at any rate, they were of Attilid descent (from whatever child of Attila). But the way you put it disregards this latter point. They way you put it is like: they were Attilids only and exclusively because (or if) Ernak was Irnik.

1. 2. Here you say that the Hungarian chroniclers claimed Attilid descent for Arpad because Attila had lots of children ("As Attila had many wives, and numerous children, allegedly "amounting to a people", medieval Hungarian chroniclers, Anonymus (notary of Béla III) and Simon of Kéza, claimed Attilid ancestry for the Árpád dynasty and the Aba clan"). However, this is not what that source says. In fact, there is no source claiming why the chroniclers made those claims. I simply added the piece about the numerous children because I wanted to remind the reader that Attila had many children and thus the existence of a Prince Csaba (another son) is quite plausible in this sense.

1. 3. Always here you inserted a long explanation, with long quotes, regarding the different theories about the origins of the Aba /Arpads, and I think this has no place in this article. This article is about the Attilid dynasty, not the Aba, nor the Árpáds. It is right to remind the reader that these genealogical links are according to Hungarian legend/tradition (as I specified several times) and that they were written by Middle Ages' chroniclers, but we don't need to also present the other theories.

The rest is quite fine. Giray Altay (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: I saw you re-wrote your edits a bit, but the page still has the above issues. The piece:

However, Anonymus did not link Ed(u), Edumen, their nephew Pota, and their Aba descendants to Attila; instead he ascribed them Cuman ancestry.[13] Even so, historians Carlile Aylmer Macartney and Györffy contend that Anonymus mistakenly thought that the word Kun (derived from Hun & later applied to other nomadic Turkic peoples like Pechenegs and Oghuzes) in his sources as denoting the Cumans (also called Kun) in his time.[14][15] Györffy, along with Szegfű, Tóth, etc., propose that the Aba clan belonged instead to the Kabars, Khazar confederation's members who revolted, escaped and then joined the Hungarians in the middle of the 9th century, before the Hungarians' arrival in the Carpathian Basin around 895.

even seems to "separate" Attila from the Hungarian nobility by claiming that Anonymous did not claim Attilid descent for certain Hungarians and stopping there. He obviously did link Attila to the Hungarian nobility as well; to none less than the foremost of them:

The land stretching between the Danube and the Tisza used to belong to my forefather, the mighty Attila (Arpad, Gesta Hungarorum)

I understand you wanted to point out that Anonymous did not link the Aba to Attila (that was Simon of Keza), but you should have also mentioned that he linked Arpad to him.

And for the new additions still applies what I said above: there is no point in presenting the other theories, or the other things that Anonymous and Simon of Keza said. This article is about the Attilids.--Giray Altay (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay: I simply do not take claims made by Medieval Chroniclers (Anonymus notary of Bela III; Simon of Kéza; & the anonymous author of Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans) at face value; especially when those were made centuries after the death of Attila & his sons. Also, neither Anonymus nor Simon of Kéza claimed that the Árpád dynasty descended from Prince Csaba at all, so the claim "one of these children was Csaba, the father of Ed from the Aba, from whom sprang Ügyek, the father of Előd, who begat Álmos by Emese. Álmos was the father of Árpád, the forefather of the Hungarian monarchs and the first Hungarian ruler" is inaccurate and based on a misreading. Erminwin (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Erminwin:, speaking of misreading, there is a bit of misreading you made, which is why I made point 1 and 2 in the above reply, and I kindly ask you to address those points because the article needs to be changed.

Now you say: "Also, neither Anonymus nor Simon of Kéza claimed that the Árpád dynasty descended from Prince Csaba at all". This is correct, and indeed I didn't say anything about that. It was a mistake I made while editing. All I had to say about that was "The rest is quite fine."

But instead of focusing on what I haven't argued against, you should address the points I made.

Regarding your remark: "I simply do not take claims made by Medieval Chroniclers (Anonymus notary of Bela III; Simon of Kéza; & the anonymous author of Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans) at face value", I say that I personally trust the chronicles... Or rather I believe there is a grain of truth, and this for many reasons that I don't need to explain. But it doesn't matter what you or I think. The fact is that those chronicles do make those claims. I think it is wrong both to report those claims without specifying that they are according to Hungarian tradition and Hungarian legend, and presenting all the counter arguments. We definitely don't need an explanation by modern scholars as to why Anonymous used this word and why Anonymous made that claim. Even when the theory is not WP:FRINGE, it has no place here, but only in the related article.--Giray Altay (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

EDIT And reporting stuff like "Györffy states that "deriving the Hungarians from the Huns is one of the fictions of history." just to add to the mix makes no sense. I could also report scholars who support the chronicles and the theory of Magyar descent from the Huns. But why start a whole argument in this article? Saying that those claims are legendary and according to tradition is more than enough.--Giray Altay (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay: "the Dulo might have descended from Ernak, that is, Irnik might be Ernak and, at any rate, they were of Attilid descent (from whatever child of Attila)." That was not even what the author(s) of the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans actually claimed. Only that Kubrat, the first Dulo clan's member whose historical existence is verified, had two legendary ancestors named Irnik and Avitohol. We do not even know if the nominalia's author(s) intended Irnik to be identified as the historical last-known Hunnic ruler Ernak and Irnik's predecessor Avitohol to be Attila. The identifications of Irnik with Ernak and Avitohol with Attila, as well as the claims that the Dulo were of Attilid descent, were all made by modern scholars.Erminwin (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Erminwin: You don't get this point and you still haven't addressed the other. If you don't address it I will have to change the article because it can't stay this way. Regarding the point you did address: the claim that he was at least of Attilid descent is made by modern scholars, not by the Nominalia. Please, read over the Dulo clan and check the sources. Or maybe you don't want to include claims by modern historians? But you just did! Yet while the inclusion of this claim by modern scholars makes sense (the article is about the Attilids; the Attilids were a ruling elite controlling the Balkans and the steppe for at least half a century, intermixing with everybody; i.e. the Bulgar khans were obviously, at least of Attilid Hun descent), what you added regarding the other things Simon of Keza said, the theories with hindsight about why he chose certain words, imo, have no place here. Again, claiming that those genealogies are legendary and according to Hungarian Middle Ages chroniclers is more than enough.

I saw you included the extra text in footnotes. This way, the article is at least acceptable, though I don't see the necessity for all those footnotes at all. Surely some of them need to be edited. You cannot just throw in the claim Györffy states that "deriving the Hungarians from the Huns is one of the fictions of history", because that is pushing your view in the article. Without mentioning the fact that that claim is about the Hungarians and the Huns not the Attilids and the Hungarian royals, I could also cite scholars who believe in the Magyar-Hun link, as most Hungarian people do, but it makes no sense. Just say the claims are legendary and according to Hungarian tradition and that's it. At most, redirect the reader to articles where he/she can find discussion (where both POVs are presented) about the particular topic.--Giray Altay (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not just modern scholars who made the Irnik=Ernak claim, it's something that was always commonly assumed because, you know, they had the same name, and lived in the same epoch, among other things (but there is more to it. For example, the legendary ancestress of the Huns was the daughter of a certain Dulo). But what the Dulo clan article (and its sources) say, and you apparently don't get, is that, beside it being likely that the traditional Ernak=Irnik identification is correct, the initial rulers of the Bulgars were surely Attilids even if Ernak wasn't in fact Irnik (because of the power exercised by the Huns in the same area from which sprang this people, the Bulgars, with same lifestyle, names and traditions; a people who the ancient historians equated with the Huns; because of the Attilids' royal intermarriage practices and multitude of sons of Attila, among other things). However, you seem to wanting at all costs to distort and mix the sources by claiming that "modern historians think that Ernak was Irnik and because of this (only and exclusively because of this) the Bulgar khans were Attilids.--Giray Altay (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay Also, wherefrom did you pull this "the legendary ancestress of the Huns was the daughter of a certain Dulo"? Erminwin (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay:

"Please, read over the Dulo clan and check the sources." You purposefully ignore this in the Dulo article:

• "Vasil Zlatarski thought the identification between Irnik and Ernak pointless, and they were two different persons and families. Zlatarski pointed out, which points Runciman considered to be indisputable; if Irnik was Ernak, then both Ernak and Attila belonged to the Dulo clan , whereas, actually, no source mentions Dulo clan in connection with them; according to the Nominalia Irnik ruled from 437, i.e. several years before the death of Attila in 453, which is impossible. Due to be assigned a reign of 150 years, Runciman considered the inaccuracy of the date of accession as venial mistake.

The identification of Attila's son Ernak with Irnik is obviously very important regarding the claim by the Dulo khans to be of Attilid descent; you cannot just claim that the Dulo khans were "obviously", "at least", "at any rate" of Attilid descent because "Attila had many wives, and numerous children" or "the Attilids were a ruling elite controlling the Balkans and the steppe for at least half a century, intermixing with everybody" regardless. That amounts to POV-pushing on your part. It's like Charlie claiming to be Arthur's grandson by claiming to be son of Bernard, son of Arthur; & when Charlie cannot provide any proof that Charlie is Bernard's son, Charlie then says that "obviously", "at any rate", "at least" Charlie is Arthur's grandson because Arthur has many other sons than Bernard yet Charlie still refuses to identify which of Arthur's sons is Charlie's father.Erminwin (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Erminwin (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Dulo/ancestress thing, I already answered to your accusations here..

As for the rest: It is not me who's making those claims, but those modern historians. I deem the claims plausible (as did the editors of Dulo clan apparently) and so reported what they say here. I didn't need to explain to you what those historians say, it is your responsibility to go check and understand the sources. I agree with their pov, the points they make strongly suggesting an affiliation with the Attilids.What you really can't get is that there is a difference between "Ernak might have been Irnik and, therefore, the Bulgar khans Attilids" and "Ernak might have been Irnik but regardless of it, the Bulgar khans were very likely Attilids".

