Talk:Dongyi

message: 舜·东夷是华夏族（汉族）的证据
It is recorded that the early Dongyi people of Shandong and the Xia Dynasty were the same ancestors. The Y-DNA test results of Longshan culture is O2M122, which is the gene of Han(汉族） nationality，Longshan culture is the predecessor of Yueshi culture (Dongyi people)
《史记》:虞舜者，名曰重华。重华父曰瞽叟，瞽叟父曰桥牛，桥牛父曰句望，句望父曰敬康，敬康父曰穷蝉，穷蝉父曰帝颛顼，颛顼父曰昌意:以至舜七世矣。自从穷蝉以至帝舜，皆微为庶人。
这是《史记》对舜祖先的记载，我们可以知道昌意是舜的祖先，接下来，让我们看看昌意的父母是谁？
《史记》载:"黄帝居轩辕之丘，而娶西陵氏之女，是为嫘祖。嫘祖为黄帝正妃，嫘祖今河南西平县人，嫘祖生二子，其后皆有天下;其一曰玄嚣，是为青阳，青阳降居江水;其二曰昌意，降居若水。"
  
这还是《史记》的记载，大概意思就是黄帝有两个儿子，一个叫玄嚣（少昊），可以知道舜的祖先是黄帝，黄帝与炎帝的后代统称华夏族，也就是汉族前身，
《孟子》说：舜生于诸冯，迁于负夏，卒于呜条，东夷之人也。文王生于岐周卒于毕郢，西夷之人也。地之相去也，千有余里
  从《孟子》中可知舜是东夷人结合以上两条记载我们完全可以知道东夷人是黄帝的子孙（华夏族），但是今天有很多韩国人声称东夷是韩国人祖先，这是极为荒谬与愚蠢的，难道黄河文明的黄帝是韩国人祖先？还是黄帝是韩国人？韩国近年来一直声称东夷人是韩国人，并声称“汉字是韩国人祖先东夷人发明的文字，中国专家也承认”In recent years, South Korea has been claiming that the Dongyi people are Korean, and claiming that "Chinese characters were invented by the ancestors of the Korean people, the Dongyi people, which Chinese experts also admit（However, Chinese experts do not say so）".（然而中国专家们只承认山东东夷是汉族祖先，并不承认汉字与韩国有关，However, Chinese experts only admit that the Dongyi people of Shandong Province are the ancestors of the Han nationality, not that the Chinese characters are related to Korea，It is believed that Korea intentionally confused the Shandong Dongyi with the last Dongyi，The Shandong Dongyi had nothing to do with Korea and the late Dongyi）。尤其是陈泰夏这类韩国教授，也使许多山东网友愤怒。其次中国人所说的东夷是岳石文化，龙山文化，大汶口文化等一脉相承的中国东部史前文化，而龙山文化的骨刻文是中国最早且较为完整的文字，且东夷人的龙山文化中的DNA被测出是O2M122，是汉族的主体基因。并且汉朝之前的东夷与汉朝之后的东夷并不相同，汉朝之后的东夷是高句丽，百济，三韩，日本，琉球，满洲等国家，而汉朝前的东夷是黄河中下游的居民，并且汉族本身就起源于黄河中下游，东夷本身就是一种方位词，像“西夷”一样被用来指代周朝与夏朝，而韩国的历史发明家们就是把早期的黄河东夷与后期东夷曲解为一个民族。要是韩国人真的与黄河东夷有关系的话，那为什么黄河的地区比半岛地区早很长一段时间？为什么韩国没有与东夷文化类似的文物？为什么连“琉球”这个与东亚民族没有太大关系的国家也算作东夷？难道整个东亚都是韩国人的？他们选择性无视东夷龙山文化的DNA测序结果，拿着汉朝之后的史书声称“东夷人是韩国人祖先”并且在《后汉书·东夷列传》中连箕子，卫满这些华夏族都被称作东夷，这完全证明了东夷只是一个方位词，但是韩国人拿着《后汉书》的资料却无视华夏族卫满与华夏族箕子，日本，琉球，满族祖先也被称作东夷，好在山东地区对东夷历史的教育做的还不错，没有被韩国的历史发明家蒙骗，笔者认为东夷文化比汉服还要重要，因为华夏族就起源于黄河东夷地区（山东以及其他省份），是黄河文明的起源，不能把我们的源头拱手让人，中国政府也应该多加宣传黄河东夷，以防韩国再次盯上黄河东夷。有些韩国人以某些汉语的发音类似于韩语的原因声称“汉字是韩国祖先东夷人发明的”，并且陈泰夏的东夷汉字事件还被韩国政府拿来宣传，发到韩国的新闻媒体上（陈泰夏是韩国人）。是极为令人反感的。东夷龙山文化确实发明了汉字，但是东夷龙山文化不是韩国的史前文化！
*龙山文化：是岳石文化的前身，大汶口文化的继承者，发明了骨刻文，但骨刻文原型是贾湖刻符，岳石文化与史书中记载的东夷部落的地理方位，文化特征一致，所以龙山文化，岳石文化被称作东夷人
*O2M122：汉族主体基因，山东汉人的O2M122在汉人中是最多的，原名是O3M122，但之后因O1与旧O2合并了所以O3改名为O2
*《后汉书》是明朝时期的书籍
It is recorded in the historical records that Chiyou（蚩尤） and Shaohao（少昊） were the sons of Emperor Yan and Emperor Huang, but they were both leaders of the Eastern Yi, and the ancestors of the Xia Dynasty were also leaders of the Eastern Yi (the ancestors of the Xia Dynasty were nephews of Shaohao).And Chiyou's descendants are Miao people and Han people, their genes are the branch or ontology of O2M122.
本文章在2021年3月16日发表在中文维基百科的“讨论”中
文章在2021年3月5日编写
作者：3H文化科普数据库（哔哩哔哩账号）  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3H cultural database (talk • contribs) 12:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: 3H cultural database

