Talk:Dingling

About Dingling antropology from Chinese chronicles

Probably Dinglings or dinlins are not tieles. The antropology of Dinlins is well-known . --User:Giorgiomugnaini

Look, friend, there's no such things as "tattoed giants with red hair Dinlin" in Chinese chronicles, I had check every possible primary sources and none of them refer to what you said. Unless you quoted a Chinese sources that stated "tattoed giants with red hair Dinlin" to me, if not, DON'T TRY to make any rv, the antropology of Dingling is UNKNOWN. --User:Dingling

I think you confuse Dinlins with Tieles. They were two different peoples, lived in two different periods. It is well accepted that Dinlins were europeoids. --Giorgiomugnaini

How could they be two different peoples when the Chinese chronicles stated they were the same people from the DIFFERENT PERIODS, it is not accepted, Dingling is not an europeoids, since the antropology of Dingling is UNKNOWN. --User:Dingling

And what about Wusuns? --User:Giorgiomugnaini

For Wusun, please visit Wusun, and please talk in the Dingling Discussion, so that all other people could seen it, for further assist on such issue in future. --User:Dingling

Well, you accept that europoids were in Uigur (and in Central Asia and Siberia), right? --User:Giorgiomugnaini

Of course, the modern Uyghur in Xinjiang had mixture largeness with the Tocharian and some Arabs after the 9th-century, they're different, and the Uyghur did not look anything like the europoid (blond) but more of Arab.

btw, what's your points?

--User:Dingling

Ok. I will search for primary sources about dinlins. Now I have only russian literature. But It is important to observe that if we identify Dinlins with the siberian Afanasian culture, then the dinlins were really paleo-europoids (red-beard, light eyes) . Right? See you later. --User:Giorgiomugnaini

Oh sure, there's still one thing, before you quote anything please be sure to state the source (primary ones) that you quote from. To be exact, I need the Chinese source that is stated "tattoed giants with red hair" to me, other than that you can give-it-up.

btw, there's no we, I had never identify the Dingling with such neolithic culture, since the concept of ethno-dinlins at that time wasn't even exist, not to mention anything of proto.

--User:Dingling

Indeed in the neolithic, We can not speak of Dinlins.
But The (russian) proposal is that the dinlins could be the descendants of Afanasian and then Tagar cultures. However I want to ask some questions:

• Do you confirm that Dinlins lived near Yenisey river and in Minusinsk basin, with a branch in Dzungaria?
• Do you confirm that the abovementioned (and controversial) physical description can be adapt to Kiagasz (ancient Kirgyzes or ancient Khakass)?

Please, tranquillize yourself, I'm not a supremacist. I have appreciated the humoristic description of Wusuns. The antropological differences between different peoples always generate such comical situations. Do wou know the description of Huns (probably a branch of Hsiung-nu) by Ammianus Marcellinus, a Latin writer? See you later. --User:Giorgiomugnaini

I've another point. So, do you think that the russian sources are somewhat wrong?--User:Giorgiomugnaini.

You should be the one that should tranquillize yourself, you seem like a supremacist to me whether you prefer or not. What the poor russian could did is only a proposal, and its a possibilities out of 100%, either one way or another Dinglings antropology remain unknown in the Chinese chronicles, which is not the case you referred "tattoed giants with red hair Dinlin" from Chinese chronicles.

Since the Chinese chronicles clearly mentioned Dinglings live basically or wholly in the Lake Baikal on the river of Lena (or maybe the story of Su Wu could tells the truth, he was the one that get expelled to this region, and get tease by the Dinglings), and since you insist to find the primary sources of "tattoed giants with red hair Dinlin", I'm glad to not stopping you from spending time. But pointing out the Huns case are even of poor example, the Huns were different from Xiongnu, they should be considered as the a possible immigrants of Xiongnu with mixture of Alans, Germanic, Roman, etc, etc, Oh yes, and maybe the poor russsian :)

--User:Dingling

I know that Huns were different from Hsiung-nu. Indeed I used the expression: 'probably a branch of Hsiung-nu;, well? But it is commonly accepted that a part of Hsiung-nu produced the main body of people of Huns. However you don't answered me about Yenisey Kirgizes. I want to repeat that I'm not a supremacist. I find amusing the fact that some peoples of "Barbarians of North" can have some european features (see the incipit of "Tale of Water Margin", also known as "The Brigands of Liangshan Moor") . Ok?

--User:Giorgiomugnaini.

And so what's your point on the Huns thing? You seem like a supremacist to me, even if you repeated a 100 times. And please, IF you're trying to quote a source please state a ch: or volume under Tale of Water Margin, so that the other people could understand what you're trying to said.

btw, answer you on what about Yenisey Kirgizes?