Also, we shouldn't include the very long explanations about the other possible descents of the Dulo, the Aba, etc. Like I said, it is sufficient to say the claims are according to legend, maybe tell the reader to go to "x" article for more. Phrases like "Even so, historians Carlile Aylmer Macartney and György Györffy contend that Anonymus mistakenly thought that the word Kun (derived from Hun & later applied to other nomadic Turkic peoples like Pechenegs and Oghuzes) in his sources denoted the Cumans (also called Kun) in his time.[19][20] Györffy, along with Szegfű, Tóth, etc., propose that the Aba clan belonged instead to the Kabars, Khazar confederation's members who revolted, escaped and then joined the Hungarians in the middle of the 9th century, before the Hungarians' arrival in the Carpathian Basin around 895", which discuss whether Anonymous thought the Aba were of Cuman or Kabar descent (neither of which, btw, excludes a paternal Attilid descent), do not belong here because the article is not about the Cumans or the Kabars.--Giray Altay (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The whole point "However, Anonymus did not link Ed(u), his brother Edumen, their nephew Pota, and their Aba descendants to Attila; instead he ascribed them Cuman ancestry.[18][d]2" does not belong here, because Anonymous does not mention Attila at all (in this respect). He neither denies nor supports the claim of Attilid descent for the Aba (though he does support it for the Arpad: The land stretching between the Danube and the Tisza used to belong to my forefather, the mighty Attila). You can hardly use the fact Anonymous fails to mention something as a counter argument for the claim he neither makes nor deny (Anonymous does not object to an Attilid descent), and if you don't have a secondary source doing that it would be OR.

I am not POV pushing. If I was POV pushing I would not have specified many, many times that those claims are according to legend, reported by Middle Ages chroniclers. Yet those claims exist.--Giray Altay (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay "I didn't need to explain to you what those historians say, it is your responsibility to go check and understand the sources." You misplaced the burden of proof. It's on you to back your claims up with sources and even explain how those sources support your claims, not other editors'.

"the Aba were of Cuman or Kabar descent (neither of which, btw, excludes a paternal Attilid descent)"; "Anonymous does not object to an Attilid descent". So you are right about [insert person or family or ruling dynasty here] being of Attilid descent either way?Erminwin (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

First, Erminwin, why did you change your own addition As Attila had many wives, and numerous children, allegedly "amounting to a people", medieval Hungarian chroniclers, Anonymus (notary of Béla III) and Simon of Kéza, claimed Attilid ancestry for the Árpád dynasty and the Aba clan. to Attila had many wives, and numerous children, allegedly "amounting to a people". The royal family and rulers of Old Great Bulgaria (632–668) a (...) after I pointed it out to you without saying anything? That was a very serious misunderstanding and bold claim, since you claimed to know the reasons why Simon of Keza and the other chroniclers wrote what they wrote. You were wrong, as you were with the "Dula ancestresses" matter. It's fine, I also made a mistake with the Csaba/Aba/Arpad genealogy just the other day. It would have been nice to acknowledge it, that's all.

So, the Dulo article claims:

The royal family and rulers of Old Great Bulgaria (632–668) and the first half of the First Bulgarian Empire (681–1018), in their prince lists (Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans) claimed through Irnik, who was probably related to or was Attila's son Ernak himself, or at least of Attilid descent.

The meaning of this is that even if the Irnik in the Nominalia isn't Attila's son Ernak, he was still of Attilid descent. Very, very likely. Unfortunately, I cannot check those specific sources right now. However, I trust the editors, and I read (parts) of Kim's works, I know his ideas, and it makes sense he said that. Kim's idea is that not only the Bulgars, but even the Ostrogoths and pretty much all the Balkanic royal houses during and after the Huns had Attilid elements. Kim claims: Furthermore, we find in the Ostrogoths, who derive from the Hunnic Empire and may well have had a Hunnic royal house [...]. I can't find other quotes right now, I'd have to go through his works, but the WP article Huns, drawing from Kim's The Huns, states: Hyun Jin Kim supposes that the Hungarians might be linked to the Huns via the Bulgars and Avars, both of whom he holds to have had Hunnish elements.[294]. If it is absolutely needed, I will find a way to quote from the sources used. But for me it wasn't and still isn't necessary because the meaning of the sentence is clear, I trust the editors who wrote that article and I know it makes sense those historians said that because I know the tenets of those historians.--Giray Altay (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay

First, Erminwin, why did you change your own addition As Attila had many wives, and numerous children, allegedly "amounting to a people", medieval Hungarian chroniclers, Anonymus (notary of Béla III) and Simon of Kéza, claimed Attilid ancestry for the Árpád dynasty and the Aba clan. to Attila had many wives, and numerous children, allegedly "amounting to a people". The royal family and rulers of Old Great Bulgaria (632–668) a (...) after I pointed it out to you without saying anything? That was a very serious misunderstanding and bold claim, since you claimed to know the reasons why Simon of Keza and the other chroniclers wrote what they wrote.

Reread the article. This is how it appears:

Attila had many wives, and numerous children, allegedly "amounting to a people".
The Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans claimed the second ruler of the Dulo was Irnik (Ирникъ), who is often identified with Ernak, a son of Attila. According to Bulgarian historian Vasil Zlatarski, if Irnik was indeed Ernak, then both Ernak and his father Attila belonged to the Dulo clan. According to historian Hyun Jim Kim, Ernak apparently beame the founding ruler of the confederation of Hunnic Bulgars, consisting of Huns and subdued Oghuric-speaking Turkic peoples; consequently, the Bulgars were presumably ruled by Attilids descending from Ernak; and the Dulo clan were of Attilid descent.
Medieval Hungarian chroniclers, Anonymus (notary of Béla III) and Simon of Kéza, claimed Attilid ancestry for the Árpád dynasty and the Aba clan. Specifically:
*The Aba clan supposedly descended from a certain Edemen, son of Prince Csaba, son of Attila:
$\equiv$*However, Anonymus did not link Ed(u), his brother Edumen, their nephew Pota, and their Aba descendants to Attila; instead he ascribed them Cuman ancestry.
*Two Árpád dynasty's patriarchs, Árpád and his father Álmos, supposedly descended from a certain Ügyek, a descendant of Attila, though Anonymus did not specify which of Attila's sons Ügyek descended from.
Further, the Kutrigurs, Utigurs, Onogurs and Akatziris were all ruled by branches of the Attilid dynasty.

I moved the sourced claim "Attila had many wives, and numerous children, allegedly 'amounting to a people'." into its own paragraph because I do not want it to be misconstrued as:

• the reason why the nominalia's author(s) claimed the the Dulo to be of Attilid descent;
• or the reason Simon of Kéza claimed the Aba to be of Attilid descent.
• or the reason why Anonymus claimed the Árpáds to be of Attilid descent.

I was mistaken, I do not want to make the same mistake again; hence the move.

Also, you were the one who "simply added the piece about the numerous children (of Attila) because I (Giray Altay) wanted to remind the reader that Attila had many children and thus the existence of a Prince Csaba (another son) is quite plausible in this sense". So you effectively admitted to WP:POV-pushing on your part that a claim about [insert name of person or house or dynasty here]'s being descendants of Attila through Csaba is plausible because it was plausible that Csaba existed because Attila had many children. For an analogy, it's like Edward and Frederick's claiming to be grandsons of Arthur because Edward and Frederick are sons of Dexter, who is alleged to be a son of Arthur even though there exists neither reliable record that Dexter is Arthur's son nor reliable record that Dexter even exists at all; yet when pressed for proofs, Edward & Frederick simply say Arthur has many sons so it's plausible that a son named Dexter exists therefore it's also plausible that Edward & Frederick, who claim to be Dexter's son, are indeed Arthur's grandsons.

"You were wrong, as you were with the 'Dula ancestress' affair. It's fine." I simply did not remember that Simon of Kéza also claimed that "the legendary ancestress of the Huns was the daughter of a certain Dulo". I was not wrong about the "the legendary ancestress of the Huns was the daughter of a certain Dulo" being pseudo-historical. Hunor and Magor, the Alan prince Dula, and his two daughters in almost all likelihood never existed and were fictional characters in an origin myth authored by Simon of Kéza. Erminwin (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Erminwin, maybe we just don't understand each other. That is not POV:Pushing, this is an article about the Attilid dynasty, therefore, I made my homework, I made my research, and I created an article as detailed as possible. Hence I provided the reader with as many information as possible regarding Attila's progeny and all the noble houses/dynasties/clans possibly descended from him. Then, it is obvious (to those who know about the topic) that, since Attila had (reportedly) a "myriad" of children, Csaba's existence is at least possible; however, without a mention of his myriad of children, an unwitting reader may say: "Wait, gotcha! Attila had only three children: Ellac, Dengizich, and Ernak, so Csaba cannot exist!"

The way I had put it in the beginning it was not claimed, nor implied that, because Attila had many children, the chroniclers made those claims. I had written: Another possible descendant of the Attilids are the Árpád dynasty. Attila had many wives, and numerous children, allegedly "amounting to a people". According to Hungarian tradition, one of these children was Csaba, the father of Ed from the Aba (...). The two claims are presented separately. The fact Attila had many children is not the reason why the Hungarian chroniclers said Csaba descended from him, but information that makes the existence of a Csaba, of an Irnik, of many other children possible. On the other hand, you wrongly interpreted the text and/or the sources, and made the wrong claim that the chroniclers wrote what they wrote because Attila had many children. You changed the aforementioned text into As Attila had many wives, and numerous children, allegedly "amounting to a people", medieval Hungarian chroniclers, Anonymus (notary of Béla III) and Simon of Kéza, claimed Attilid ancestry for the Árpád dynasty and the Aba clan.

Yes, you wrongly accused me, because you failed, through lack of knowledge, and without just asking me first before asking a third editor on another page, to identify the ancestress I was talking about with the daughter of Dula/Dulo mentioned in the Hungarian chronicles, that is, in the Hunor and Magor legend; instead, you brought up some kind of Turkmenistan related stories. And, I did not make "pseudo-historical" claims, because when I mentioned the Dula ancestresses I specified (as I always did in all my edits mentioning Hungarian Chronicles) that she is legendary.--Giray Altay (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

"The fact Attila had many children is not the reason why the Hungarian chroniclers said Csaba descended from him, but information that makes the existence of a Csaba, of an Irnik, of many other children possible" is just your opinion. That was POV-pushing. That's why when you'd written: " Another possible descendant of the Attilids are the Árpád dynasty. Attila had many wives, and numerous children, allegedly "amounting to a people". According to Hungarian tradition, one of these children was Csaba, the father of Ed from the Aba (...)" that'd amounted to POV-pushing.

"through lack of knowledge" I simply cannot remember every piece of information, even from documents or books which I have read. Sigh...

"you [Erminwin] brought up some kind of Turkmenistan related stories" I remembered seeing "unsourced, almost certainly pseudo-historical claims like [i.e. similar to, resembling, though not exact the same] it ['the legendary ancestress of the Huns was the daughter of a certain Dulo']". At the time when you first wrote "the legendary ancestress of the Huns was the daughter of a certain Dulo" you did not even source it.