message: *Cai Fengshu 蔡鳳書, Kodai Santō bunka to kōryū 古代山東文化と交流, Higashi Ajia to hantō kūkan 東アジアと『半島空間』, pp. 45-58, 2003.
*Luan Fengshi 栾丰实, 论"夷"和"东夷" (On "Yi" and "Dong Yi"), Zhongyuan Wenwu 中原文物 (Cultural Relics of Central China), 2002.1, pp. 16-20.
*Matsumaru Michio 松丸道雄, Kanji kigen mondai no shintenkai 漢字起源問題の新展開, Chūgoku kodai no moji to bunka 中国古代の文字と文化, 1999.
*Matsumaru Michio 松丸道雄 and Takashima Ken'ichi 高嶋謙一 ed., Kōkotsumoji Jishaku Sōran 甲骨文字字釋綜覽, 1994.
*Shirakawa Shizuka 白川静, Jitō 字統, 2004.
*Tang Jiahong 唐嘉弘, 东夷及其历史地位, Shixue yuekan 史学月刊, 1989.4, pp.37-46.
*Xu Guanghui 徐光輝, Kodai no bōgyo shūraku to seidōki bunka no kōryū 古代の防御集落と青銅器文化の交流, Higashi Ajia to hantō kūkan 東アジアと『半島空間』, pp. 21-44, 2003.
*
--Nanshu 00:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: It seems that those very same claims are currently being written into the article at Three Gojoseon. Those interested in the topic here may want to go over there for a look. --Yuje 06:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "absurd claims"

message: I find some of the interpretation of 夷 in Oracle script as 尸 in this article ridiculous and naive. Some of the Oracle scripts of Yi look like a side view of sitting man.(sometimes sitting on a bench). Its shape may share some similarity with that of the morden day Chinese character 尸. But the oracle scripts of 夷 and 尸 look totally different. They are totally two different characters in both ancient and modern usage. There is no Chinese dictionary equals these two. Can "姨" be interpretated as female corpse? I suggest to have these ridiculous content removed from the article. Coasilve 20:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The character 夷

