Talk:Hun (disambiguation)

I re-wrote the entire page today. Here is the list of substantive changes:

• Removed the line: "Гунны (от греч. Hunnoi, лат. Chunni, Hunni) — кочевой народ,". This is neither a complete sentence nor belongs in the English language wikipedia.
• Removed the line: "The Hun is the nickname of Bill Schmeling, a Portland, Oregon based, homoerotic, homomasculine fetish artist." There is no article on Bill Schmeling and no citation -- until proven otherwise, this fails WP:BIO.
• Actually re-added the use of the term as a pejorative in football. This has come up enough that I think it should be added, and this can be done without having to stoop to "TEH FC RANGERS IS HUNS" or the like.
• Grouped together the uses of Hun as a pejorative.

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

ref

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/article1848719.ece, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7206891.stm

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/National/article/17075/hun-not-a-sectarian-term-celtic-fans-chief-tells-committee.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeusie72 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4219595/Hun-rap-Celts-pair-walk-free.html#ixzz1qCvlLdP7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.217.132.78 (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really help when people make edits without explaining their actions.

As above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.219.143 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

All recent edits seem to have been adequately explained. You may not understand or agree with the explanations but that is a different matter which we can discuss here if you like.

You made an edit summary comment saying "The idea of a football team subscribing to religous ideolgy is so rediculous as to barely be worth mentioning". I agree that religion and football are not normally linked but there is a very long-standing tradition in Glasgow that Catholics support Celtic and Protestants support Rangers. You might find that ludicrous, and I certainly wouldn't disagree, but, ludicrous or not, it is a very well documented situation with a notorious sectarian element to the rivalry between the more neanderthal elements of both clubs support bases. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that you believe that all pejorative names ascribed to followers of a particular football club are somehow 'sectarian'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.219.143 (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but "hun" is a notable and documented exception. It is a religious insult primarily which has been applied to football, not vice-versa. See List of ethnic slurs#H for references. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe you can actually quote wikipedia as a reference for, err, wikipedia, to be honest. It's not sectarian, and it has nothing to do with religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.219.143 (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not what I was doing and I think you know that. I was directing you to look at the references on that page. These are references external to Wikipedia: Nil By Mouth: History of Sectarianism, Daily Telegraph: Young people are raising their eyes. These two references make a clear link between the term "hun" and sectarian abuse of Protestants and also establish the football connection. I have modified the entry to list both Protestants and Rangers as targets.

I am afraid that your repeated removal of the description of "sectarian" based on nothing more than your uncorroborated assertion that "it has nothing to do with religion" looks like disruptive behaviour. Unless you have anything fresh to bring to the discussion, leading to a change of consensus here, any further removal of the description of "sectarian" will be reverted as vandalism. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

And, if we needed any reference that "hun" refers to protestants as a religious group, perhaps the BBC is a bit more credible? [1]Thaum1el (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Haven't we been through this before? We tried to make the description completely neutral, but since that didn't work... The description mentioning sectarianism accurately reflects the content of the article being linked to. The Rangers article says quite clearly, with plenty of referencing, that the term is insulting and sectarian, so the description can/should reflect that. If an editor disagrees with that description, the place to take up the debate is at the Rangers article Talk page. As before, the use of Hun as a general term of abuse towards Protestants is not supported by the linked article(s) and so shouldn't be dealt with here.--ShelfSkewed Talk 21:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

line 21 i believe in this link would support an inclusion of the term 'hun' being used as an insult towards a protestant. Nil By Mouth: History of Sectarianism 'Sectarian language is commonly used in Scotland, with abusive terms such as "Hun" and "Orange bastard" being used against Protestants'

(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

I would agree except that the standard we seem to have agreed on is that it must be in the linked article itself to appear here. That is why it got taken out when I put it in and I don't have a problem with that. It seems to me that the wider problem is that we need something about sectarianism in the article on Protestantism, not just in order to justify including it here, but as it is important part of the history of the subject. I think we should have it but writing something acceptable might be tricky. If it is so hard to agree a word on so controversial a subject then writing a couple of whole sentences might be rather ambitious. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That entries on the disambiguation page must be supported by article content is exactly right. Dab pages are simply navigation pages to Wikipedia content. The entries here are not referenced or subject to individual scrutiny for notability, because those are the responsibility of the target articles. So if a topic is notable enough to have, or be mentioned in, a WP article, it can be listed here; if not, not. But you're also right that finding a way to fit the relevant information into a Protestantism-related article is a tricky proposition--but worth it, I would think, since the use of Hun as a term of sectarian insult is factually accurate. --ShelfSkewed Talk 22:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there was a section of the use of the word 'hun' as an insult in the wikipedia article Huns, but it was simply removed by the editors who frequent the page / moderate it due to excessive vandalism that they couldnt be bothered with. I think they stated that there should be a separate article covering it if i remember correctly but would need to check the article archives.(Monkeymanman (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

Having waded through the discussion here and at talk:Rangers, am I right in thinking that the references for hun being "sectarian" are 1) the say-so of an Irish schoolgirl who once said it was 'slang for protestant' in the Daily Telegraph 2) Nil by Mouth, a widely ridiculed advocacy group? I do not think this is sustainable. 90.194.100.16 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

widely ridiculed advocacy group, by who?, you? They have been the source of refs for sectarian related events / relations to do with both sides of the glasgow divide. The ref at the top of this page from the scottish sun (i know, but it is reporting factual evidence) shows that it is regarded as a 'religiously agrivated breach of the peace' and 'offensive' in that manner. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

