Talk:Charaton

Mongols Low‑importance

	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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / Classical

	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.
	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met
Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

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)

Nazi academic

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." - User:Palinurus7 11:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

We cannot explain it all the pages, since it would be a repetitive attribution, hence it is linked, see talk at Ostrogoths.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC))

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)

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)