"And, I did not make 'pseudo-historical' claims, because when I mentioned the Dula ancestresses I specified (as I always did in all my edits mentioning Hungarian Chronicles) that she is legendary". Because the myth that Hunor and Magor married two daughters of an Alan named Dula/Dulo was just... an origin myth, it cannot be used to support the claim that the Dulo clan were "surely", "obviously", "at any rate", "at least" were of Attilid descent (good thing that claim is only here instead of the main article). I'll quote this from the article pseudohistory:

• Pseudohistory is purported history which: [...] Is neither critical nor skeptical in its reading of ancient historians, taking their claims at face value and ignoring empirical or logical evidence contrary to the claims of the ancients

"without just asking me first before asking a third editor on another page" Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about YOU, as Ermenrich had clearly stated: "it is not normal practice to ping/inform an editor about whom one has concerns when discussing him/her unless the discussion is at WP:ANI or a similar venue. It's also not normal to ping an editor every time you mention them" in User_talk:Erminwin#Prolific_new_editor_in_Hunnic_topics.Erminwin (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Erminwin, I didn't say you had to ping me. You are again misinterpreting. I pointed out that you didn't need to go to Ermenrich to try and find something wrong against me. You could've asked me "Wait, who was this Dulo ancestress? Can you source?" I did not source the claim here because this is a talk page, but I obviously did source the claim elsewhere.

You say: an origin myth, it cannot be used to support the claim that the Dulo clan were "surely", "obviously"[...] and when on earth did I say that that Dulo were surely, obviously Attilids? And when did I support this with the Dulo/a ancestress myth? I used the Dulo/a ancestress myth in the List of rulers of the Huns in the Legendary section, and I have herein mentioned this legend with similarly sounding names as one of the many, many things (not the only thing) that have led historians to claim that the Bulgar rulers were Attilids regardless of whether Irnik was Ernak. But it is not even necessary to resort to this tidbit about the Alan princess; Kim himself claims that all the Balkanic (non Roman) royal houses had Attilid elements, certainly also the Bulgars, who shared the same culture and place of origin:

• Furthermore, we find in the Ostrogoths, who derive from the Hunnic Empire and may well have had a Hunnic royal house [...]
• Hyun Jin Kim supposes that the Hungarians might be linked to the Huns via the Bulgars and Avars, both of whom he holds to have had Hunnish elements.[294]
• "[...] sometimes confused historians without thorough grounding in Inner Asian history into thinking that there were multiple, different tribes in the steppe when in fact the appellations referred to a single tribal confederation. Thus in our sources the names Kutrigur, Bulgar and Hun are used interchangeably and refer in all probability not to separate groups but one group. Kutrigur, Uitgur, Onogur, and possibly also the Akatziri, are deisgnations given to the four main divisions of the steppe confederation (Uitgurs and Kutrigurs forming the main two wings and the Akatziri and Onogurs functioning as subsidiary hordes to the two main divisions, a fact seemingly confirmed by the information in Jordanes, Getica 5:37, that the Hunuguri (Onogurs) were inferior to their more powerful neighbours) all ruled by branches of the same ruling dynasty (Attilid), Bulgar ("mixed ones", like the name Kipchaq (sand-people) and Pecheng (brothers-in.law)) being the name of the confederation as a whole, often used interchangebly with the name Hun designating the imperial status of this confederation and the origins of it ruling elite"

The fact is that, because you have a smaller knowledge of the topic, you keep thinking my additions are POV or whatever, and in response extend the article with unneeded explanations and theories regarding other subjects. My additions are already a synthesis taking everything into account; and I don't get why you keep accusing me of making pseudo-historical claims when I always, always used the word legendary when speaking of Hungarian chronicles.--Giray Altay (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Erminwin: Waiting for your reply to my last message, I ask: do you agree to add Mundos to the family tree? I would place him on the left, where there's space left, with no lines leading to his box, since the child from whom he descended from Attilia is not known. Below Mundus, I would add another box, connected to Mundos' with a line, for his son, general Mauricius.--Giray Altay (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay "when on earth did I say that that Dulo were surely, obviously Attilids?"

here "the Bulgar khans were obviously, at least of Attilid Hun descent" and

here "the initial rulers of the Bulgars were surely Attilids even if Ernak wasn't in fact Irnik" ? Why did you deny doing so? I even mentioned "(good thing that claim is only here [i.e. this talk page of the article] instead of the main article)" so one can easily use the search tool and see where your "say[ings] that that Dulo were surely, obviously Attilids" are (at the point of me writing this) on this talk page

While Kim is a historian and thus a reliable source, his conclusion (essentially, one dynasty always ruling just one tribal confederation despite the different names) is hasty & simplistic (for various reasons: another dynasty within the same confederation could have replaced the previous dynasty, either because the previous dynasty had become extinct or been overthrown, yet the new dynasty, whether related, just related by marriage, or even unrelated to the old dynasty, still claimed descent from the old dynasty to legitimize their (new dynasty's) rule; a confederation could have broken up & its former members (not necessarily belonging to the ruling dynasty) formed another confederation with newcomers while keeping just the name of the old confederation; etc.)). This is a better example (from the article on the Khazars) where sources supportive and skeptical of a claim (which is not an indisputable fact) are presented (citations modified to better accommodate this talk page):

The ruling family of this confederation [i.e. the Khazars] may have hailed from the Āshǐnà (阿史那) clan of the Western Turkic Khaganate, although Constantine Zuckerman regards Ashina and their pivotal role in the formation of the Khazars with scepticism.

"I don't get why you keep accusing me of making pseudo-historical claims when I always, always used the word legendary when speaking of Hungarian chronicles". Because you used a legend involving fictional women, daughters of a fictional man (the Alan named Dulo) and being married to two other fictional men (Hunor and Magor) to claim with absolute certainty (indicated by your choosing the words "obviously" and "surely" and phrases "at least" and "at any rate") that the Bulgar khans belonging to Dulo clan were of Attilid descent.Erminwin (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Erminwin (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Erminwin I don't like the way you manipulate what I say, taking phrases/words out of context and mixing everything up. Something like changing Another possible descendant of the Attilids are the Árpád dynasty. Attila had many wives, and numerous children, allegedly "amounting to a people". According to Hungarian tradition, one of these children was Csaba, the father of Ed from the Aba (...) into As Attila had many wives, and numerous children, allegedly "amounting to a people", medieval Hungarian chroniclers, Anonymus (notary of Béla III) and Simon of Kéza, claimed Attilid ancestry for the Árpád dynasty and the Aba clan.. By the way, since you can read the minds of Simon of Keza and other chroniclers, you should write a book about it, maybe that way we will have a source good to publish that sentence...

Just kidding.

Maybe, you are not manipulating, but, like I previously admitted 1, we just don't understand each other.

The historians implied that they were obviously related, not me.

Further, what you accused me of doing was of putting in the article that they were obviously, surely, (i.e. of using the words obviously, surely, with absolute certainty) of Attilid descent (2), which I never did (3). In reality, I said that only to explain to you why the Dulo article and its sources say certain things (hence, why I reported certain things and used certain words in this article), as you were apparently unable to look or understand sources. You further seemingly manipulate my words when you say:

you used a legend involving fictional women, daughters of a fictional man (the Alan named Dulo) and being married to two other fictional men (Hunor and Magor) to claim with absolute certainty (indicated by your choosing the words "obviously" and "surely" and phrases "at least" and "at any rate") that the Bulgar khans belonging to Dulo clan were of Attilid descent

Though you know very well that I used the Dulo/a ancestress tidbit only passingly while explaining to you, why historians believe that the initial Bulgars rulers were at any rate, at least (whatever) of Attilid descent. I mentioned that among other things, as the least of them, a tidbit, that certainly wasn't intend to claim with absolute certainty anything at all, though you make it look like I "published in the article a claim that the Bulgars were with absolute certainty Attilids based on an ancestress named Dula".

What I said (once, and in this talk page) actually is:

It is not just modern scholars who made the Irnik=Ernak claim, it's something that was always commonly assumed because, you know, they had the same name, and lived in the same epoch, among other things (but there is more to it. For example, the legendary ancestress of the Huns was the daughter of a certain Dulo). But what the Dulo clan article (and its sources) say, and you apparently don't get, is that, beside it being likely that the traditional Ernak=Irnik identification is correct, the initial rulers of the Bulgars where still Attilids regardless (because of the power exercised by the Huns in the same area from which sprang this people, the Bulgars, with same lifestyle, names and traditions, which the ancient historians equated with the Huns; because of the Attilids' royal intermarriages practices and multitude of sons of Attila, among other things). However, you seem to wanting at all costs to distort and mix the sources by claiming that "modern historians think that Ernak was Irnik and because of this (only and exclusively because of this) the Bulgar khans were Attilids.4.

However, you freely mix everything up, one word from a reply, one word from another, one sentence from a third, ending up claming that I (not historians) used solely (cf. the highlighted "among other things", "for example" above) the Dula ancestress myth to claim that the Bulgars were with absolute certainty Attilids. And since you don't mention it, to the reader of your reply it looks like I did this in the article.

Though your knowledge of English seems good (certainly better than mine), I redirect you to the dictionaries entries of "legendary" and "according to (Hungarian chronicles) because you seem to have issues understanding those words.

Just try to edit on topics you know, not mix up things again or have a loss of good faith, or you might end up misunderstanding everything once again 5. Giray Altay (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: I don't get why you are so quick to try and find something wrong with me, my interests, etc. 1, 2, 3, 4; but are reluctant to discuss practical stuff or have any type of productive talk. To I warmly invite you to have a look at Samuel Aba and its talk page, and to give therein your opinion regarding that matter, you made no reply and never joined the discussion there. When I asked you "(...) do you agree to add Mundos to the family tree? I would place him on the left, where there's space left, with no lines leading to his box, since the child from whom he descended from Attilia is not known. Below Mundus, I would add another box, connected to Mundos' with a line, for his son, general Mauricius", as part of a longer reply, you wholly neglected this practical question, but focused on finding arguments against me i.e. the mixing up of words taken out of context above, with invitation to the reader to use the search tool, so they will see that I have at some point in whatever context, referring to whatever thing, used a certain word. 1 It almost looks like you don't want to discuss with me for the sake of the article, just put whatever you want in it and find some weak arguments to discredit the other editor. Or maybe we just don't understand each other at all.--Giray Altay (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay: "[Erminwin] claming that I [Giray Altay] (not historians) used solely" Not true. This is what I wrote:

you used a legend [...]

