Talk:Donghu people

message: Is this version good to start with? Let me know, thanks! (Also, please note the addition of a mediation reminder to the article page to avoid drive-by edits that would further complicate our work). —Finn Casey * * * 05:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again Finn. In my opinion, this diff clearly shows the current version is not a good starting point. The deleting editor once again removed: the lead's zh template (with characters, pronunciations, and literal meanings); the paragraph about Donghu and comparable names; the "Tianxia zh-hant" map and paragraph on Sinocentrism with di Cosmo and Pulleyblank quotes; the etymology paragraph with Schuessler and Yu quotes; the Shiji paragraph with most of the Watson quote (except for unmarked alterations of "Barbarians"); additional quotes by di Cosmo and Pulleyblank; and references. I could be misinterpreting the edit history, but it appears this individual insists upon exclusively using his Chinese-language sourced contributions and refuses to allow practically all English-language sourced contributions from other editors. Wouldn't it be better to start with the unexpurgated version of 23 October and discuss whether there's a valid reason for deleting the non-Chinese scholarship? Keahapana (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:Keahapana's comments above - I think it will then take less work to get the article together. This does not mean that some of User:Alexjhu's references shouldn't be added - just that it will take less work to add any he has made that seem pertinent than to make all the changes listed above. Thanks again taking on this difficult job. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version Comment 

message: Shouldn't we remove the final unreferenced sentence?
#Current text: "According to historical records, the Donghu rulers wore headdresses of gold known as huguan (胡冠）, and gold-decorated belts known as a hudai （胡帶）."
#Proposed revision: Delete.
#Explanation: Tagged three months for lacking citation.
#Sources: Can't find any English references or reliable Chinese ones.
Can anyone provide good sources? Keahapana (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been searching for these terms and can't find any reference to them anywhere and no one else has replied, so I think I will remove them now. We can always restore them later if someone can provide a good reference. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete final paragraph? 

message: How about adding a section for weblinks? Here's a start:
*The Hu Peoples, Silk Road Seattle Virtual Art Exhibit.
*Non-Chinese peoples and neighboring states: Hu 胡, ChinaKnowledge.
Can you find others? Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links section? 

message: Here's a rough draft of some new information about Donghu's original pronunciation.
The Modern Standard Mandarin Dōnghú 東胡 and Mongolian language Tünghu pronunciations historically differ from the Old Chinese pronunciation, which roughly dates from the Warring States Period (476-221 BCE) when Donghu was first recorded. Old Chinese reconstructions of Dōnghú include *,Dong 1948:?. *Tungg'o,Karlgren 1957:303, 34. *,Zhou 1972:?. *Tongga,Baxter 1992:754, 763. and *.Schuesler 2007:215, 281.
*Baxter, William H. 1992. A Handbook of Old Chinese Phonology. Mouton de Gruyter.
*Dong Tonghe 董同龢. 1948. "Shanggu yinyun biao gao 上古音韻表搞", Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 18:1-249. 
*Karlgren, Bernhard. 1957. Grammata Serica Recensa. Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities.
*Schuessler, Axel. 2007. An Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese. University of Hawaii Press.
*Zhou Fagao 周法高 . 1972. "Shanggu Hanyu he Han-Zangyu 上古漢語和漢藏語", Journal of the Institute of Chinese Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Kong 5:159-244. 
I'm quoting Dong's and Zhou's reconstructions from a secondary source and don't have the original page numbers at hand. Any suggestions or corrections would be appreciated. Keahapana (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add paragraph on Old Chinese pronunciation? 

message: In a free world, it is one thing to hold on to your personal fixations and racist bigotries about the others being “barbarians,” but a different matter when you lash them out in a public space. Your assertion that the Chinese character “Hu” meant “barbarians” and “foreign” may have violated the rights of basic decency and dignity of the others, and subjected Wikipedia to a possible class-action lawsuit for slandering and defamation from some of the 16 million Chinese people around the world who bear the character in their names. In a court of law, it is doubtful that those “eminent historians and sinologists” whom you relied upon would come to testify on your behalf. If you believe that your claim of the English name “Barbara” having come from the Greek word “Barbarian” can justify your assertion that the Chinese character “Hu” meant “barbarian” and “foreign,” and that the outdated English sources which you resorted to can withstand cross-examinations in front of a jury, especially since the Chinese scholars have clarified the history of “Donghu,” you may go on with your pursuit. In that case, you may want to review the “verbose and tendentious” messages posted above, because they may become the legal arguments used against you.--Alexjhu (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I think you may remember me calling for the use of "foreign" or "foreigner" as one of the valid translations of Hu - but saying I thought the translation as "barbarian" was going too far. Now, Alexhu, I don't think you have given any real argument - let alone convincing evidence, that "hu" did not sometimes refer to foreign peoples - whereas I have given strong evidence that it did, some of it from very early and authoritative Chinese sources. If you wish to just ignore this evidence - that is your right - but in a Wikipedia article this evidence needs to receive due consideration. 
As I also said earlier (and will not state it again), just because the one character carries differenct meanings does not mean it can't be used as a name as well (which does not usually carry the other meanings in ordinary usage). 
In English, as I said before, calling someone Mr. Black does not imply he is of a dark complexion, likewise Mr. French is not expected to be French because of his name, or Mr. Smelly to stink. It is similar in Chinese. If you are disturbed about the meaning of hu being foriegn reflecting on people (your ancestors?) who carry that character as their family name strikes me as a bizarre and rather paranoid fanatasy. Do the alternate meanings for hu of "moustache", or "dewlap" bother you as much? 
This is a ridiculous arguement and a ridiculous waste of everyone's time - including your own. And now you have taken it upon yourself to reverse the article once again, without seeking any compromise or agreement, while it is still under mediation and after we have all been specifically asked to disuss suggested changes on this page first. Haven't you read the box at the top of the page? Or do you think it doesn't apply to you? You could have maybe tried just to fix any things you thought were mistaken - not unilaterallt reverse the whole article! 
At the very least you should have discussed it first. I call upon the mediator to try to defuse this silly edit war or else we had better take the whole mess to the administrators to sort out. I can't believe I have just wasted so much time again! Far out! Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The matter will be straightened out.  I appreciate Alexjhu's contributions, but his participation is becoming counterproductive.  I hope that he will realize the inflammatory and confrontation nature of his comments.  If he does not, we may have to request he stop participating at this venue. —Finn Casey * * * 01:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Settle down! This article is under mediation! Stop acting unilaterally!'''

message: The only way to resolve this dispute seems to be a lawsuit. Some of those who have followed up on this discussion in China and the U.S. observed that the WP mediators treated my messages unfairly by “hiding” them. I am restoring the messages to their original format. You may reverse the pages, but beware that each of your words and acts may be used as legal evidence in the suit.
--Alexjhu (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Final word

message: I am writing to request for WP mediation on the wrongful translation of “Donghu” as “Eastern Barbarians”. In the end of last year, I debated with a couple of others on the subject. Outraged by their racist assertion that the Chinese character “Hu” meant “barbarian” in the name of “Donghu,” I indicated intent of a lawsuit, which resulted in a block on my account. Although it was later removed, the issue remained unsolved. 
I now refer to my recent article that addressed the history of the Donghu and Xianbei, entitled as: “An overview of the history and culture of the Xianbei (‘Monguor’/’Tu’)”, published in Asian Ethnicity (2010):11 (1), 95-164. With the analyses presented in the internationally reputed academic journal, I hope the dispute can be resolved and the derogatory assertion of “barbarian” be removed from the name of “Donghu.”
Below is a section from Page 145 that addressed the origins of the Donghu and Xianbei:
“Whereas ‘Donghu’ was a Chinese transcription, the first character ‘Dong’ in Mongolian language was ‘Tüng’ and meant ‘forest’, and the second character ‘Hu’ may have been a variance of the Mongolic term ‘Khun’ which meant ‘people’.241 The Xianbei were traditionally presumed to have descended from the ‘Donghu’, but this was unsupported by the sequence of emergence in their names in historical records. The earliest Chinese record of the ‘Donghu’ occurred in the ‘Chapter on the Meeting of Kings’ or ‘Wang Hui Pian’ in the ‘Book of Yizhou’ compiled during the Warring States from the fifth to the third century BC, indicating that the Donghu were active during this period.242 However, the earliest record of the Xianbei was found in the oldest Chinese classic, Guoyu, which indicated that the Xianbei had contact with King Cheng, who reigned from 1042 BC–1021 BC during the Zhou Dynasty.243 In the ancient Chinese history as it is today, the ethnic groups were noted in the historical records only when they accomplished prominences. The different sequence in the emergence of the names of ‘Donghu’ and ‘Xianbei’ indicated that the Xianbei had existed long before the Donghu federation was destroyed by the Xiongnu. This suggested that ‘Donghu’ was originally an ethnonym of a group who along ‘with the Wuhuan belonged to the Xianbei series’.244 As the Donghu were distributed closest to eastern China and became active, the federation that they formed with the Wuhuan and Xianbei were referred to as the ‘Donghu’. By the thirteenth century when the Mongols emerged as a mighty power, the ‘Monguor’/‘Tu’ were the only ethnic group who remained as having come from the Donghu. This explains why the Mongols referred to Western Xia as ‘Tangut’ to represent the ‘Donghu people’.”
241 Hao and Qimudedaoerji, Outline of Comprehensive History of Inner Mongolia, 17.
242 Lin, The Donghu History, 1–2.
243 Lü, The Tu History, 7; Zhu, The Origins of the Northern Chinese Ethnic Groups, 93.
244 Zhu, The First Emperor of the Qin was a Jurchen who spoke Mongolic language, 75.
References cited in the above section:
Hao, Weimin [郝维民] and Qimudedaoerji [齐木德道尔吉] (2007). Neimenggu tong shi gang yao [Outline of Comprehensive History of Inner Mongolia] 内蒙古通史纲要. Beijing [北京], Renmin chu ban she [The People's Press] 人民出版社.
Lin, Gan [林干] (2007). Donghu shi [The Donghu History] 东胡史. Huhehaote [呼和浩特], Nei Mengguo ren min chu ban she (Inner Mongolia People's Press] 内蒙古人民出版社.
Lü, Jianfu [呂建福] (2002). Tu zu shi [The Tu History] 土族史. Beijing [北京], Zhongguo she hui ke xue chu ban she [Chinese Social Sciences Press] 中囯社会科学出版社.
Zhu, Xueyuan [朱学渊] (2004). Zhongguo bei fang zhu zu de yuan liu [The Origins of the Northern Chinese Ethnic Groups] 中国北方诸族的源流. Beijing [北京], Zhonghua shu ju [China Book Group] 中华书局.
(2008). Qin Shi Huang shi shuo menggu hua de Nüzhen ren [The First Emperor of the Qin was a Jurchen who spoke Mongolic language] 秦始皇是说蒙古话的女真人. Shanghai [上海], Huadong shi fan da xue chu ban she [Eastern China Normal University Press] 华东师范大学出版社.
Below is a section from Pages 148-9 that addressed the wrongful translation of “Hu”:
“In the name of ‘Donghu’, the second character ‘Hu’ has been conventionally presumed to represent the northern nomads.257 In the Western literature, the character ‘Hu’ and ‘Di’, the latter of which was also a summary term for the northern nomads as ‘Northern Di’ or ‘Beidi’ (北狄), were often translated into ‘barbarians’. This is unfounded,258 since both Huang Di and Yan Di, whose names are translated as the Yellow Empeor and the Flame Emperor, came from Shaodian as a branch of the ‘Northern Di’.259 The reference of ‘Di’ seems to be related to the Shang Dynasty founded by the nomads from Manchuria, which was accounted to be established under the special blessings of Heaven. The founder of the Shang was Qi, whose mother was named as ‘Jiandi’ (简狄).260 The summary term for the northern nomads as ‘Di’ likely came from her name. Since Huang Di and Yan Di established the foundations for the Chinese civilization, and the Shang Dynasty gave rise to the oracle-bone inscriptions of the Chinese language, to translate the northern nomads as ‘barbarian’ would be equivalent of treating the very founders of the Chinese civilization as ‘barbarians’. Likewise, there is no ground to translate the character ‘Hu’ into ‘barbarian’. Its first usage was recorded in the name of a king, Hu Gongman, during the Western Zhou era about three thousand years ago, indicating the Hu clan was the authentic descendants of Huang Di.261 Today it is one of the most common last names, with more than 16 million Chinese people who bear it in their names around the world. The transformation of ‘Hu’ to represent the northern nomads occurred from the Xiongnu, who after destroying the Donghu federation, self proclaimed to be ‘powerful Hu in the north and the proud son of heaven’.262 After the Xiongnu expanded to control the northern and western territories, the reference of ‘Hu’ was applied to all the nomads in these areas. The change in the references alternated in the subsequent history. In the first century, after the Xianbei defeated the northern Xiongnu, the Xiongnu remnants self proclaimed to be ‘Xianbei’. After the Mongols emerged as a mighty power in the thirteenth century, the Tuyühu Xianbei proclaimed to be ‘White Mongols’, a reference that still persists. The transformation of such ethnonyms is also evident in that the dominance of the Mongols gave rise to the historical reference of the Asians, including the Chinese, as the ‘Mongoloid’.”
257 Liu, History of the Five Hu. 
258 In the Chinese language, the only character that can be literally translated into ‘barbarian’ is ‘man’ (蛮). Its derogatory connotations are manifested in its structure: on the top is ‘yi’ (亦) meaning ‘also’ or ‘remains’, and on the bottom is ‘chong’ (虫) meaning ‘worm’ or ‘bug’. Combined together, the character suggests ‘remains to be worm or bug’. The other character presumed to mean ‘barbarian’ is ‘yi’ (夷), which originally meant ‘people’. The character is made up of two parts: a person, ‘ren’ (人) standing through a bow, ‘gong’ (弓). Its pronunciation, ‘yi’, was a variance of ‘yin’ for ‘ren’ meant for people. The pronunciation of ‘ren’ as ‘yin’ remains seen in the eastern and northeastern dialects today. Its usage to represent people came from the historical reference of the eastern Chinese in Shangdong, the homeland of Confucius. They were referred to as ‘Dongyi’ (东夷) which represented ‘the easterners who carried bows across their shoulders’ and referred to the eastern Chinese who traditionally carried bows across their shoulders and used them in hunting and war. Its derogatory connotations as ‘barbarians’ were presumed from its traditional association with ‘man’, as ‘manyi’ (蛮夷) to mean ‘the barbarian people’.
259 Liu, Legends of Shennongshi in Shangdang and the Origins of the Chinese Civilization, 203–10.
260 Gu, Classic Theses Collection of Gu Jiegang, 28–30.
261 Huang, Comprehensive History of Chinese Surnames: Hu; Yuan and Zhang, Population Genetics and Distribution of Chinese Surnames, 423–7.
262 Fei, The Framework of Diversity in Unity of the Chinese Nationality, 258; Lin, The Donghu History, 5.
References cited in the above section:
Fei, Xiaotong [费孝通] (1999). Zhonghua min zu duo yuan yi ti ge ju [The Framework of Diversity in Unity of the Chinese Nationality] 中华民族多元一体格局. Beijing [北京], Zhongyang min zu da xue chu ban she [Central Nationalities University Press] 中央民族大学出版社.
Gu, Jiegang [顾颉刚] (2003). Gu Jiegang jing dian wen cun [Classic Theses Collection of Gu Jiegang] 顾颉刚经典文存. Shanghai [上海], Shanghai da xue chu ban she [Shanghai University Press] 上海大学出版社.
Huang, Qichang [黄启昌] (2003). Zhonghua xing shi tong shi-Hu xing [Comprehensive History of Chinese Surnames: Hu] 中华姓氏通史-胡姓. Beijing [北京], Dongfang chu ban she [The Eastern Press] 东方出版社.
Liu, Xueyao [劉學銚] (2001). Wu Hu shi lun [History of the Five Hu] 五胡史論. Taibei [台北], Nan tian shu ju [Nantian Press] 南天書局.
Liu, Yuqing [刘毓庆] (2008). Shangdang shen nong shi chuan shuo yu hua xia wen ming qi yuan [Legends of Shennongshi in Shangdang and the Origins of the Chinese Civilization] 上党神农氏传说与华夏文明起源. Beijing [北京], Renmin chu ban she [The People's Press] 人民出版社.
Yuan, Yida [袁义达] and Zhang Cheng [张诚] (2003). Zhongguo xing shi qun ti yi chuan he ren kou fen bu [Population Genetics and Distribution of Chinese Surnames] 中国姓氏群体遗传和人口分布. Shanghai [上海], Huadong shi fan da xue chu ban she [Eastern Chinese Normal University] 华东师范大学出版社.
Sincerely,
--Alexjhu (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Requested 

message: Since my article entitled as “An Overview of the History and Culture of the Xianbei (‘Monguor’/‘Tu’) published in Asian Ethnicity 2010, 11 (1): 95-164 is very long, below I will highlight some of its key significances or discoveries: 
  
1) The article clarifies the ambiguities and controversies concerning the ethnic origins and history of the Xianbei (“Monguor”/“Tu”). Although they have been extensively studied and reported by the Western scholars since the mid-1800s, their history has been misunderstood, especially following the misconstruction of the Flemish missionary Schram. The article reviews the latest research findings and sets the record straight. 
  
2) The article takes a new view on the complex history of China, which has been systematically rewritten or distorted in the past two millenniums. Whereas the post-Yuan history after the Mongols of the thirteenth century has been better known, the earlier dynasties were not, especially the important role of the Xianbei, from whom the Mongols were accounted to have descended by the Chinese scholars. The article reviews the earlier Xianbei dynasties, and also briefly touches on the importance of the northern nomads in developing the pre-historical Chinese civilization. 
  
3) The article points the ethnic background of the founders of the Sui and Tang Dynasties, the latter of which led China to reach the peak of its civilization, to the Xianbei based on the genealogies of the emperors and the cultural characteristics of these dynasties. They inherited the political structure laid down by the Northern Wei of the Xianbei, which in turn was inherited by the subsequent Chinese dynasties. This indicates that the ancient Chinese social and political structure was developed by the Xianbei, whereas the territory of China as one of the largest in the world was accomplished by the Mongols of the Yuan and reinforced by the Manchus of the Qing. This means that China would not be what it is without the northern nomads. 
  
4) The article presents an alternative view on the functions of the Great Wall. It was conventionally claimed to have been constructed to protect China from the invasions of the northern nomads. From historical perspectives, it was built for offensive functions to carry out military campaigns to subjugate the northern nomads, and defensive functions to protect the troops for retreat. 
  
5) The article presents the origins for the English reference of “Tibet,” which had perplexed the international scholars. It came from the reference of “Tiebie” used by the “Monguor”/“Tu,” which in turn was derived from the Tuofa Xianbei who had founded Southern Liang. The Tuofa were of the same descent as the Tuoba Xianbei who founded Northern Wei in China proper. After Southern Liang fell, a small fraction of the Tufa Xianbei went into the Tibetan areas and gave rise to the reference “Tiebie”, which evolved into the ethnonym. Both in the Tibetan governance and religion, the Xianbei “Monguor”/“Tu” played substantial roles and their elites had considerable mergers. 
  
The above findings represented mostly a synthesis of the Chinese sources, especially the latest publications that saw an increased openness and a shift toward the post-modernistic deconstruction of the conventional presumptions made of the Chinese history. 
  
  
Below is a summary of the original discoveries presented in the article: 
  
A) The article interprets the genetic relatedness between the “Monguor”/“Tu” and the Xi’an people as further genetic evidence that the Sui and Tang Dynasties were founded by the Xianbei. It suggested that the Xi’an people were the descendants of the Xianbei, who from the Northern Wei through the Sui and Tang Dynasties made Xi’an as one of their dual capitals. This is the only explanation for their genetic relatedness. 
  
B) Based on the cultural and linguistic characteristics, combined with historical research, the article points to the fact that those who were classified as “Han” were not of the same ethnic group, and that “Han” was a political identity imposed upon diverse ethnic groups. Since more than one billion people have been labeled as such and indoctrinated with blatantly chauvinistic ideologies for over half a century, the article warns potential dangers embedded in it. As a political scheme perhaps necessitated by the domestic and international contexts when PR China was founded, the rapid development of the country now indicates modifications. The article espouses a new ideology of Ethnic Relativism to advocate that no ethnic group is inherently “superior” or “inferior” and to grant each ethnic group with equal dignity and decency which, combined with the effort to narrow the economic gaps, may help to make China become more “harmonious” as so aimed by the Government. 
  
C) The research discovered an interesting link between the “Monguor”/“Tu” and the relocated Hmong/Miao, in that the latter formed the majority of the population in the Tuyuhu and Western Xia Kingdoms founded by the Xianbei in the northwest. This led to a new interpretation for the national title of Western Xia as “Bai Gao” (or “White and Mighty”). Within it, “Bai” (“White”) represented the founding ethnic group, the “Monguor”/“Tu,” who were historically referred to as the “White Section” and “White Mongols” due to their lighter skin, and “Gao” (“Mighty”) represented the majority of the population who were summarily referred to as “Qiang” and comprised the relocated Hmong/Miao from central China about four thousand years ago. Previously, “Bai Gao” was interpreted to represent a religious symbol by the Western scholars, whereas the Chinese scholars attributed it to a phantom river. 
  
D) The article makes a new interpretation for the Mongolian reference of Western Xia as “Tangut” that it represented “the Donghu people” from whom the “Monguor”/“Tu” had come from in Manchuria. This corroborated with the theories of the Outer Mongolian scholars who have held that the Mongols had descended from the Xiongnu whereas the Chinese scholars attributed their origins to the Xianbei. The differences reflected alternations in the self references of the Xiongnu and Xianbei through history. 
  
E) The article also makes a new interpretation for the name of “Xiongnu” as having come from a combination of the clan name “Xiongxiong” and personal name “Nunu” of their highest leader at a shift of political power, based on the reference of the clans with Xiongnu descent as “Xiongxiong” and the common name of “Nuernuer” among the “Monguor”/“Tu.” Historically they were referred to as “Hun” in the Western literature. The second character “nu,” meaning “slave” and “servant” in their name was believed to be inserted for derogatory purposes by the Western and some Chinese scholars. 
  
F) The article presents a new discovery that the name of “Chiyou,” from whom the Hmong/Miao were believed to have descended, was pronounced as “Chiyi” in archaic Chinese phonology. This resonated with the Hmong shaman’s god in the U.S. as referred to as “Shiyi” or “Shee Yee.” The latter spelling was used by Ann Fadiman in her book entitled “The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down.” This corroborated with the assumption that the Hmong/Miao had descended from Chiyou, the mighty leader who was defeated by Huang Di, or the Yellow Emperor, who had come from the northern nomads and laid down the foundations for the Chinese civilization. 
  
  
The above finding in F combined with C corroborated with the oral traditions of the Hmong that they had founded a powerful kingdom that lasted four to five centuries. The account was presented in the Hmong history written by the earlier Western scholars but doubted by recent researchers. After the fall of the Tuyuhu and Western Xia kingdoms, some of the Xianbei (“Monguor”/“Tu”) seemed to have migrated southward into Yunnan and Guizhou through the “ethnic corridor” in Sichuan. Likewise, the original “Qiang” from these two kingdoms may have migrated to join the other Hmong/Miao settlements and brought the legends of the kingdoms with them. This will be elaborated more in my upcoming book to be revised from the doctoral dissertation entitled as “Under the Knife: medical ‘noncompliance’ in Hmong immigrants” to be published by Russell Sage. 
Sincerely,
--Alexjhu (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A Summary

message: I completely agree with User Alexhu's espousal of the position "that no ethnic group is inherently “superior” or “inferior” and to grant each ethnic group with equal dignity and decency." However, we don't (and never have, lived in an ideal world with everyone of good will) and such feelings (of superiority or inferiority of various races, cultures, social classes, clans and even families) are commonplace in almost every culture and should play no part here in deciding whether the name "Hu" ever carried connotations of inferiority of various groups seen as 'alien' to the main body of the population (summed up, as closely as possible in English by the use of the term 'barbarian'). I think all of us are agreed that the use of the word is unwarranted outside these contexts in an encyclopedia article, but I do believe it is silly (and, indeed, very misleading) to try to pretend that the name "Hu" never carried such negative connotations in Chinese.
Anyway, I have reversed Alexhu's major changes to the article. I believe it should remain basically as it was until the mediation he has called for is complete and a decision is made. 
For myself, I would request that a brief discussion of the various meanings "Hu" may have carried at different periods of history and the various (mis)interpretations of it by various scholars and translators, should be included and then leave the rest of the article at least relatively clear of these issues. Best wishes and kind thoughts to all involved in this important but rather sad debate. I do hope we caqn finally put this contentious issue to rest. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Inherent racism

message: In order to establish your case, you need to show:
1) concrete evidence that the Chinese character "Hu" meant "barbarian"
2) counter-argument against the analysis presented in the latest publication
Alexjhu (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence Needed 

message: Dear Alexjhu: All these matters have been discussed already in detail on these pages - especially by User Keahapana. I thought I had made a workable compromise by suggesting that use of negative overtones to "Hu" in Chinese (of which I believe there are quite a few). It seems to me that you are quite "one-eyed" about this matter and are avoiding the actual situation, trying to change it into an idealistic, but unreal one. You seem to take it all VERY personally - I wish you would stand back and look at it more objectively, rather than throwing around accusations of racism and hints of Western bias. Please be assured that if I have any bias (and I try hard not to) I would more likely be pronounced pro-Chinese than pro-Western. 
However, I refuse to get in a fight with you about this, and will be happy (and most relieved) to let the mediators decide. Unfortunately, I will not be able to spend much time on this problem in the near future as I leave on Thursday to go to Vancvouver in Canada to celebrate my mother's 96th birthday and, as she is quite frail, I may be occupied for some time with family matters. 
I will also, of course, be away from my library and unable to check for more references of derogatory connotations attached at times in Chinese literature and historical references to the the word/name "Hu." 
I protest you making such major changes to the article BEFORE discussion and mediation but I certainly don't want to get into a silly edit war with you. 
I do hope these matters will be properly and fully dealt with by the time I return home on the 24th of June. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with John Hill that Alexjhu should have discussed making drastic changes beforehand. Deleting citations from two dozen reliable references and exclusively citing yourself is blatant self-promotion. You are certainly welcome to cite your publication to improve this article, but no single opinion can negate the consensus of mainstream sinology. The above "Mediation Requested" section is not a WP:FM, and the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-17/Donghu was closed. I suggest that we revert the article to the version of 10 April 2010 and formally request mediation. Sincerely, Keahapana (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asked to give my opinion regarding the edits made by Alexjhu. I think given the extent that he has cited himself, the edits are highly questionable, and it would be better to revert those edits. PhilKnight (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your opinion and for reopening the mediation case. I hope all the involved editors will quickly resolve this unproductive disagreement. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree the fact that this user Alexjhu is getting into this on-going edit war and is using an article that is written by himself/herself to back up major claims and make changes, is highly suspicious.  Not to mention the self-advertising aspect.--TheLeopard (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to User Alexjhu

message: Perhaps I can intervene. It seems to me that the best thing to do is to replace the whole article. The current version is verbose and has too much controversy. The following is the best I can do from my sources. Anyone else please make suggestions, corrections or additions. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Replacement 

message: *Nicola Di Cosmo, 'Ancient China and its Enemies',2002
*E. G. Pulleyblank, Chapter 14 of David N. Keightley, 'The Origins of Chinese Civilization', 1983
Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Earliest mention of the Xianbei is in the Guoyu it seems, dating them to the reign of King Cheng of Zhou (1042-1021 BC). What about the Donghu? Sima Qian says they were present north of the Yan during the 7th century BC. The Lost Book of Zhou (Yizhoushu) and the Shanhaijing both have mentions of the Donghu, some say this makes the Donghu similarly ancient as the Xianbei (going back to the end of the Shang dynasty). These very ancient mentions seem a bit isolated from the 4th century BC when the Donghu are known to have done specific actions (battles with King Wuling of Zhao, King Zhao of Yan and General Qin Kai). Are there any more mentions of the Xianbei or Donghu before the 4th century BC (other than the ones mentioned above)? Are the very ancient Donghu and Xianbei (late Shang - early Zhou dynasty era) the same people as the 4th century BC Donghu and Xianbei? I guess the 7th century BC Donghu are the same as the 4th century BC Donghu because it is the same one historian Sima Qian who mentions them. Did the Xianbei exist before the Donghu, or did they exist side-by-side at the same time (Donghu may have subjugated Xianbei later)? Any info will be highly appreciated. (Yastanovog (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One must always be careful about the names of ancient peoples since they often refer to politically organized groups rather than distinct peoples. The Donghu and Xianbei may have been different dominant clans ruling over basically the same people. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Xianbei exist before Donghu? 

message: Is a consensus forming? Reading the discussion page and its history suggest not. In fact, the last edit to this talk page was over two-and-a-half months ago and there is more name-calling than there is any consensus building, no matter how slowly. The fact of the matter of translation from Chinese: there is no Chinese (at least Classical Chinese) word meaning "barbarian". See, for instance:
* Beckwith, Christopher I. (2009): Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present.  Princeton: Princeton University Press. .
pages 320-362, especially 358-360.
Donghu and Hu are proper nouns: they are names that designate certain groups of people. It is also not true that the Chinese have always despised non-Chinese people, and that the use of an ethnonym automatically implies contempt and disparagement. Even if it were true that the terms used for non-Chinese groups of people somehow implies that they were thought to be somehow barbaric, it would be inaccurate, in a literal translation to add this in. It is also possible to consult a more reliable dictionary than Wiktionary, which should not be relied on very much as a reference. Furthermore, just because a character  represents several homophonic word in Chinese, does not mean that it is truthful to claim that every time a character appears all of these different meanings are present or implied. For example the Chinese Text Project online dictionary defines Hu (胡) as:
"(Of animals) Tissue drooping down under the chin. / Neck. / Part of a weapon which hangs down. / Longevity. / Far, large. / Bearded. / What, why. / Arbitrary, unjustified. / The state of Hu. / Outsiders, foreigners. / Type of sacrificial vessel."
There is no mention of Hu being correctly translated as anything remotely like "barbarian". And, there is plenty of evidence that outsiders and foreigners could be and were perceived both positively and negatively at different times and places in China, and by different Chinese people, ancient and modern: the translation of "barbarian" is incorrect and not supported by the facts. The correct translation of Hu in the context of the "Donghu" and similar articles is "The state of Hu" , "Hu people", or something similar (Dong as "Eastern", however, is reasonable).
 
Indefinitely tagging an article to prevent changes is not part of Wikipedia policy. Even more so, when the article tagged is preserving a counter-factual, non-neutral point of view. Dcattell (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  On editing article 

message: Hu is a Chinese surname, so to refer to or translate the "Hu" people as barbarians is probably incorrect. 109.148.223.104 (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hu is also a Chinese surname 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Donghu people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140322043037/http://www.orientaldiscovery.com/html/2011/11/201111231554001713.html to http://www.orientaldiscovery.com/html/2011/11/201111231554001713.html
*Added  tag to http://lucian.uchicago.edu/workshops/earlychina/files/2008/07/ec25_pulleyblank.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A teriary source, namely Zarrow (2015) "Educating China: Knowledge, Society and Textbooks in a Modernizing World, 1902–1937" (& added by user Karl Kraft), wrote on p. 191 that 
 
The secondary source Zarrow relies on was a 1937 Commercial Press textbook by Fan & Han.
Yet apparently none of the Chinese-language articles about Sushen, Yilou, Mohe, Balhae acknowledges Donghu ancestry for that the Jurchens, their Balhae cousins, & their predecessors Mohe, Yilou, & Sushen. Nor does any primary source cited in those articles traces those peoples' ancestries back to the Donghu. I really don't know how Fan & Han reached their conclusion that the Jurchens descended from the Donghu.
According to WP:BIOSOURCES: 
Yet Fan & Han (1937), the secondary source cited by Zarrow (2015), contradicts all available primary sources. I propose that Zarrow (2015) should be removed as well as the claim that the Jurchens also descended from the Donghu; even though I think Karl Kraft added Zarrow (2015) in good faith. Other editors, e.g. ,  What are your opinion? Erminwin (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Viktorova (Монголы: происхождение народа и истоки культуры, P. 183), this is due to the insufficient amount of materials and partly due to the mistakes made. For example, the phonetic identification of the ancient people of the Donghu (Eastern Hu) with the Tungus, made at the beginning of the 19th century by Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat  only on the principle of sound similarity between Donghu and Tungus. This led to the fact that for a long time all the descendants of the Donghu were considered the ancestors of the Tungus. In the early 50s, the Soviet researcher Nikolai Kuehner, who critically reviewed the works of Chinese ethnographers, established that the ancestors of the Tungusic and Paleosiberian peoples at the end of the 1st millennium BC. in chinese sources were included in the Dongyi group of peoples. In Russian: "Это отчасти связано с недостаточным количеством материалов, отчасти - с допущенными ошибками. Например, фонетическое отождествление древнего народа дунху (восточные ху) с тунгусами, сделанное в начале XIX в. Абелем Ремюса лишь на принципе звукового сходства дунху - тунгус, привело к тому, что всех потомков дунху долгое время считали предками тунгусов. Лишь в начале 50-х годов советский исследователь Н. В. Кюнер, критически рассмотревший работы Лин Чуньшэна, Лян Цичао и других китайских этнографов, установил, что предки тунгусо-маньчжурских и палеоазиатских народов в конце 1 тысячелетия до н. э. китайскими источниками включались в группу народов дун-и. Дунху же были степными кочевниками, у которых значительную роль в хозяйстве играли коневодство, овцеводство и разведение других пород скота".--KoizumiBS (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , perhaps the text should be corrected and it should be written that some authors also considered the descendants of the Donghu to be the Jurchens in the past.--KoizumiBS (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea! Erminwin (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliability of a secondary source