Talk:Attila/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"Attila" possible meaning

In kazakh language "At" translated as "horse, shoot, name" and "Tila" is synonym of "altyn" - gold. In the Khanate of Bukhara, gold coins were also called "tilla". So from kazakh it literally translates as Golden shot/Golden horse/ and Golden name.

Same with his relatives: brother "Bleda" in kazakh "Biledi" (knowing, wise) and father "Mundzuk" in kazakh "Undzu/Inžu" (pearl, jewel).

Uncles "Octar" - "Octa/Octem" (domineering, imperious) and "Rougas/Rouas/Roilas" - "Oilau/Oilauş" (think, thinker). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.46.10.170 (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

“Tomb of Attila”

@Doug Weller:, you are usually very on top of archaeology news - do you know of any reliable sources for the claims made in the (recently added) sources I removed from the article with this edit [1]? I found this [2] which lacks the sensationalist claim that it’s Attila’s tomb.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ermenrich That’s a reliable source and I don’t see anything else, but we can’t use it here and in any case it’s too early. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Night at the museum movies

He’s mentioned all throughout the series of night of the museum movies, mentioned and seen . He is one of most exhibits Larry Daley meets in the movies. 2600:1003:B10A:6F95:A844:DD76:641D:595B (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe worth mentioning in the movie page, possibly? Definitely not here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging Attilid dynasty into Attila. The term "Attilid dynasty" is an expression rarely used in reliable sources. Hyun Jin Kim, the principal (or rather only) scholar who uses the term "Attilids" describes them as Attila's descendants, and Attila's known descendants could be listed in the article about him. That certain medieval dynasties (namely the Bulgar Dulo clan and the Hungarian Árpáds) claimed that they were descended from Attila could also be mentioned in two sentences in this article. Borsoka (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree and Oppose. The term "Attilid" describing the family or dynasty of Attila is not very common but it is certainly not limited to Kim. See some examples below, mostly in Google books, spanning several languages and over 150 years. One author repeats, namely Peter Golden, but then again he is still one of the leading (if not the leading) English-language expert on the history and culture of Turkic and nomadic peoples, and especially prolific.

Moreover, it is not evident to me that merging the articles would be beneficial, as Attilid dynasty, however limited the practical use of the term, is by definition more encompassing and may serve as an appropriate routing point for various members, certain or supposed, of that lineage. Bringing all this under Attila seems unnecessary and would likely invite the contentious disputes that seem to plague the Attilid dynasty content (and especially talk page) into this space. There is much to be done there, to achieve a more neutral and comprehensive coverage, and that neither belongs here, nor is likely to improve this page.

• P. Golden, War and Warfare in the Pre-Činggisid Western Steppe of Eurasia, in: N. Di Cosimo (ed.), Warfare in Inner Asian History (500–1800), Leiden: Brill 2002: 105-174: 110, 125 (“undoubtedly weakened the Attilids”; “having earlier rejected the Attilids’ request”)
• P. Golden, The Turkic Peoples: A Historical Sketch, in: L. Johanson and É. Á. Csató (eds.), The Turkic Languages, Milton Park: Routledge 1998: 13-26: 18 (“The Bulghar tribal union, first noted as an ally of Byzantium in AD 480, was a fusion of Turkic Oghur (especially Onoghuric) and Hunnic elements organized under a ruling house that claimed descent from the Attilids.”)
• P. Golden, “Nomads and Their Sedentary Neighbors in Pre-Činggisid Eurasia,” Archivium Eurasiae Medii Aevi 7 (1991): 41-82: 45 (“After their defeat at Nedao (454), the surviving Attilids salvaged what they could of their core tribes and returned to the Pontic steppes”)
• H. Schreiber, Auf den Spuren der Goten, Rowohlt 1979: 152 (“zwei ruhmreiche Attiliden beschert.”)
• P. D. de Laplante, Histoire générale synchronique, vol. 1, Gallimard 1946: 282 (“Les Hephtalites furent-ils alors renforcés d’éléments attilides refluant d’Europe?”)
• M. Brion, Théodoric, roi des Ostrogoths, 454–526, Payot 1935: numerous mentions of Attilides, including a chapter title “La déroute des Attilides.”
• H. H. Howorth, “The Spread of the Slaves, Part IV: The Bulgarians,” The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 11 (1882): 219-267: 228 (“The name I would suggest is a corruption of Attila, and the Duloids answer to the Attilides mentioned by Jornandes.”)
• K. E. von Baer, “Die Makrokephalen im Boden der Krym und Oesterreichs,” Mémoires de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg, 7th series, 2 (1860): 1-80: 42 (“Damit endet die Geschichte der Attiliden…”)
• Акунов, В., Повествование о готах 2017 ("двумя славными представителями дома Аттилидов")