Where is any word synonymous or nearly synonymous with "solely"?

"though you [Erminwin] make it look like I [Giray Altay] "published in the article a claim that the Bulgars were with absolute certainty Attilids based on an ancestress named Dula"." "And since you [Erminwin] don't mention it, to the reader of your reply it looks like I [Giray Altay] did this in the article." Not true. This is what I wrote:

(good thing that claim is only here instead of the main article)

, with "here" denoting the Talk:Attilid_dynasty and "the main article" denoting Attilid dynasty.

Erminwin (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Erminwin, I tried several times to discuss with you what to put in the article, always asking you before adding content, but you always ignored me. I had not reverted your edits so far, though you kept editing non stop while we were still discussing (1) and I do not approve of any of them. However, I had to undo your 24th edit now (2), as it seems excessive.

Specifically, I disagree with your last edit because I don't think the way you edited the Genealogy table is good. You put an excessive emphasis on the descendants of the legendary Csaba, inserting in the table his alleged sons Ed and Edemen, and his alleged grandson Pata.

We should not put such an emphasis on these legendary people and mention them too much in the article or even add their names to the table because:

a) That genealogy is already reported in the relative articles Aba (genus) and Árpád dynasty, a link to them is enough. As I told you many times, this article is about the Attilids, not the counter-theories about the origin of the Bulgars; not about the Abas; not about the Arpads

b) Those people are legendary, we should be very careful with this content and mention them as little as possible.

It is fine to include in the article the legendary descendants (provided we specify they are legendary /according the chronicles) and provide a link to the Abas and Arpads, in italics, in the Genealogy boxes, but the way you rely on the chronicles and give emphasis on the legendary figures is excessive. Giray Altay (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay "I do not approve of any of them" Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia. Still, I won't revert it. Erminwin (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Erminwin So you can read my mind too, beside Simon of Keza's! Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia is just what I thought about!

You have been pushing your view into this article with 24 non-stop edits, never discussing it with me. You didn't have to discuss because I am the creator of the article (though it would've been nice to notify me), but because we are having an argument on its content; specifically, on the legendary figures and the Hungarian chronicles. You expanded the article with such content.

Several times I tried to propose to you what to put in the article and discuss with you practically about the content 1, 2, 3, but it seems you are only interested in talking about me in the context of making arguments ad personam, on other pages, and without pinging me 1, 2, 3

This article does not belong to you, you cannot just edit the way it pleases you. You added sensible content we were discussing. Your contributions are appreciated but we need to discuss first. Giray Altay (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay: "it seems you are only interested in talking about me in the context of making arguments ad personam, on other pages, and without pinging me 1, 2, 3" Have you been stalking me and other editors? Erminwin (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Erminwin Looking at Ermenrich's contributions, (1) when I didn't have the page we were discussing in (2) in the watchlist, after they forgot to ping me, though I asked them to do so (3) and reading the conversations I am involved in is not "stalking"

This is stalking 5, and possibly this too 6 Giray Altay (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay "after they [Ermenrich] forgot to ping me, though I asked them to do so" No one, I repeat, no one is obligated to ping you even if and when they were discussing about you and your edits "unless the discussion is at WP:ANI or a similar venue".

No, this edit by Borsoka on my talk page did not result from 'Borsoka "staking" you'. They observed your pattern of behaviors and shared their opinion with me. That was all.

About this edit of mine on my talk page again: you had accused Borsoka of WP:BULLY; so I went to Borsoka's talk page to see if you might have reported Borsoka and if Borsoka would be found out to be a bully, saw your notification to Borsoka containing this link, which I followed. When I entered, the discussion already had been closed (and even if it had been still open I would not have participated), and I saw Bbb23's judgment, which I quoted.

Lastly, your "advice" to Borsoka "you should be wiser and mind your own business" was made on my talk page. I did not need to be "stalking" you around to be aware of it.

So how did you know that me (Erminwin) and Ermenrich had not pinged you so that you could and did insert yourself?Erminwin (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

No one, no one is obligated to ping when criticizing another user but it is good practice.

Another reading of mind Erminwin? You can also read Borsoka's mind? Or maybe you just known each other? And for the sake of clearness: yes, that was stalking as (to be able to join that conversation) Borsoka went to my user page, observed my edits, went to your user page (which they had heretofore never edited (1)) and published an attack against me, joining with you in a conversation about (or I should probably say against) me in which they were not involved and had never been mentioned (2). Letting aside that "observing patterns of behavior" in this case means Borsoka imagining things that don't exist, denying reality and accusing me of doing what they are doing at Samuel Aba (a conversation which I asked you multiple times to join for the sake of Wikipedia and you never did), it still doesn't justify stalking.

to see if you might have reported Borsoka and if Borsoka would be found out to be a bully, saw your notification to Borsoka containing this link, which I followed exactly, just what I said. This might qualify as stalking.

Lastly, your "advice" to Borsoka "you should be wiser and mind your own business" why do you bring this up out of the blue, putting the word advice into brackets? More arguments ad personam? Still lack of good faith? 1, 2, 3, 4 I already told you several times that was good advice. If Borsoka keeps not minding their own business and stalking other people they might lose edit privileges.

I just explained you how did I know it. You like wasting yours and other people's time or what? Giray Altay (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Erminwin, just I have a remark regarding the Hungarian chronicles, I know well them, in the past year I expanded this topic with a lot of picture: Chronicon Pictum and I started to develop this as well: Chronica Hungarorum. In the medieval Chronicon Pictum, the ancestor of Árpád is Csaba. Original Latin text, page 122: https://books.google.hu/books?id=94XAkbY2e-cC&printsec=frontcover&hl=hu&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Hungarian translation: https://mek.oszk.hu/10600/10642/10642.htm Attila called sometimes as Etele in Hungarian. "Ügyek's son Előd, fathered a son by the daughter of Eunodubilia in Scythian land, whose name was Álmos, because a bird in the shape of a falcon appeared in his mother's dream when she was pregnant, a rushing stream sprang from her womb, it grew, but not in its own land, and from this it was prophesied that glorious kings would come from her loins. Because dream is “álom” in our language, and the birth of that boy was prophesied by a dream, that's why he was called Álmos, who was the son of Előd, who was the son of Ögyek, who was the son of Ed, who was the son of Csaba, who was the son of Attila, who was the son of Bendegúz, who was the son of Torda... Álmos begat Árpád, Árpád begat Zoltán, Zoltán begat Taksony.". OrionNimrod (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod Thanks, I will incorporate that claim by Mark of Kalt' into this article and as many relevant articles as possible. Erminwin (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the colleboration! If I find more relevant things I let you know. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Erminwin, I share you some relevant quotes from the Gesta Hungarorum: "Then they chose to seek for themselves the land of Pannonia that they had heard from rumour had been the land of King Attila, from whose line Duke Álmos, father of Árpád, descended." "Then the dukes of the Ruthenes, learning of this, feared greatly because they had heard that Duke Álmos, son of Vgek, was of the line of King Attila, to whom their forefathers had every year paid tribute." " The inhabitants of the land, the Slavs, hearing of their arrival, fearedgreatly and of their own accord submitted to Duke Álmos because they had heard that Duke Álmos was descended of the line of King Attila." " Duke Árpád having heard the embassy of the haughty duke, replied not haughtily, but humbly, saying: Although my forbear, the most powerful King Attila, had the land which lies between the Danube and the Tisza as far as the border of the Bulgarians" "After spending several days, Duke Árpád, having taken the advice of his noblemen, sent envoys to the castle of Bihar, to Duke Menumorout, asking him, by right of his forbear, King Attila, to give him the land from the Szamos [Zomus] river to the border of Nyr, up to the Meszes Gate [ad portam Mezesynam], and he sent him gifts, just as he had previously sent to Salan, duke of Titel [duci Tytulensy]." " Say to Árpád, duke of Hungary, your lord, that we owe him as a friend to a friend in all the matters that he needs because a guest is a human being [homo] and lacking in much. But the land that he seeks of our grace we will in no way surrender while we live. We are indignant that Duke Salan has given him a very great land either out of affection, as is said, or out of fear, as is denied. Neither from affection nor from fear will we grant him land, even as little as he may hold in his fist, even though he says it is his right. And his words do not disquiet our thoughts when he tells us that he is descended from the line of King Attila, who is called the scourge of God, who seized this land with violent grasp from my forbear, for by the grace of my lord the emperor of Constantinople [Constantinopolitani] no one can snatch it from my hands." "Having heard this, so great a fear overwhelmed Menumorout that he did not dare raise his hand, because all the inhabitants feared them more than can be said, because they had heard that Duke Álmos, father of Árpád, was descended of the line of King Attila, on account of which none believed they could survive except by the grace of Árpád, son of Duke Álmos, and his noblemen, on account of which very many of their own accord submitted to them." " And because divine grace was in them, all feared them and they feared them most greatly because they had heard that Duke Árpád, son of Duke Álmos, was descended of the line of King Attila." "Next day, Duke Árpád and all his leading men with all the warriors of Hungary entered the city of King Attila and they saw all the royal palaces, some ruined to the foundations, others not, and they admired beyond measure the stone buildings and were happier than can be told that they had deservedly taken without fighting the city of King Attila, of whose line Duke Árpád descended, and they banqueted every day with great joy in the palace of King Attila, sitting alongside one another, and they had before them all the melodies and weet sounds of zithers and pipes along with all the songs of minstrels"

Btw, the Szekely folklore claims that his prince is Csaba, and the Szekelys is the remnant of Huns and the folk of Csaba, even the Szekely anthem mention Csaba. Spelling in Hungarian: https://translate.google.com/?hl=hu&sl=hu&tl=en&text=csaba&op=translate

There are more sources, just some:

Anonymus - Gesta Hungarorum:

"the Szekels [Siculi], who were previously the peoples of King Attila, having heard of Usubuu’s fame, came to make peace and of their own will gave their sons as hostages along with divers gifts and they undertook to fight in the vanguard of Usubuu’s army, and they forthwith sent the sons of the Szekels to Duke Árpád, and, together with the Szekels before them, began to ride against Menumorout."