message: Sorry I'm late. And a lot of things are on my stack.
I restored the original content because no one has clarified the reasons for deletion. Some informally gave the reasons but they targeted the section as a whole, not each part of the section. Note that this article contains a fair-use image that will be deleted if unused.
Now I give a short comment on Ocleta's replacement.
:In South Korea, the Chinese characters for Dongyi is pronounced dong-i (동이).  It is considered by Koreans as the name that the Chinese used to call the people to its east.  It is thought to refer to the various peoples of this geographic region, rather that a specific ethnicity, although the term later expanded to include specific ethnic groups. Yahoo Korea Encyclopedia article
This short encyclopedia article is not helpful because they don't provide verifiable detailed account. As a matter of fact, they don't contradict the description I wrote.
The rest is included in the interim edition. I will work on  it later. --Nanshu (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User: Nanshu, I had left my opinion on your talk page. First, the "bowmen" theory is not defunct. It is everywhere and I have added sources in the article. Second, according to the source you provided, "Confucious is Korean" is just someone's personal opinion that appeared in a discussion forum of a website. That is not a suitable source. Someone had already clarified this nonsense. Please don't add these information to this article again. Third, as for whether Koreans consider Dongyi as one ethnic group or not. You didn't provide any source. User:Ocleta provided a source for his statement. I'm not sure whether the source has such information or not, because I don't know Korean language. You seem to know Korean. Maybe you can check it out youself. If it is provided in the source. I think you at least should not delete his information. Coasilve (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: South Korea section

message: These are citations from Classic Chinese history records:
*《左傳》稱：「紂克東夷而損其身」。
*《礼记·射义》载：“挥作弓，夷牟作矢。
These are sources from peer reviewed acamedic journals:
*何德亮,“试论青州地区的东夷文化”, <<管子学刊>>2009年 第01期.
*逄振镐, "从图像文字到甲骨文——史前东夷文字史略", 《中原文物》2002年第2期
*韩建业, 杨新改; "大汶口文化的立鸟陶器和瓶形陶文"《江汉考古》2008年第3期
*俞伟超:《龙山文化与良渚文化衰变的奥秘》, 《纪念城子崖遗址发掘60 周年国际学术讨论会文集》, 齐鲁书社, 1993 年   
These are sources from Chinese government or government media:
*神秘东夷甲骨文现山东 疑比殷墟甲骨早千年雅安市档案局, 2008年10月27日
*东夷及其文化发展 山东省情网
*追寻东夷族的文化足迹 新华网 
This article is about Dongyi, not about the meaming of Yi. It should focus on Dongyi people's history, culture etc.  Ecourr (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of grammer, the paragraphs you contributed are badly-written and poorly constructed; they have no cohesion and seems like they were put together hastly and then puted onto the article.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Now, the three Chinese "peer-reviewed" articles    you provided (there aren't much English language information about these "academic journals" and the host site http://www.cqvip.com/ is a commercial Chinese website) provided very little actual information.  Importantly, they do not support many of the claims you put forth, i.e. "Dongyi culture is one of the oldest civilization in China[1] and also the most advanced one in China at that time...oldest in China...more advanced culture...etc."  These articles talked about pottery, and written symbols, but THEY DID NOT make any concrete claims.   You seems to be simply interpretating sources on your behalf and putting in your own words.  Unless these three articles explictly states information concerns your claims, it is not acceptable to go to your own conclusions.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

text: These Chinese language Government sources are even harder to verify as they have no background sources and are largely anonymous.  Further, I noticed in several of the articles, the tone is hypothetical; they are not presented as "hard-evidences" but as "possibilities" and were simply asking "questions". Several of these articles' tone of voice makes them seem like commentary pieces and in a subjective "travelog-esque" manner (such as in this Xinhua article ).  That is especially a problem the way you are citing them, as to support direct "matter-of-fact" statements.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