StefThrax (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

As the above quotes suggest in modern (post WWII) English literature the term is not often used, and mainly when mentioning certain medieval dynasties' claim to a descent from Attila. These claims can be summarized in this article and his (actual or legendary) sons can also be listed here. Borsoka (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course they can, but I don't think that is the same thing as that they should. Why should post WWII English literature be the determining factor here? Scholarship is international and ongoing, and these examples excluded Kim, who is a case in point. Besides, all this could change with a publication in the next year or two or three, negating either or both of these subjective definitions. A discussion of the supposed descendants of Attila in later royal lines might be more cumbersome here than in a dedicated article. And, factual or not, such claims are indicative of handed down or manufactured tradition and/or the hypotheses of modern scholarship, which means they bear being covered, in neutral fashion, in Wikipedia. It seems to me that is better done in their own space than here, as they might merit considerably more detail than the extremely limited space you seem to envision for them. StefThrax (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Articles based on three sentences in works written by two historians could hardly meet WP:Notability. As soon as scholars are ready to dedicate pages to the subject, the article can be created. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure about your computation. StefThrax (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Hyun Jin Kim and Peter Benjamin Golden. Furthermore, they use the term Attilids as a reference to Attila's descendants (who can be mentioned in the article about Attila), and to claims by the Dulos and Árpáds to Attilid descendance (that can also be mentioned in a sentence in the article about Attila). Any further information would be original synthesis. Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, as long as you are honest about everything you arbitrarily choose to exclude from consideration (there is no other way of putting it), I suppose you could present such an argument. I remain unconvinced of the advisability of the proposed merger or of the need to eliminate the Attilid article. It seems to me that the place to work out your misgivings about aspects of the issue at hand is actually the page you are trying to eliminate, and that the argumentation and assumptions of scholarship and the testimony (accurate or flawed) of the medieval sources (and the societies that produced them) bear representation rather than suppression. StefThrax (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. If it really were an obscure term and there were little to say about the subject that could not be conveniently covered under "Attila", then this would be a good candidate for merging. But there appears to be enough here to support an article, and I suspect it could be expanded. If I am mistaken about this, this would be the point to argue about more than the name.

Even if the name is not widely used in English, I am not seeing any natural alternatives—so any reasonably good title would be appropriate, and one that actually has some use in scholarship, even if most of the sources are not in English, has the edge over one that is not widely used anywhere. I suspect that English-language publications will use this term if they need to describe this specific topic, and if they turn to something else instead, the name can be revisited. But this is a merger proposal, and that is the main issue to be determined here. Even a poor choice of names wouldn't tell us whether to merge the articles. P Aculeius (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per what others have stated above. I don't see what benefit a merge would bring.★Trekker (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Lallwort

@Akhshartag:, a Lallwort is baby’s babble that can be found throughout the world, listing other languages that have a similar one is misleading. In particular , why are you adding a comparison to “Turkic” to the section discussing a non-Turkic etymology? Stop adding this misleading information.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, Wiktionary is not a reliable source - it's edited in the same way as Wikipedia is, meaning that anyone can add whatever nonsense they want there.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)