Simon of Kéza - Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum:

“These Székelys were the remains of the Huns, who when they learned that the Hungarians had returned to Pannonia for the second time, went to the returnees on the border of Ruthenia and conquered Pannonia together.”

Mark of Kalt - Chronicon Pictum:

“They were afraid of the western nations that they would suddenly attack them, so they went to Transylvania and did not call themselves Hungarians, but Székelys. The western clan hated the Huns in Attila's life. The Székelys are thus the remnants of the Huns, who remained in the mentioned field until the return of the other Hungarians. So when they knew that the Hungarians would return to Pannonia again, they hurried to Ruthenia to them, conquering the land of Pannonia together.”

Pope Pius II (Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini), around 1450:

“The Székelys are considered the most ancient Hungarians, and the first of all those who came to this province [Transylvania] from old Hungary.”

John Thuróczy - Chronica Hungarorum:

“It is said that in addition to the Huns who escorted Csaba, from the same nation, yet three thousand people were retreating, cut themselves out of the said battle, remained in Pannonia, and first established themself in a camp called Csigla's Field. They were afraid of the Western nations which they harassed in Attila's life, and they marched to Transylvania, the frontier of the Pannonian landscape, and they did not call themselves Huns or Hungarians, but Siculus, in their own word Székelys, so that they would not know that they are the remnants of the Huns or Hungarians. In our time, no one doubts, that the Székelys are the remnants of the Huns who first came to Pannonia, and because their people do not seem to have been mixed with foreign blood since then, they are also more strict in their morals, they also differ from other Hungarians in the division of lands. They have not yet forgotten the Scythian letters, and these are not inked on paper, but engraved on sticks skillfully, in the way of the carving. They later grew into not insignificant people, and when the Hungarians came to Pannonia again from Scythia, they went to Ruthenia in front of them with great joy, as soon as the news of their coming came to them. When the Hungarians took possession of Pannonia again, at the division of the country, with the consent of the Hungarians, these Székelys were given the part of the country that they had already chosen as their place of residence.”

Szekely script: Old Hungarian script

Pietro Ranzano - Epithoma rerum Hungarorum (1488):

“The Saxons have seven cities in Transylvania County, of which these are the best known: Szászváros (Orăștie), Szeben (Sibiu), Brassó (Brașov), Beszterce (Bistrița) and Kolozsvár (Cluj), which means school town in the Sarmatian language, the divine Matthias [King Matthias of Hungary] was born here, to whom we dedicated this book, also Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia), where there are salt mines, and which the homeland of the Scythulus [Székelys], who, as some assert, is incorrectly pronounced Siculus, for they say that they originate from the Scythians… As you know, it is believed that a legion of that people once fought under the command of Attila, the conqueror of Pannonia…”

Antonio Bonfini - Rerum Ungaricarum Decades (1488–1497):

“The most important of them are Szászváros (Orăștie), Szeben (Sibiu), Brassó (Brașov), Beszterce (Bistrița) and Kolozsvár (Cluj), which in Scythian means school town; next to it is the monastery dedicated to the Blessed Scholastics. Then Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia) metropolis, which was mentioned above; also salt mines, the people of the Székelys, who descend from the noble-souled Scythians, and therefore to this day they do not know servitude, not even recently they pay taxes to the king, only now and then a domestic ox, and their commands are obeyed not as instructions, but as a request arising from the needs of the country.”

“It is said that many Székelys, who with Attila occupied the area of outer Dacia, now called Transylvania, and still inhabit it when he heard that his relatives had arrived, and he hastened before them to the Roxolans and Hamaxobius, whom we now call Ruthenians and Russians.”

István Werbőczy, Palatine of Hungary - Tripartitum (Customary Law of the Renowned Kingdom of Hungary in Three Parts) (1514):

“There are ... in Transylvania, privileged nobles called Scythuli, originating from the Scythian people when they first came to Pannonia, whom we call by a corrupt name: Székely. They enjoy quite different laws and customs; they are very skilled in warfare; and divide up and distribute inheritances and offices among themselves by tribes and kindreds and the lineages of kindreds, in the manner of the ancients.”

Mahmud Tercüman - Tarih-i Üngürüsz (Turkish copy from an older Hungarian chronicle) (1543):

“Since Csaba [son of Attila] was defeated and fled, the province of Pannonia fell to the German party. The arrival of Vincse Laos [the brother of Attila's third wife] caused the defeat of Csaba, so he was found worthy of the throne and placed on the throne. But the throne and the crown would have belonged to Aladar [son of Attila], so as compensation he was appointed ban of the province of Transylvania. At that time, his people were called Székelys.”

Gáspár Heltai - Chronicle of the Hungarians’ Past Deeds (1575):

“When Aladár would be lost in the battle under Sicambria, three thousand Hungarians escaped from danger, and they camped in Cegléd's land. But how they were afraid of the power of Lord Dietrich and the several German lords, they set off from there and enter Transylvania with great haste. And how all the nations attack that Hungarians, they denied themselves that they would not be Hungarians, but call themselves Székelys. They still live in Transylvania, and they have separate laws and morals. They are divided in seats, whose names are these: Csík, Gyergyó, Kézdi, Szepsi, Orbai, etc.”

“This was followed by a lord named Árpád from the tribe of Álmos. During this time, the Hungarians set out for the second time from Scythia, as I said above. When, for this reason, the Hungarians were already in Russia, the Székelys in Transylvania heard this, who remained in the country after Attila. And when they got up, they went before them to Russia, and they brought them from there to Transylvania.”

“At that time, in the assembly, the Hungarians gave the noble freedom to the people of Székelys, as the remnants of Attila and old followers of the Hungarians, for they remained steadfast in the country from the time of Attila, that is, for four hundred and some years.” OrionNimrod (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Erminwin, just more info, if you see the images until the time of King Stephen in Chronicon Pictum, then you can see in all illustrations the coat of arm of the Hungarian rulers and Attila is the Turul bird, in the Chronica Hungarorum (check out Attila and Árpád image) also, which also emphasize the dynastical connection by images. The "Árpád dynasty" also a modern term, before the 19th century this dynasty called as "Turul dynasty", Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum: "And among the captains, Árpád the son of Álmos, son of Előd, son of Ügyek, from the Turul clan, was richer in wealth and more powerful in war." + "Duke Géza from the Turul clan was the one who, as they say, was the first among the Hungarians who got a summon from heaven in order to receive the Christian faith and baptism." Rerum Hungaricarum decades: „Stephen of Heaven had Taksony as his grandfather, who born from the most ancient clan of the Huns, Géza as his father, Mihály as his uncle, and László Kopasz and Vazul as his cousins. It is said that Géza hated very much the Scythian savagery, began to recover from the pagan inhumanity of the Huns, and afterwards showed himself much more indulgent towards foreigners than towards his own people, namely, in order not to have to satisfy the infected and filthy spirit of the Hungarians by force and arms, he made so far an unknown peace with all the surrounding peoples.”

Btw many Hungarians is making a personal DNA test and upload to mytrueancestry, the Scythian samples is the most close to today's Hungarian population regarding the website. https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-6fd5d43ac8445d6f89a3c0443a52984a I did a DNA test with my wife, we got the result yesterday and of course the highest match was with the Scythian+Sarmatian(another Scythian) samples, which was not a surprise for us. Because medieval Hungarian and non Hungarian sources stated Hungarians = Avars = Huns = Scythians. There are many recent modern DNA studies. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00732-1 OrionNimrod (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod advice: remove all links to for-profit companies and paid services or someone might think you are advertising or spamming. Giray Altay (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

ok OrionNimrod (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Erminwin, another content: coat of arms of the Aba family, you can see the Turul bird here also: https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Turul-turul-1883-1950-1/1893-7132/1893-2-73F6/az-aba-nemzetseg-czimere-73F8/ Also several member of the Aba family was the palatine of Hungary (second rank after the king), one member was Hungarian king (Samuel Aba) Recently it was the excavation of the Aba ruling center, it found 14th century sarcophagus with Turul bird.

https://szentkoronaradio.com/blog/2020/10/31/aba-samuel-dns-e-lehet-a-kulcs-az-arpad-haz-hun-eredetenek-kerdeseben/ OrionNimrod (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

On Prince Csaba's relation to the Árpad dynasty

@Giray Altay: and @OrionNimrod: In Chronicon Pictum Mark of Kalt claimed that Csaba was also the legendary ancestor of the Árpad dynasty (historically known as the Turul clan). Even though I think that Csaba never existed (as I told OrionNimrod here), that position of mine is irrelevant to the Hungarian legends:

• That Csaba was a son of Attila (even if Csaba was not mentioned in official histories & contemporary sources);
• That the Árpáds were Csaba's direct descendants (as claimed by Mark) or just collateral descendants. Mark's position on Csaba's being the Árpáds' legendary ancestor does not directly contradict either Anonymus or Simon of Kéza at all, because neither of those two specifies which of Attila's sons the Árpáds descended from.

This means that the family tree in the genealogy section shall be modified from this:

Octar king of the Huns

Rugila king of the Huns

Mundzuk nobleman of the Huns

Oebarsius nobleman of the Huns

Bleda king of the Huns

Attila king of the Huns

Ellac king of the Huns, Akatziri, Pontic Scythia

Dengizich king of the Huns

Ernak king of the Huns

Unknown

Csaba prince of the Huns

Dulo clan

Árpád dynasty

Aba clan

to this:

Octar king of the Huns

Rugila king of the Huns

Mundzuk nobleman of the Huns

Oebarsius nobleman of the Huns

Bleda king of the Huns

Attila king of the Huns

Ellac king of the Huns, Akatziri, Pontic Scythia

Dengizich king of the Huns

Ernak king of the Huns

Csaba prince of the Huns

Dulo clan

Árpád dynasty

Aba clan

Agree or oppose, please opine! Erminwin (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Erminwin I agree, what Mark of Kalt says does not contradict the other chroniclers.

Comment: An ancestor named Csaba might've existed or not, but I am inclined to believe that the ruling Hungarian elite had at least some Attilid elements (ancestors), just like all Balkanic royal houses. Giray Altay (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Erminwin,

For me it is fine.

As I said in my talk page, if he was real, it is possible that Csaba is the same person as Ernak, just this is the Hungarian form of his name.

User talk:OrionNimrod#Csaba's existence

Prince Csaba is the legendary figure and leader of the Székely people. Some people recognize him as a real person, while others only recognize him as a fictional character. However, there is no doubt that it is the cornerstone of the Székely region and its culture. According to some opinions, he is the embodiment of not one, but several real persons. According to legend, Prince Csaba introduced his people, the Szekelys, to Transylvania.