text: You haven't addressed any of these questions. The sources are problematic and especially the way you use them to write your entire content is questionable.  Just think of a large chunk of badly-written paragraphs that only cites bunch of foreign-language sources (and interpret and translate their content at your own will) by several new account users suddenly appears on an article.--TheLeopard (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources about Dongyi 

message: *Classic Chinese history records:
**Zuo Zhuan, the Shang Dynasty was attacked by King Wu of Zhou while attacking Dongyi and collapsed afterwards. 《左傳》稱：「紂克東夷而損其身」。
**Shuowen Jiezi, It was the ancient Dongyi people Yimou who fist made the arrow.《说文解字·矢部》:“古者夷牟初作矢”
**Classic of Rites, It was Hui who made the bow and Yimo who made the arrow.《礼记·射义》: "挥作弓，夷牟作矢" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecourr (talk • contribs) 09:13, 19 February 2010  
::You are simply translating classic text in your own opinion.  Classical texts such as those shouldn't be used without sources that can offer elaboration, an explanation of the meaning. Can you provide English sources that can elaborate these classic texts?  Without that it could constitutes as original research, because the meaning of these classic text can be interpretated in various ways.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you don't understand Chinese. There is only one meaning for the words cited. The original source is also provided. Ecourr (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's "your translation" of the classic text.  You need to show translation from an actual source.  Its similar to you're writing a statement but cites a line of an ancient Greek text or Biblical text, instead of using actual scholarly sources that elaborate the meaning of the ancient text.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I think you need to learn Chinese before judging others. If a language can't convey exact meaning, it can't be considered a language. There is nothing wrong using classic Chinese when there is no English source. Ecourr (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use classic Chinese text, but within a source of course.  You can't just read a sentence of a classic Chinese text and then write information such as "xxx invented this" "xxx was the first" without any elaboration from an actual source.  It would be like directly interpreting a line of ancient Latin or Greek text on your own; the bottomline is you can't simply translate a classic text yourself and then use it.--TheLeopard (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Only relevant info are used. Unrelevant contents shouldn't be here. Ecourr (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The text mentioned nothing about Dongyi directly; you are simply linking them together.  Again, I think there are translation errors from Chinese, because I don't see the text as stating "most advanced" .  This is the problem with personal translation of foreign text, because you can translate in whichever way you want.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

text: The "Eastern Tribes" refers to Dongyi. The original title also directly uses "东夷", which is Dongyi. "在全国一直处于领先地位. " means the leading culuture or the most advanced in China." Ecourr (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This information does not correlates to mainstream Western academic studies at all; I've not seen any English language academic study that says the oracle bone script came from the writing system of Dongyi(???). This is definitely not a mainstream view.  Considering this Chinese source was published in 2002, can you offer any English sources to back this up?--TheLeopard (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Dongyi is uniquely Chinese. Chinese sources are most updated. Ecourr (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes no sense.  "Unqiuely Chinese.  Chinese sources are most updated"?  This article is about historical topics.  Do you see ancient Greek-related articles such as Mycenaean Greece or Archimedes use Greek language web articles?  If this is serious academic studies, then there has to be serious English language sources to back it up.  Otherwise, I even question the "notability" of these content you are trying to add.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

text: There is nothing wrong using Chinese sources when no equivalent English source is available. This article is from Chinese academic journal. There is nothing wrong with the source. Ecourr (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't translate the way the statement was phrased.  This statement is speculation and questions ("maybe" "if") and the author of the text stated in such fashion.  Shouldn't be used to state facts.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

text: You are neglecting these words "应该是由东夷建立的", which mean "it should be". Ecourr (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then its not a particularly well written statement and its contradictory because the previous word 也许 translate as "maybe".  The sentence is saying "maybe and should have been."  That's not a statement of fact, but a person's opinion.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

text: It didn't say "must". The only thing is your logic. Ecourr (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These government websites are not well-written sources; in my view they read more like essays (especially the Xinhua article, second one) and travel brochures than proper references.  The Shandong source has no authorship by the way.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Government sources are considered reliable sources in wikipedia. The Shangdon source is from the Infobase provided by the Shangdong Gov is more encyclopeida and more reliable. Ecourr (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Shangdon source is from the Infobase provided by the Shangdong Gov is more encyclopeida and more reliable"???  Huh?--TheLeopard (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Government sources can be reliable in terms of providing data and statistics (i.e. Chinese government sources for data of provinces), but not when it comes to archaeological research, art, etc, and very few uses them.  Where in Wikipedia's reliable sources does it say that their government sources are considered reliable in this case?--TheLeopard (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

text: These are historical facts provided by the Shangdong gov. It is not considered unreliable. The scope of these facts is within China not the whole world. Ecourr (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The "historical facts" provided in this Shangdong gov article  has no author, no citation page or bibliography, so how do you determine that its "historical facts" or considered "reliable"?  "The scope of these facts is within China not the whole world."  Really?  So these information are still notable?--TheLeopard (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Encylopedias don't have authorship, citation etc. These are not criteria for determining whether sources are reliable. Ecourr (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Its one thing to use information from a reputable English language encyclopedia that people know of, and can inquire about its academic reputation, and its another thing to compare it to a provincial government website in Chinese that many people cannot verify.  Prominent encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana and Columbia Encyclopedia gave you either information about its identified contributors or you can find information about its staff from the preface or index of the encyclopedia.  You can also find more information from its press/publishers (i.e. Columbia University Press).  Further, many prominent encyclopedias gave you a bibliography or list the contributing sources in the back.--TheLeopard (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Translated Reliable sources about Dongyi 

message: I found maps of some Dongyi powers. Does this help? --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

message: The recent POV pushing that the Chinese language can't have any words meaning "barbarian" resulted in damage this page and Donghu, which I've also reverted. See the discussion at Talk:Donghu people#"Barbarian/(derogatory) foreigner" again? 
I've assumed good faith that rewriting the quoted definition from Liang Shih-chiu's dictionary was an oversight of WP:QUOTE, and have clarified it. Keahapana (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're assuming that Chinese language "can't have words meaning barbarian", when in fact the most common use-term for barbarian (as in "savage", in which case, the English context is derogatory), is the term "野蠻" (yeman), which has the appropriate derogatory connotation; not "东夷", in which case the divisiveness of using the derogatory English term "barbarian" for this is overstated.Got Milked (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, the "barbarian" issue seems to be one of the more interesting aspects of Wikipedia these days. The "Dongyi" and "Donghu" articles both do seem to indeed share a parallel similarity in this regard. I have commented on the "barbarian" issue somewhat more extensively on the Donghu people talk page. Dcattell (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Barbarian/(derogatory) foreigner" again? 

message: Sorry CCH1234, while I can understand your desire to find sources that counter the derogatory semantics of Yi, the Shuowen definition of Qiang 羌 isn't one. Since several aspects of the current translation are puzzling, I checked the commentaries. Please read the 說文解字注. For instance, 夷俗仁 could conceivably mean "the Yi's customs [風俗] are benevolent", but actually means "Yi's common logograph [俗字] is 𡰥 [which the SWJZ lists as 夷's guwen graph].
Similarly, 君子不死之國 more likely refers to 君子之國 and 不死之國 in the Shanhaijing than literally "country of gentleman who never die". I will gladly cooperate with however you want to proceed. We could delete the current translation or work together on a better one. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Deleted. Keahapana (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistranslating Shuowen jiezi 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dongyi. 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/20090918133128/http://www.eastculture.com.cn:80/ to http://www.eastculture.com.cn/
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) 16:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: According to Laurent Sagart's Sino-Austronesian hypothesis, the Dongyi may have spoken an early type of Austronesian. The seafarers Austronesians and their related peoples (Tai-Kadai) may have stretched all along the eastern coast of what is now China, from Shandong down to Guangdong during the ancient times. Gustmeister (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language