Affiliations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
China Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Central Asia Start‑class Low‑importance Donghu people is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Archive box collapsible

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• OK! First, I want to say that I am a little bit busy of late, so I may take a day or two to respond sometimes. I am glad to help with this discussion, I just wanted to let you know. Anyway, you suggest the revision of 23 Oct. I will revert thereto barring dissent within the next day or so. Check back then so we can start discussing. In the meantime, consider thinking over the most pressing changes to the 23 Oct. version that will be needed. Then you will be ready to start discussing. —Finn Casey * * * 01:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion above, I have restored to the Commencement Version of the article. Please do not make any edits to the article without discussing them here! We will open discussion regarding potential changes within the next couple of days. —Finn Casey * * * 21:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, when we begin, discussion will be in this format:

If you are concerned about the wording of a line in the article, try posting with this format:

1. (Current text of article)
2. (Proposed revision)
3. (Short explanation of why the change is a good idea - under 100 words)
4. (Sources)

• We can thus discuss small sections of the article in a concise way.
• If the sources section is not included with independent secondary sources that directly support the proposed revision, the revision should be summarily rejected and ignored.
• Thanks again to all for the enthusiasm and good editing!

—Finn Casey * * * 21:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we remove the final unreferenced sentence?

1. 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）.^{[citation needed]}"
2. Proposed revision: Delete.
3. Explanation: Tagged three months for lacking citation.
4. Sources: Can't find any English references or reliable Chinese ones.

Can anyone provide good sources? Keahapana (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 *Tûngɣâg,^[1] *Tungg'o,^[2] *Tewnggaɣ,^[3] *Tongga,^[4] and *Tôŋgâ.^[5]

• 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. Template:Zh icon
• 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. Template:Zh icon

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)[reply]

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)[reply]