The legend:

King Attila the Hun earned a strong and distinctive name for his tribe. With his death, however, they became stronger in a nation of opposites. Western civilizations feared the Hun leader, including his numerous sons. Although Attila had many sons, the final fraternal war for power broke out between Csaba and Aladár. The two sons came from two mothers, and this determined the camp of their patrons. Aladár's mother was a German princess, so he enjoyed the support of the Germans and the peoples of Western Europe. Csaba was born to the daughter of the Greek emperor and the Hun people were behind him.

Both Csaba and Aladár ruled in their nation and with their support, but the matter had to be taken to a final decision. A war broke out between the peoples. At first, Csaba stood to win, but Aladár returned stronger after the first losses. The war was finally won by Aladár, and the Huns were driven away. According to the legend, the massacre was so great that the Danube overflowed with blood and neither animal nor man could drink its water.

Prince Csaba retreated to Greek soil with his remaining army of nearly fifteen thousand men. He did not remain in exile for long and soon returned to his people, the Huns, in Scythia. Here he gathered three thousand of his bravest men around him and led them to the territory of today's Székelyland, where they settled in the field of Csigle on the instructions of Prince Csaba. From then on, they did not call themselves Huns, but Szekelys.

The three thousand brave men swore before Prince Csaba that if the Székely people were attacked, they would return even from the afterlife to protect their people. Over time, the people of Szekely grew and multiplied. One day, the surrounding peoples attacked them. At that time, during the battles, the Szekelys prayed to Prince Csaba and his warriors. Their petition was heard, and the prince led his army back on the Road of Wars (the Milky Way) to protect his people. He won victory with the army of the dead and then returned to heaven.

The borders of the Szekelys were no longer violated by any of the surrounding nations. When the Hungarians set off for Pannonia to settle there, the Szekelys met them. From then on, Pannonia was guarded by the Hungarians, and Transylvania by the Szekelys. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Erminwin,

The Hungarian chronicles also claimed that Attila was the first Hungarian king (and Nimrod the first legendary king). I think this was strange at that strong Christian medieaval times, because the Hungarian chronciles boosted always the Christianity and the Holy Hungarian rulers (even it was saints by maternal line which is not listed), but also emphasized the paganic things as well. And Attila was not so positive figure in medieval Europe, despite the Hungarian rulers were proud for him as ancestor. Even King Matthias Corvinus in the 15th century called himself "Scythian Mars" and "Second Attila". Btw Attila's empire collapsed after his death and for example Bayan Avar Khagan was "more succes", he founded a 250 years long state in the Carpathian Basin after the Huns and before the Hungarian, so he was "more success" than Attila, despite Hungarian monarchs connected themselves to Attila. I think it could be something connection if we see these cirsumstances.

Chronica Hungarorum: “No one doubts that the mother of the Huns, namely the Hungarians, was Scythia: Even at the beginning of their exodus from Scythia, the famous fighting virtue glowed in them, and now, in our day, their swords are flashing over the head of the enemy.”

Recent genetic studies confirmed the Scythian origin of the Huns. Priscus was a 5th-century Eastern Roman diplomat and Greek historian. Priscus was on a diplomatic mission in the court of Attila the Hun. Priscus called Attila as a Scythian. Also, many medieval sources state the Huns were Scythians.

Scythian tribes moved east, archeologists found a lot of blonde mummies in the Tarim Basin in Eastern China. The Asian Scythians played a key role in the formation of the Asian Hun Empire. The predominantly European-looking Asian Scythians merged with the local population in East Asia and southern Siberia, followed by other European Sarmatians during the Xiongnu period, later Alan elements. The Asian Hun Empire had a civil war and the losing Xiongnu tribes belonged largely to the Europid anthropological type who were displaced to Central Asia in the first century. Expanding to the west they integrated the related Sarmatian tribes and mixed with Sakas (Royal Scythians), and then they suddenly emerged as European Huns. Genetic continuity is detected between Xiongnu and European Huns.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-020-02209-4

“Our findings confirmed that the Xiongnu had a strongly admixed mitochondrial and Y-chromosome gene pools and revealed a significant western component in the Xiongnu group studied...”

"We propose Scytho-Siberians as ancestors of the Xiongnu and Huns as their descendants.”

Another archaeogenetics study by French academics, Tamir Ulaan Khoshuu, Asian Hun cemetery in Asia:

Xiongnu Y-DNA connects Huns & Avars to Scytho-Siberians | Indo-European.eu

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. Close matches were also found with Scytho-Siberians. The database search also revealed a shared haplotype between a Hun person in the cemetry and King Béla III of Hungary (1172–1196), one of the most significant rulers of the first Hungarian dynasty 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.

The horses were domesticated in the Eurasian Steppes. The domestication of horses got a huge impact on the development of human civilization. The most western part of the steppe zone is the Carpathian Basin. The Scythian nations moved east to conquer the eastern regions, they controlled the full steppe area. But there were many comebacks in many waves such as the Huns, the Avars, the Hungarians. The Carpathian Basin had constantly a base population and according to the latest archaeogenetics results, this base population had relationship with the returning nations.

It was a continuous movement of the horse archer steppe nations between the west and the east in the past. Between the Carpathian Basin and the Tarim Basin and further the Ordos region. And the core were the Scythians. If a horseman starts to ride from the Carpathian Basin (Great Hungarian Plain, Hungary), then he could reach the Tarim Basin (Northwest China) within a year because the steppe connects these areas.

Steppe#/media/File:Eurasian steppe belt.jpg

According to genetic researches, the Hungarian conquerors had genomes from the Huns. The proto-Hungarians and Huns admixed around 300, later the old Hungarians integrated more additional Huns during their way on the steppe zone. The genetic studies proved the Hun, the Avar, and the Hungarian populations were present during the centuries together in that huge steppe zone, and genetic continuity was detected between them, that is a kinship relationship can be demonstrated.

The power center of the western part of the steppe zone was the Carpathian Basin, it was a constant presence in the Carpathian Basin, it was a connection system with the steppe zone. And if this power center weakened for example due to the Romans, or the Germans, or the Franks, then the relative folks always came to help and restore the local political and military control. The Huns of Attila came, the Avars came, and when the Avar state collapsed the folk of Árpád (Hungarian conquerors) came.

According to a recent DNA study, the old Hungarians were less homogeneous than today's Hungarians in the conquering Hungarian period. The blood oath was a Scythian tradition and many tribes together became a new nation by this tradition.

https://fenyveled.eoldal.hu/img/picture/265/testverek.jpg

The blood oath was, according to tradition, a pact among the leaders of the seven Hungarian tribes.

https://ulukayin.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/blood-oath-hungarian-680x394.webp

The Anglo-Saxon 'Cotton' world map from 1040. This old map calls the territory of the Hungarian Kingdom: “Hunorum gens” = “Hun race”

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cotton_world_map.jpg

Chronicon Pictum: title: "primus ingressu" "The First Arrival of the Hungarians in Pannonia" This is the timeline of Attila: the Huns, considered by the chronicle to be the ancestors of the Hungarians

Latin red title: "The election of Attila as king of Hungary and his victories"

Title: "secundo ingressu" "The second Arrival of the Hungarians in Pannonia" This is the timeline of Árpád

Another Cronica Hungarorum (Buda Chronicle): “Attila son of Bendegúz by the grace of God, who was raised in Engaddi, grandson of the great Nimrod, King of Hungary, Media and Goths, the Fear of the World, the Scourge of God.”

OrionNimrod (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

New images

@Erminwin, @OrionNimrod I added two images to the article. Let me know if you agree to keep them. Their relevance is explained in the caption(s). Giray Altay (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: I did not used the coat of arms as depicted on Attila's shield (1), which would have probably fitted better, because the cropped picture had been too small. Giray Altay (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I know Hungarian chronicles depicted Turul, but I think that flags has lack of drawing knowledge and we can use better quality artwork to depict the same thing.

I found a better image in the Turkish wikipedia: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosya:Avrupa_Hun_İmparatorluğu.jpg OrionNimrod (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Giray Altay, Erminwin,

The descriptions say Turul with a crown, that is why I shared the Turkish wiki image:

Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum:

"Also on King Attila's coat of arms, which he used to wear on his own shield, a bird with a crowned head was depicted, which in Hungarian called Turul. Because the Huns always wore this coat of arms with them in the war until the time of Prince Géza."

Chronicon Pictum:

"King Attila's coat of arms, which he used on his own shield, depicted a bird with a crown, which is called "Turul" in Hungarian." OrionNimrod (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod, ok, thanks Giray Altay (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod I also saw that image in internet. I think it is a modern creation, not something produced by the "ancient" Hungarians, certainly not by the Huns. At least the image currently used, though coming from a Medieval Hungarian chronicle, is connected to the Huns and so somewhat more relevant.

It would be very nice, however, to have (for this and the Huns article) some picture of the several birds of prey depicted on items of Hunnic art. Not only we haven't any such picture in Wikimedia, but even in internet it is tough to find them, even the location of the items. Yet the objects exist, since several historians mention them. Giray Altay (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

If someone has pictures of these items or knows something about their location it would be nice to know. Giray Altay (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The Turul depiction in a document from 1358 or from 1488 also not a contemporary one. And in Wiki there are many today's modern artworks which represent the events (vector graphic) (and many battle paintings from previous centuries) (and many artwork is good quality and may artwork is bad quality, as every artist have different drawing skill). So I do not see any issue using a modern artwork if this represent the thing according to our best knowledge. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Sentence to be edited or removed

@Erminwin Imo this: However, Anonymus did not link Ed(u), his brother Edumen, their nephew Pota, and their Aba descendants to Attila; instead he ascribed them Cuman ancestry may be removed because:

Ascribing Cuman ancestry does not automatically exclude Attilid descent, about which this article is. Remember, this article is about the Attilids, not the Huns, nor the Cumans.

Simon Keza and the Illuminated Chronicle ascribe paternal Attilid descent to the Abas (Ed and Edemen) and similarly do not exclude Cuman ancestry; though they mention that the Abas descended from Csaba's "Chorasminian" consort

Add to this that Anonymous, who did ascribe Attilid descent to the Arpads (another prominent Hungarian noble family), might've mistaken the Kun (Hun) in his sources for Cuman

As Keza's and the other chroniclers' statements are not denied by Anonymous, whose own statement might be harmonized with the other chroniclers', I would not report this. Perhaps you could put it in a note. I already expressed myself regarding such notes in this article. But it would be better than presenting this statement in the main body of text as it is now. Giray Altay (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay "Perhaps you could put it in a note." It will be put in a note.Erminwin (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Erminwin The piece

The Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans claimed the second ruler of the Dulo was Irnik (Ирникъ), who is often identified with Ernak, a son of Attila. According to Bulgarian historian Vasil Zlatarski, if Irnik was indeed Ernak, then both Ernak and his father Attila belonged to the Dulo clan. According to historian Hyun Jin Kim, Ernak apparently became the founding ruler of the confederation of Hunnic Bulgars, consisting of Huns and subdued Oghuric-speaking Turkic peoples; consequently, the Bulgars were presumably ruled by Attilids descending from Ernak; and the Dulo clan were of Attilid descent.

Should be removed, edited or included in notes

Hyun Jink Kim does not think that Ernak apparently was Irnik, he is positive about it.

From his The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe (2013):

The ruling family of Bulgaria in their prince list would name Ernak, Attila's son, as one of their earliest ancestors and call their clan Dulo.

[...] such as Attila's sons Ellac, Ernak/Irnik, and Attila's kinsmen who [...]

The Turkic names of virtually all the princes who rule Hunnic fiefs in the east, such as Attila's sons Ellac, Ernak/Irnik and Dengizich

[...] seceded to form Great Bulgaria under Kubrat, who claimed descent from Irnik, the son of Attila.

[...] the Oghur tribes were ruled by Ernak and his descendants, indicating the lasting impact [...]

Never does Kim show any shadow of a doubt that Irnik was Ernak, so even if the sentence is to be kept, apparently should be removed. Imo. Giray Altay (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay "even if the sentence is to be kept, apparently should be removed." I contend it should not, as these were what Kim wrote:

Ernakh apparently became the founding ruler of the so-called ‘Bulgar’ Huns (that is according to the Bulgar Prince list),6 the confederation of Huns and the various Oghurs subdued by Ernakh.

— The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, p. 133

The successors to the Hunnic Empire in the east, the Bulgar Huns also featured two wings, the Kutrigurs (west) and the Utigurs (east), ruled presumably by Ernakh’s descendants.

— The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, p. 87

Wherever Kim was cautious, I simply did not and will not downplay Kim's cauttiousness.Erminwin (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Erminwin "Wherever Kim was cautious" You simply misunderstand or cannot comprehend or ignore Kim's thought, and project on him your own cautiousness.

The ruling family of Bulgaria in their prince list would name Ernak, Attila's son, as one of their earliest ancestors and call their clan Dulo.

— The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, p. 59

[...] such as Attila's sons Ellac, Ernak/Irnik, and Attila's kinsmen who [...]

— The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, p. 93

The Turkic names of virtually all the princes who rule Hunnic fiefs in the east, such as Attila's sons Ellac, Ernak/Irnik and Dengizich

— The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, p. 92

[...] seceded to form Great Bulgaria under Kubrat, who claimed descent from Irnik, the son of Attila.

— The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, p. 230

[...] the Oghur tribes were ruled by Ernak and his descendants, indicating the lasting impact [...]

— The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, p. 132

Ernakh, Attila's son, is named as one of the earliest ancestors of Bulgar princes and fascinatingly the imperial clan is called Dulo.

— The Huns, p. 88

Said that Kim is positive about it, the whole sentence should be removed or heavily edited also because it makes it look like he's the only one with this belief, which is instead shared by many scholars. In fact virtually all of them.

Accoding to [the Bulgars'] traditions their ruling family, known as the House of Dulo, was descended from Attila the Hun.

— John V. A. Fine Jr.: The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century, p. 66

Attila's youngest son Ernak appears as Irnik (No. 2) among the forerunners of the Bulgarian Khans.

— Robert Göbl: Von den Anfängen bis zum Einbruch in Europa, p. 18

After another leap forward of three centuries, we find Irnik (Dulo dynasty), who was the youngest son of Attila.

— Turkic-Bulgarian-Hungarian Relations, p. 9

Eventually, however, the Turkish tribes rallied around the princes of the Dulo clan descendants of Attila's youngest son Irnik — and formed the backbone of a powerful federation known as Great Bulgaria.

— George Vernadsky: The Origins of Russia, p. 86

The southern branch were organized in tribal and clan system, and were ruled by the "Dulo" princes of Attila's Hun dynasty. Their first authenticated ruler was Kan Kurt (or Kubrat; 584-642), proud descendant of Attila.

— Endre Haraszti: Origin of the Rumanians Vlach Origin, Migration and Infiltration to Transylvania, p. 23

[The Dulo] branch began to rule in ca. 463, which descended from Attila's son Irnak, according to the ancient Bulgarian list of Chieftains

— Peter G. Glockner, Hungarian Ethnic Lexicon Foundation: Encyclopaedia Hungarica English · Volume 1, p. 455

The first name in the list is Avitohol, most probably Attila, the dynasty's legitimate founder; the second Irnik, Attila's son; the fourth Khuvrat [...]

— András Róna-Tas, Nicholas Bodoczky: Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages, Brill, pp. 61-62

The first named of the house is Avitokhol, said to have reigned 300 years. He is assuredly no other than Attila himself. Then follows a usurper Irnik, who is said to have reigned for 150 years, who is in my view the Irnik or Hernakh, son of Attila, who is expressedly said to have settled the Lesser Schythia, i.e. the Dobruja.

— Henry Hoyle Howorth: Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Journal, pp. 228-229

As a matter of fact, the name of Attila's son Irnik is at the top of the list of Bulgarian rulers.

— Gyula Németh: Attila ve Hunarı, p. 265

Medieval Bulgarian tradition (the Bulgarian Prince List [...]) connected their royal line with the Huns. It seems likely that elements of those tribes that subsequently consituted the Bulgar confederation were of Hunnic origin [...]. The process, begun perhaps after the death of Attila's son Hernac ( [ equals sign ] Bulgarian Irnik) [...]

— Hans Robert Roemer: History of the Turkic Peoples in the Pre-Islamic Period, De Gruyter, p. 288

[...] as the founder of the Bulgarian realm appears there [as] Irnik, the son of Attila, whose ascension to the throne is said to have occured in the year of the serpent which corresponds to A.D. 453, the year of Attila's death.

— Antonio Carile: Teoderico e i Goti tra Oriente e Occidente, p. 28

[...] the Chronicle concentrates on the Dulo Dynasty of Bulgarian Khans beginning with Attila (Avitochol) and Ernach (Irnik)

— Olga Markova: The Role of Bulgarian Culture in World Civilization, Hristo Botev Publishing House, p. 45

One character listed was Avitokhol, of the Dulo dynasty, who lived in AD 153. [...] After a leap forward of three centuries, we find Irnik (Dulo dynasty), who was the youngest son of Attila

— Therese Olajos, Gyula Moravcsik: Byzance et ses voisins, Generalia, p. 53

The official genealogy of the Bulgar ruling house, compiled most probably during the reign of Symeon (893-927), traces back the origins of the khans to Attila (Avitohol) and his son Ernach (Irnik).

— Panos Sophoulis: Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775-831, Brill, p. 71

Ernak has often been identified with the mighty Irnik in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans, and he is considered to be the descendant of Dulo, noble steppe aristocrat and leader of the Bulgars, starting approximately from 437 AD.

— Antonio Marcantonio: The state of the art of Uralic studies: tradition vs innovation, p. 25

Who, after all, were Avitokhol and Irnik? Among historians, there is almost unanimity they were Attila, the ruler of the Huns, and his son Ernach.

— Ivan Biliarsky: The state of the art of Uralic studies: tradition vs innovation, Brill, p. 255

Please, edit on topics you know or try and be more objective.

@GirayAltay: I do not "distort" historians. I am cautious and prefer to err on the side of cautions (hence me including the adverbs used by Kim himself to indicate his occasional cautiousness, despite his uncritical acceptances of sources' claims elsewhere). I'll just remove that whole sentence.Erminwin (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Erminwin The historians' perspective is that this Irnik in the Nominalia was Ernak, Attila's son, and Aviothol likely Attila. They basically agree on this. Wholly another matter, however, is whether the Nominalia talks about legends or not (red flags are the fact it talks about people living 300 or 150 years, and its earliest copy is from the 10th century). However, many historians also believe that regardless of this the Bulgars had many Hunnic elements (if they weren't just Huns themselves). Kim also believes that the other "Balkanic" aristocracies, such as that of the Ostrogoths, had Hunnic elements.

I just tried to put this in the article in the first place.

Instead of removing, if you are afraid of picking out Kim, you can also use the classic "historians generally agree that..." or "Many historians hold that...", without mentioning Kim specifically. Giray Altay (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay "Instead of removing, if you are afraid of picking out Kim, you can also use the classic 'historians generally agree that...' or 'Many historians hold that...", without mentioning Kim specifically." Good idea. There is no dearth of historians claiming so. Erminwin (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay: The sources show that scholars agree that the Bulgar rulers claimed descent from Attila. This is not the same thing as the scholars believing (or disbelieving) it. Srnec (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Srnec Of course, that is what I meant when I said "The historians' perspective is that this Irnik in the Nominalia was Ernak, Attila's son, and Aviothol likely Attila. They basically agree on this. Wholly another matter, however, is whether the Nominalia talks about legends or not", I probably didn't express myself well

With a mention that the Nominalia is anachronistic and possibly legendary, it can be reported that scholars agree that Irnik was Attila's son (in the eyes of the Bulgarian chronicler(s)).

• Tidbit, I wanted to publish this somewhere for those wondering: a Bulgar scholar pointed out that Ernak couldn't have become the leader of the Dulo in 437 AD, due to conflicting dates. Yet it is absolutely plausible that he did. Ernak might've been born in Autumn of 433, say in November. Attila (who had many sons, had appointed Ellac king as a boy or young man, and showed a preference for Ernak due to prophecy) could've appointed him leader of the Dulo in December of 437, aged 4 (it was not uncommon for children of this age to receive titles or even assume office, even at the time; just a few decades earlier, Valentinian II had been raised to the Roman Imperial office at the same age). When Priscus visited Attila's court in the Spring of 448, the 14-year-old Ernak entered the room and, still a boy, was pulled by the cheek by his stern and brutal father. By the time of the fall of the Hunnic Empire, in 453, he was a 19-year-old man, ready to vie for the Empire.