...By one sheriff which does not amount to legal precedent. Was Devlin ever sentenced? Why was the Sun not charged with 'religiously aggravated breach of the peace' for its headline? I think, at best, the police had a pragmatic concern with a t-shirt which might provoke huns into hun-like behaviour (Obviously Manchester was being laid to waste that very day). At worst, the sheriff himself was a hun. I think Nil by Mouth's history of sectarianism is simply revisionist apologism for Scottish anti-Irish racism - a widely-held viewpoint which can be referenced, I'm sure, with citations far superior to those above. 90.197.224.58 (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

if you are trying to discount the ruling given by a court of law as factual then...... Okay i am done with you on this, your use of language is innapropriate and shows you have a biased opinion on this and just about everything else you have added. Best of luck trying to convince others with use of language like that. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If - as you suggest - the verdict of this minor sheriff has passed into legal statute then I would like more details than a paragraph in a Scottish tabloid. This article fails WP:RS because, among other reasons, it contains out-of-date information. I have been unable to locate any sources detailing if Mr Devlin was ever actually sentenced. In fact it looks to me as if the sheriff knew he was unable to pass a sentence because there was absolutely no basis for his verdict. Obviously the Telegraph article fails because a schoolgirl quoted as calling hun (neutral) "slang" for protestant is not compelling. The BBC article appears to show that a public sector body in NI proscribes 'hun' as a term for protestants on its 'guide to appropriate language' but I can't see the word sectarian anywhere. I sincerely doubt anyone has ever used the word 'hun' to refer to protestants in any case, unless they were actual huns, ie. Rangers supporters. 90.197.224.58 (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The key point is that disambiguation pages don't make value judgements. They don't have references and they don't explain things in any depth. All they do is disambiguate. When doing this they have to reflect the content in the linked articles. So long as the linked article says sectarian, without equivocation, then it should say the same here, without equivocation. This is the point ShelfSkewed made a while ago and I am at a loss to understand why the argument is still going on here. If people want to argue over content and referencing than that is for the linked article not a disambiguation page. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The linked article says sectarian only in the context of (attributed, to be fair) opinion, not fact. Therefore this DAB page most certainly does not reflect the content of the linked article. If you wish to take up your misunderstanding of fact/opinion at talk:Rangers then go ahead - but stop policing this article and edit warring here. 90.197.224.58 (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page

To just repeat what has already been said. Wikipedia Disambiguation pages don't make value judgements. They don't have references and they don't explain things in any depth. All they do is disambiguate. When doing this they have to reflect the content in the linked articles. With this page, so long as the linked article says sectarian, without equivocation, then it should say the same here, without equivocation. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hun - sectarian?

Wether it is sectarian or not the current wording is wrong, it is either a term for Rangers fans OR a term for Protestants it cannot be both. Adam4267 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I fail to follow your logic: Why can't it be both? You are no doubt well aware of the historical sectarian friction between fans of Rangers and fans of Celtic. In any case, see the discussion above: The current wording reflects the content of the article the entry links to, Rangers F.C.. The place to take up this debate is Talk:Rangers F.C., not here.--ShelfSkewed Talk 19:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

On another note, List of ethnic slurs says about hun: '2) An offensive term for a Protestant in Northern Ireland or historically, a member of the British military in Ireland ("Britannia's huns").'

A Scottish court has cleared this as not being a sectarian term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.217.132.78 (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ditto what has been said above.Monkeymanman (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I had the same reaction as Adam4267 at first. An insult from one side of the Old Firm to the other isn't ipso facto sectarian. Why Rangers and their fans are called Huns makes all the difference for me. Is it to connect Anglo-Saxon Britons to Hunnic heritage (as opposed to people of Celtic heritage; compare to its use to describe the Germans in WWI)? If so, it's sectarian. Is it to suggest a sort of lawlessness and savagery, as commonly associated with the Huns? If so, then it's not sectarian. Absent evidence either way, I wouldn't've used the term if I added that entry, but neither do I feel comfortable removing it. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

BKonrad,

Please understand that blanket reverting to the problematic revision will not help. Discuss here the shortenings, because the edits removed parts and altered information, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, you are reverting to version before edits made by User:Pol098. I partially reverted some of those edits, but you have been making blanket reversions to a version that is grossly out of compliance with WP:MOSDAB. older ≠ wiser 18:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bkonrad:,

Of course I was reverting to status quo ante, your partial revert did not touch/restore those problematic edits I am referring. I acted per policy, so here the changes has to be discussed first.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC))

The edit's by User:Pol098 were mostly to bring the page into compliance with WP:MOSDAB. My only disagreement with those edits were with some of unnecessarily brutal trimming of the descriptions. Please make a case as to how any of the specific edits are not in accord with WP:DAB policy. older ≠ wiser 19:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but it's better to apply then explain, please watch the recent edits, I kept most of the trimming, but where necessary, did a shorter extensions (it needed in the section regrading the historic people for clarity). I did not read Huntsman corp, or the claimed derogatory multi-level case, I don't know they are notable enough. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC))

Meanwhile I learned Huntsman really has the symbol abbreviation as HUN, but accidentally I forgot to delete, so it remained.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC))