Talk:Dingling

message: which comes from verb kaç(flee) and been borrowed by western languages as coach(from magyar). High wheel carts are very important while you are moving a city for 3 months their origin shall be göç arabası(migration cart) and somehow existed in chinese as Gaoche and koch in magyar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.115.240 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 27 July 2006
The words Khazar, Hussar, Kazakh and Cossack are also all said to have derived from the same Göç root.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.13.205 (talk • contribs)  23:41, 25 August 2006
This article is terrible because it lumps so many different peoples together under one label refusing to acknowledge the different roles they played.86.133.121.152 07:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaoche means Göç(migration) in Turkic langs 

message: As far as I know there's no antropology refence for Dingling under any Chinese chronologies, but some racists insisted that there must be a single records for that, this article had gone beyond this, not only it is biased, racist but abursd for readers's intelligence, it had violated aginast WP:REF by providing a russian sources instead of an english ones under English wikipedia, this means it could only be referenced by russian and not others. Unitl there's a clear translation for those sources I will had to revert all back to its original form. Eiorgiomugini 01:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About providing Russian sources instead of an English ones under English wikipedia, I have a statement of an Admin to a similar contention, that if non-English sources were excluded from the WP, half of its present references would be gone. Limiting to only English sources would greatly pauperize WP. If you doubt an accuracy of a perticular reference, I will gladly supply you with any material that may help you to verify it, including referral to an independent Russian-speaking admin. Regards, Barefact 02:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In addition to subject of non-English sources not used as an excuse for deletion of referenced material, the subject of "pretty baised", "racist comments" applied to such a renowned  scholar as L.Gumilev is inconceivable, but may be misconstrued and therefore need re-wording or clarification. Gumilev can't be accused of racistic views, and I did not see anything racist in his studies of Dinlins. Instead of blanking the contents, any comment may and should be addressed individually. Barefact 18:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I read that as not meaning it is okay to exclude non-English sources.  It means if you don't have an English source use a non-English source, but if you have an English source PREFER it over the non-English source.  It doesn't seem like a good idea to me to start removing content from an article if it doesn't have an English source.  Does anyone have an English language source for this information that can be used to improve the article?  --Stacey Doljack Borsody 03:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturaly the contents based on Gumilev's works are not quotations, they may be viewed as summaries, though to relay specific facts without distortion the original text in places must be closely followed. To facilitate cross-reference, for each self-containing phenomenon I also gave the WWW reference where Gumilev's books are posted (in Russian) for general public. For antropological data Gumilev-historian relies on the works of antropologists such as Debets, Ismaigulov etc. These references are clearly indicated in the references in text. Unfortunately, I can't cite English translations, and if they were available I would gladly replace reference to the original with a reference to its translation. Barefact 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The antropology references are given in the body of the article, as well as the references for the location of the tribes, and for the timing of the excavations. If something need to be verified, it should be expected. The focus on the Huns is well explained in the article, Dinlins were in the Hinish state for centuries, and changes in time were studied, both archeologically, and antropologically. Gumilev describes the Chinese cultural influnce on the Huns, and the Hun's influence on the Dinlins. Addressing Dinlins without giving Hunnish and Chinese background, both historical and cultural, is impossible without producing a deficiently lopsided picture. Huns and Chinese are needed as long as they are needed to describe the Dinlins. Inclusion of pinyin names is helpful in transcribing the Chinese annals, it seems to be a minor editing issue. Barefact 02:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  The referenced material should not be arbitrarily removed per WP rules. All material is referenced. Please Rv the removal of material and address specific points. Barefact 01:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Eiorgiomugini, editing the proper references, I may inadverently erased your last contribution, and I will gladly restore any constructive contribution you may made. I had to correct literature references and linked references. As for the antropology, since Sayans and Altai are in Siberia outside Chinese borders, it would not be surprizing that Chinese records do not have information on Chinese excavations in Sayans and Altai. They are done in what today is Russia and mostly by local scientists. Barefact 09:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we work it out without a fight that is demeaning to both of us? Not necessarily in the WP, but as chess-players, exchanging ideas on how to accomodate your sources and the publications that I use? I want to respect your references, and surely presereve them. Anthropology: Gumilev relies on translations by Bichurin, Minorsky, and reports of excavations by dozens of scientists. Debets was consulted on the excavation finds, and used them in his publications. I do want to accomodate your knowledge and avoid any fighting. However, the article can't be dumbed down to its former decrepit state. There is enough literature to illuminate the subject properly. Barefact 10:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions."  
Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POV's). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy.
Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:
* Who advocates the point of view
* What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)
Here, a POV from a "scholar and specialist" included an arguments that are supported by evidence and reasoning, etc, you can included your edits into the article and should not in a contradicting way. When majority of authors agreed there's no anthropologial references for Dingling, we agreed on what they said, but since a minor view insisted an otheriwse from single author, supporting evidence and reasoning, etc must be represented under his name. See WP:RS "Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion can always be considered reliable.". It also states very clearly that "some sources will have differing degrees of reliability in different contexts" and "a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors", since Gumilev book does not specifically covered the topics on Dingling, we should had avoid using it. I removed Hun and Sayan-Altai Afanasev culture paragraphs, because there's no established associate connection between Afanasev and Dingling on scholarly consensus, nor the connection between Xiongnu and Hun/West. You should had make effort to change your edits, and so far you have not been doing so since your revert. Now I gonna restored back my references, you cannot just removed or deleted a well-sourced references on my parts by presvered yours. It shows that you had absolute no interest of cooperate with other users. And judging from what Gumilev's translations, I must said that they probably having a problem with reading classical Chinese sources, now you might not agreed with me, but I believe I have the right to point it out on a talk pages, I had never said your sources is not valid. Lastly, for the naming of the article, please read WP:WTA and WP:NC "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers worldwide would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.", since your edits contain so many ambiguous words and naming, its better to change/remove it. Now I do not wish to make myself circling over and over again over this never ending discussion, its get tried all the time, as I met alots same lame incidents with smugness liars, at the moment please do not revert it until progress/solution is make. Eiorgiomugini 20:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for offer of cooperation. I respect your references, you respect mine, and no rv war. I should note that with added meat the article already looks better that the old "This article is terrible", as one editor wisely remarked. It needs a balance against lopsidedness, that's for sure. Barefact 06:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: with your permission, gentlemen, I was going to accomodate Eiorgiomugini, because he put so much efforts, and start this coming weekend where he left it, to avoid fighting and counting on his respect of the references outside of the Chinese control, and archeology outside of the Chinese territory. I was going to restore the contents fitting them in the overall skeleton of the Table of Contents, and de-Chinese the terms that have equivalent English terminology, providing the pinyin in brackets to respect the initial Chinese sources. I would try to avoid any confrontation, like I did in the first round, when I did not delete, but complemented the contents. Barefact 22:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Dingling antropology 

message: With all the modifications to the article, it is in need of serious copyediting.  For example, footnote references are supposed to come after the end of the sentence (ie. the period).  Also the grammar is not very English.  I hope my changes don't get reverted. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 04:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: The language section is poor.
*What are Russian linguists seemingly specializing in Slavic languages supposed to know of this subject?  Who are these guys?
*What is the full citation for Heinrich Werner's piece?
*These sound like "cutting-edge" theories and not yet mainstream scholarly POV in which case this article should probably describe them as such.
--Stacey Doljack Borsody 05:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: I pulled out my copy of "A History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia: Volume 1" by David Christian () to see what information it contains regarding Dingling et al.  In the index under "Ting-ling" it says to see "T'ieh-le" and none of the other alternate names are listed.  The first mention of T'ieh-le are on page 184 in a chapter regarding the origins of the Hsiung-nu Empire.  In a sentence not connected with the T'ieh-le I found mention of this:
Chinese sources even record a Hsiung-nu tribe of the fourth century BCE whose men had large noses and red beards.
I saw that and thought back to the earlier arguments regarding red beards and Chinese sources on this talk page in reference to the Dingling.  Maybe there is some confusion here regarding which group of people the Chinese sources record as having red beards?  There is no footnote for that statement.
Regarding the T'ieh-le, pg 184 says:
To the west, the tribes known in Chinese sources as the Ting-ling and later as T'ieh-le (and linked to the Turkic Oghur) may have spoken early forms of Turkic.
The footnote for this statement references Peter Golden's "An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples" (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992), pgs 93-95 and says:
They probably occupied a region extending from Lake Baikal to the Minusinsk basin, and may have been represented by the Tagar culture of the seventh to third centuries BCE."
My copy of Andras Rona-Tas' "Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages" also mentions this connection of the Dingling with the Oghur, but I don't have it on hand at the moment to look up the references.  I think I'm going to try to track down a copy of the work by Peter Golden to explore this idea further.
--Stacey Doljack Borsody 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dingling antropology from Chinese chronicles (yet again) 

message: Sima Guang was born in 1019 A.D. according to his Wiki page.  The Dingling ceased to exist about 500 years before he wrote anything.  How can he be considered a "Primary Source". Certainly he is an almost 1000 year old secondary source.  Turkuman 23:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sima Guang

message: Please see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. There is no "main editor" concept in Wikipedia. Cbdorsett 05:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be better, in an article like this that has so many citations, that the Harvard system is better than ordinary footnotes. Look at the existing footnotes section - lots and lots of duplicate information. The Harvard style would greatly reduce this. Sure, there are lots of people with the last name Lu, but not all of them write about this topic, and not all of those are listed in the bibliography section. We have one book by Lu, and it is fully identified in the bibliography, so in this article, Lu p. 5 is very easy to understand. If Lu wrote two books that we are using in the article, then we differentiate them by the year: Lul 2003 and Lu 2005. If he wrote two in the same year, they are differentiated by extra letters after the year: Lu 2005a and Lu 2005b.
Do you agree?
I read WP:REF and discovered that I should not have started changing from one style to the other without first getting a general agreement on the talk page. I will be happy to reverse my error, but please first consider my suggestion about the Harvard style.
About the chapter numbers: they are normally not given in citations, as they do not help the user find the page. All books have chapters, but the page numbers start from 1 and keep going to the end of the book.
Cbdorsett 12:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing problems

message: It was mentioned above regarding the large number of citations on the article.  I question if they are all really needed.  Aren't citations more used for "making claims" and not so much for facts?  Take the following for example:
Does the first sentence need a citation?  That seems like a fact that is commonly known and isn't likely to be challenged.  Compare with the claim that "Gaoche" and "Tiele" replaced the word "Dingling" later on.  The citation there seems appropriate.  I've read longer articles (and even books) that didn't use so many citations.  Think about Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources. Thoughts? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 19:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: A History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia: Volume 1 by David Christian () says of the T'o-Pa:
Their language, like that of the Hsien-pi, seems to have been close to Mongol, but there were also Turkic-speaking elements amongst them.
Is there a source specifically saying that the Dingling and Toba were related or are we just saying so based upon language?  --Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toba 

message: The last time I checked this article was so well written, neutral, clear, cited, and concise.  It distinguished very clearly between gaoche, tiele, tingling, ect. and their relationships to each other, their cultural and geographical context,ect.  Moreoever, it did so in way that accessible to a NON-EXPERT READER.  What I am reading now is a confused jumble of facts written in incorrect english grammer (to my eye it looks like someone ran either chinese or turkish through translation software and posted the result).  How does this article help me understand who the Tiele were?  The lengthy discussion of internal politics in the Gokturk Qaghanate is a redundant (if not confusing) duplication of what already exists in the articles on the Gokturks.
Unless someone can give me a compelling reason, or a great deal of editing occurs I suggest this article be reverted.
--Gurdjieff (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if reverting will be all that useful compared to just cleaning it up.  I've tried awhile ago to clean up the English.  All that stuff was written by a non-English speaker. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what happened to this article !? 

message: In «Wikipedia» Panturkists write clauses which in the scientific world for true are not accepted by anybody and in any encyclopedias are not presented. Except for unless what are published in Turkey.Pay attention how much artfully here it is deformed the question on language of Dinglings: “Xiongnu, Hunyu and Xinli are identified as proto-Turks by Pulleyblank, who argued a Palaeo-Siberian connection for the Xiongnu's language”. What to understand particularly in this case as the term «proto-Turks»? Pulleyblank completely denied relationship Hun Language with Turkic and considered, that Huns spoke in the Yenisseian languages (one of which was kept till now, it Ket language), see: Pulleyblank E.G. The Consonantal system of old Chinese. The Hsiutig-nu Language. Asia Major, New Series (vol. IX), pt. 2, London, 1962,p. 239-265. See:   Etienne de la Vassiere. Xiongnu http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v5f5/v5f5a004.html "Furthermore, the language of the Xiongnu has been the subject of the most varied hypotheses based on the few words, mainly titles or names of persons, which have been preserved in the Chinese sources: Altaic, Iranian (Bailey, 1985, which has not been followed) and Proto-Siberian (Ket). At present, the hypothesis of Pulleyblank (1962) in favor of Ket seems to be the most well-founded (Vovin, 2000), although it is by no means certain that all of the tribal groups of the confederation belonged to the same linguistic group nor that the late Xiongnu distich was representative of the language (Di Cosmo, 2002, pp. 163-65)".                       Absolutely not clearly, what for it was required to include here a theme about relationship Paleo-Siberian (read "Yenisseian") languages with American Indian Na-Dene? Besides if it seems necessary why then is not present words about relationship Yenisseian with the Sino-Tibetan and North Caucasian languages? Meanwhile, linguists consider, that North Caucasian and Sino-Tibetan is more closer Yenisseian, than Na-Dene. According to 35-Words to the list of basic lexicon Yakhontov the general lexicon makes: North Caucasian - Yenisseian 57%, North-caucasian - Tibeto-Burman 51%, North Caucasian - Old Chineze 43%.See: Old Chinese vocabulary: A historical perspective// Journal of Chinese Linguistics, Monograph Series No 8 ("The Ancestry of Chinese Language"), ed. by William S.-Y. Wang, pp. 225-251. Project on Linguistic Analysis, Berkeley, 1995. What for in general to write in clause devoted Dinglings about Gao-Che and the Tele? A Tele- people of the non-turkic People "Di" which have mixed up with Turks. "Di", "Dinglings" peoples were not Turkic .--81.24.80.233 (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PALEO-SIBERIANS ARE YENISSEIANS

message: Why not make a separate page for the Tiele? As it now is they take up a disproportionate part of the article, which is supposed to be about the Dingling. There is enough material to merit a separate page.--Joostik (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Split

message: Following template was left in the article:
The ones describing them as "red haired, blue-eyed giants" are Ahmad Dani and Janos Harmatta; the author (Adrienne Mayor) is simply quoting their work "Nomads in Eastern Central Asia". There's nothing in either book that relates Budini to Dingling specifically. 
From Ahmad and Harmatta, pg.155:
The oft-repeated description of Dingling as looking this way is formulated from Soviet archaeological and anthropological research, which has inferred the appearance of the Dingling, based on the human remains from the Altai region, as well as the statistical observation that the Kyrgyz people, who are considered descendants of Dingling, have a higher rate of attributes like blue eyes and blond hair than would be expected if they did not have significant ancestry from blond and blue eyed people. And researchers have agreed upon the Dingling as the source. An incomplete list of the history of this research can be found here. 
This is also explained by Gordon T. Bowles p. 362:
This view isn't based so much on direct descriptions of Dingling Chinese from chronicles, and it doesn't have to be. It's based mainly on anthropological evidence, and it's been accepted by the majority of historians for 100 years. So there's really no dispute to be had here, authors continue to describe the Dingling's appearance this way and they don't have to cite an ancient Chinese source for it. There are other ways of determining that the Dingling had such-and-such features, and most authors have gone with this one. - Hunan201p (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Hunan201p OK if that is the case that makes sense, although it would have been better had the source they were citing been made clear. It is odd that the Herodotus quotation on the Budini was included in the Mayor source if they did not have any relation to the Dingling. 122.147.172.216 (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adrienne Mayor