This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mongols, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mongol culture, history, language, and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MongolsWikipedia:WikiProject MongolsTemplate:WikiProject MongolsMongols articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
The contents of the Aksungur page were merged into Charaton on 2011-09-22. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
This article is totally inconsistent with its only listed source.
According to the cited Huns Dateline, Aksungur ruled the White Hun (Ephtalite) Empire, a completely different polity from that of the Western Hun dynasty of Charaton and Attila. Unless a new source can be cited to support the equation of Charaton with Aksungur, the two articles should be un-merged. Also, it appears Charaton (also known as Aybat) reigned 402-414, not 410-422. - BALawrence (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a few references to Franz Altheim in this article as he was a Nazi pseudo-scientist and shouldn't be treated as a legitimate source. I think there's probably an interesting section to be written about what Nazis said about this guy so I'm leaving a note about it here. The only substantial reference was that "F. Altheim suggested that the name is a title from *qara-tun, meaning "black people", with black referencing the direction north.[1]" - User:Palinurus711:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes no sense. It means you also removed reference to Kim which is a well known and recent source. I think the best approach is to explain who Altheim was, so readers understand. Otherwise we'll end up removing reference to all scholars who cite him. Similar problems on other articles you've edited at the same time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it can be explained. I do understand the concern here, even if the handling is wrong. For example academics criticize each other about this type of use of Altheim, but if we remove all mention of that then we are treating theories from Altheim as non-controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Altheim’s work on the Huns post dates the war. Do we have sources for this work specifically being controversial? While I realize that discrediting anyone with any association with Nazism is a popular thing nowadays, it is not really how scholarship works or has ever worked.—-Ermenrich (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^Kim 2013, p. 205. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKim2013 (help)