What's "less" plausible is that he lived 150 summers, as reported in the Nominalia. Giray Altay (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The article lists the Bulgars as "Attilid Rulers" without any hint that this might not be factual. That is what drew me to check the talk page. Srnec (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Srnec The current version of the article states:

The Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans claimed the second ruler of the Dulo was Irnik (Ирникъ), who is often identified with Ernak, a son of Attila.

The reader can check the ancient source by clicking on the link and reading the relative article (Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans). The list of rulers and the genealogy tree reflect the article's main text content.

In my opinion, it is fine to include the Dulo clan-Bulgars in the list and family tree. After all, the Germanic dynasties' articles and the Hungarian ones (Árpád dynasty, etc.) include genealogies and lists based on anachronistic and/or apocryphal ancient sources.

What's important here is that virtually all historians agree that Irnik was Ernak. If Ernak was indeed Irnik and Aviothol Attila, and the Dulo was their clan, then all the Dulo clan-Bulgars included in this article were Attilids.

If the Nominalia is reliable nobody knows and probably nobody will ever know, so it's up to the reader to decide. Giray Altay (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

When a reader comes to this article and sees a section on "Attilid Rulers", s/he expects a list of actual Attilid rulers. What they are currently getting is a list of Attilid rulers and those who much later claimed to be. This is an uncritical and misleading list if taken at face value (as it will be). It must clearly distinguish claims that are accepted by scholars and claims that are uncertain/dubious. Srnec (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Srnec But those are rulers and (according to chronicles) are Attilids, so there's nothing wrong with the list or its title, and if the reader gets a wrong idea it's their fault for not reading or understanding the article.

I can change the title to "Rulers of Attilid descent", though "Attilid rulers" means the exact same thing.

I would avoid including footnotes in the list. I think that the inclusion of footnotes even in the list would ruin the article.

You cannot even include a parenthesis with (legendary) or (possibly legendary) since what's questioned is the claim, not the Bulgar ruler's or Attila's existence. On the other hand, a parenthesis with something like (possibly claiming false descent) or something like that would be too much and look terrible in the article. Giray Altay (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"According to chronicles" does not cut it. That's a violation of WP:OR. The current "Attilid Rulers" section is misleading as it stands. Srnec (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Erminwin do you understand what I am trying to say? What's your opinion? Giray Altay (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay Srnec was correct about the article's misleadingness. The fact is that the only Attilid rulers, as confirmed by reliable historical sources (not the three Hungarian chronicles & the nominalia), were Attila, Ellac, Dengizich and Ernak [EDIT: and Gepid ruler Giesmus, father of magister militum Mundus.]; & the Dulo, Árpád, & Aba were merely claimed to be of Attilid descent. Even if something factual, instead of "claimed", will "look terrible in the article", it should be included. Truth matters more than "look". That Erminwin (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Be aware that Hyun Jin Kim is human & like any other humans, he can be mistaken. Imho, the most glaringly serious mistake Kim made so far was to claim "This name Dulo is accepted by most experts as being the same as the name Duolu, which was later in the sixth to seventh centuries AD the designation of one of the two major sub-divisions of the Western Turkish Khaganate" (The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, p. 88). Not only did Kim not specify who were the "most experts", Kim inadvertently neglected historical Chinese phonology: the Chinese transcriptions 咄陸 and 都陸 (now pronounced Dōulù in standard Chinese), used to transcribe the name of the Western Turkic Khaganate's political tribal division, were likely pronounced *tuɑt̚-lɨuk̚ and *tuo-lɨuk̚, respectively (to see reconstructed underlying Turkic forms, see the Duolu article). It was much more likely that Дуло Dulo was a Slavicized form of an underlying Bulgar word (whose Hungarian reflex is gyula), cognate with Common Turkic *yula (as speculated by Golden (2005) "Khazarica: Notes on Some Khazar Terms", in Turkic Languages, p. 215) (compare Common Turkic *yogdu vs. lost Bulgar word > Old Church Slavonic дохьторь "pillow"; see Bulgar_language#Phonology). Erminwin (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Erminwin

"Srnec was correct about the article's misleadingness", maybe in your opinion he/she is correct, not was.

"as confirmed by reliable historical sources", I would rather call Priscus, Ammianus, Jordanes, etc. contemporary accounts by ancient historians. Actually, Jordanes, who talks about, among other things, enchanted deer led by evil spirits having sex with witches is not even contemporary.

" Truth matters more than "look"" when and where did I lie or not said the truth?

"Imho, the most glaringly serious mistake Kim made so far was to claim "This name Dulo is accepted by most experts as being the same as the name Duolu, which was later in the sixth to seventh centuries AD the designation of one of the two major sub-divisions of the Western Turkish Khaganate", this is not in the article, so I don't know why you are bringing it up. What's in the article regarding Kim is that Ernak was Irnik, which basically has the consensus of historians. P.S. I'd have to look closely into the matter, but I can say at first sight that *tuo-lɨuk̚ is still close to Dulo. The first syllable is as phonetically close to it as Dōulù's. Since these people appear to have lived in the exact same areas as the Huns (where they found this, among other things) it is certainly relevant. I think if Kim said that (that historians agree on this) it's because it is so. He or them was/were probably aware of Chinese historical phonology.

EDIT that specific petroglyph was actually found not far from Lake Baikal. Still, Hunnic cauldrons were found in the area of the former Western Turkic Khaganate (e.g. the Tsimlyansk reservoir and Kyzyl-Adyr cauldrons, plus fragments of Hunnic cauldron and two Hunnic ceramics in Amu Darya).

I disagree with yours and Sernac's pov. By your logic we should edit all articles of ancient genealogies (such as the Arpad dynasty, the list of Chinese emperors, or of Japanese ones) and remove from them all information based on anachronistic chronicles. That would mutilate about 50% of countries' rulers and dynasties' articles.

The authors of the Nominalia and the Hungarian chronicles are not less reliable than Sima Qian or Prince Toneri.

The only problem with them is that their genealogies are (very) anachronistic, but so are those of the aforementioned authors. Giray Altay (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay "By your logic we should edit all articles of ancient genealogies (such as the Arpad dynasty, the list of Chinese emperors, or of Japanese ones)" YES! And I intend to do so as much as I can.

"remove from them all information based on anachronistic chronicles." No need. Editors can simply add sentences or notes containing opinions from reliable skeptics with expertise in the relevant fields (history, archaeology, etc.).

"when and where did I lie" Can you not be so insecure? Nobody has accused you of lying.

"not said the truth?" Again and again you suggested outright removals of scholarly opinions which you consider not 'looking' good in article(s) as if you own the article(s). Many times I acted diplomatically by either putting those in notes or removed them outright at your requests.

"That would mutilate about 50% of countries' rulers and dynasties' articles." Does Emperor_Gaozu_of_Han#Birth_and_early_life look "mutilated" to you because Emperor_Gaozu_of_Han#Birth_and_early_life contains this sentence "In imperial Han myth, Liu Bang's ancestors were the mythical Emperor Yao and the Yellow Emperor." and immediately this cautionary sentence "Many ancient Chinese noble families claimed descent from the Yellow Emperor to justify their right to rule."? Erminwin (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC) Erminwin (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Erminwin

• Then, if you want to add notes to this article you should do it, at least, also on the articles I mentioned (Japanese and Chinese rulers) at the same time, for the sake of equality, or am I wrong? I am not saying you absolutely have to, just wondering whether you should
• I was not being insecure. You said "Truth matters more than "looks".", i.e. the way the article is written truth is being neglected for the sake of aesthetics, and I replied: "when did I (who wrote the article) lie?" i.e. is the article saying anything wrong? No it isn't
• I suggested removal of certain notes because they brought (still bring) to this article extra discussions, whose subject is not the Attilid dynasty, that the reader can easily read at the respective articles. The article cannot be misleading when it says time and time again that this is legendary and that according to x chronicle.

Giray Altay (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

People will come here and click on the Attilid rulers section without reading anything else. That list must convey the uncertainty that attends to the later Attilid claims. Your insistence that it must not is strange. Srnec (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Having an opinion is not "strange", and I can't help that you were not able to change it.

I will now add footnotes, though I still disagree with such additions. Giray Altay (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Sourcing

@Giray Altay: you are presenting medieval chronicles' claims as facts based on the same chronicles: yes, medieval chronicles present the Árpáds and Abas as descendants of Attila, but modern scholars do not accept this claim as a fact. Borsoka (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay: if you are unable to verify your claims with references to scholarly works, the article should be rewritten based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was focusing on replying to you at ANI and gathering diffs for the WP:Hounding report I am about to file against you.

I am not presenting anything the Hungarian chronicles say as facts, and if your purpose here wasn't harassing and you had read the article you would have seen it yourself.

Article makes it clear that those genealogical claims are according to Hungarian chronicles.

Two other editors have reviewed the article too (without counting the one who gave the official WP:Review).

I advise you to relent from your disruptive behavior. I advise you to leave this conversation, which you reached by hounding, and change your attitude.

So far (imo), eyes were closed on you because you are an elder user. But don't think that this gives you the right to do whatever you want with new editors, nor that admins will keep quiet forever. Giray Altay (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, if you fail to verify your claims with references to reliable sources, the article will be rewritten. Those who are not Attalids cannot be presented as such in any way. As I mentioned on the relevant noticeboard, you can take me to AN anytime if you think I did something wrong. Borsoka (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Who were the Attalids?

The article contains two contradictory sentences: 1. "The Attilids were a leading dynasty of the Huns, a nomadic pastoralist people who confronted the Roman Empire during the decline of the Western Roman Empire, as well as the Eastern Roman Empire." 2. "The Attilids descended from Attila, the last sole ruler of the Hunnic Empire." None of the sentences are verified. Borsoka (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay: you may have not noticed but I am using the Talk page. If you cannot verify the two statement, they will be rewritten in order to reflect modern scholarly consensus. Borsoka (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

By whom?

The article claims that "The Turul is a bird of prey often associated with Attila and more generally the Huns." The statement is verified by a reference to a book about 19th-century art. Does this book actually verify the statement, or only says 19th-century artists associated the Turul with Attila and the Huns? Borsoka (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Giray Altay: you may have not noticed but I am using the Talk page. If you cannot verify the statement, it will be deleted or rewritten in order to reflect the cited source. Borsoka (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

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)