--User:Dingling

Chapter 1, the description of Luta (and also the description of Yang-Chich, in another chapter). If you remember:

• Do you confirm that the abovementioned (and controversial) physical description can be adapt to Kiagasz (ancient Kirgyzes (yenisey kirgyzes) or ancient Khakass)?--User:Giorgiomugnaini.

And what regarding the Chapter 1 on the europeans features? Also the Yenisey Kirgiz tribes that mentioned on Chinese chronicles clearly state there were two type of antropology (One black hair and eyes, another blue eye with coloured hair) for the tribes, which antropology are you referring to?

btw, you haven't answered me what's your point on Huns+Hsiung-nu thing, why do you give this example.

--User:Dingling

I have given the example of Huns, because it is normal that a people does not appreciate the physical fatures of a different population (the macacus aspect of Wusun, remember?)

In my version of this book, Luta has a red beard, as the barbarians of North. If you have not such passage, perhaps your documentations is corrupted or also censored. The blue eyes and coloured hair are the feature I refer. --User:Giorgiomugnaini

I'm so sorry that I had upset you, but the version of mine, state that Liu Tang is a "red hair warrior"�?and there's a different between hair and beard，he has a vermilion mark on his beard which earned this title, he is from T'ungluchow. It doesn't mentioned anything on the barbarians of North. Perhaps your documentations is corrupted or also censored by the russian government.

btw, even so you referred the blue eyes and coloured hair, what exactly is your point of it? You should have answered me what's your point on the Huns+Hsiung-nu thing, why do you give this example?

--User:Dingling

I have given the example of Huns, because it is normal that a people does not appreciate the physical fatures of a different population (the macacus aspect of Wusun, remember?)

The point is that some barbarian peoples, or also some chineses, had (or have) some uncommon fatures. --user:Giorgiomuganini

Well, that's not a point, how could it be normal that a person does not appreciate the physical features of a different population, what exactly is your point? And so do you meant to say that those features (blue eyes, brown hair) in some Chinese population actually belonged to the european features? Are they considered as europeans too?

--User:Dingling

202.156.6.54, if you're going to sign as "User:Dingling," you should seriously considering registering as "Dingling." As it stands, people can justifiably believe that you are forging signatures, which is considered a serious offense in Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that such features appear most frequently among europoids, in this sense are "europeans". I'have written about Huns (ugly for Romans), because someone ;-) written that Wusuns were ugly for Chineses. --User:Giorgiomugnaini

For the features of Mongoloid please visit Mongoloid, you are claiming something that is not even exisit, so if blue eye and brown hair meaning europoids, does that mean peoples of europoids from other part of asia, such as the cases for Arab, etc (black hair and eyes) are in some way Mongoloid? --User:Dingling

"someone written that Wusuns were ugly for Chineses" I don't understand what exactly is your point, its not a self-written statement, it a sources from chronicles. -- Eiorgiomugini

Ok. There was a misunderstanding. But what awful Id ! ;-) Indeed, I have improperly used the term europoid in the sense of Paleo-europoid (Cromagnon), because such features seem they were more common in the european Prehistory. I wouldn't use the awful expression "Nordic" european. Ugh. However, I have seen several interesting images of Mongoloids with fair or red hair on the Web. --User:Giorgiomugnaini

Oh sorry, Its the Id I choosen. But you havan't answered my question, if blue eye and brown hair meaning europoids, does that mean peoples of europoids from other part of asia, such as the cases for Arab, etc (black hair and eyes) are in some way Mongoloid, do they have Mongoloid genes? Which is why they have black hair and eyes. --Eiorgiomugini

The answer is: obviously not. Moreover, I do not say that light (eyes|beard|hair) necessarily imply European ancestry (in some cases, obviously yes). I want only to say that the (paleo-) antropology of Eurasia is very complicated. --User:Giorgiomugnaini.

This is not what you said earlier. you seem to imply that peoples with coloured hair or eyes feature are common only among euopreans. I need a explanation on that. Since black hair and eyes are Mongoloid, Arabs should had be considered as part of Mongoloid genes too, why is it obviously not the case? Don't try to elope out of it --Eiorgiomugini

I hope you accept that light features are more common among nord-european, right? The problem is the origins of light features. If such features appeared first among Cromagnons, or not. If yes, we can state that such features are paelo-europoid, and perhaps it could be diffused on other populations, in the paleolithic or neolithic. But it is only an Hypothesys! --User:Giorgiomugnaini

Black hair and eyes are largely diffused in negroids, mongoloids, and so on... And obviously also in Europoid (Arabs, Indians of India ...)!

Well, that would be strange since the europeans look different from each other, I could simply point out an example, such as the cases for Texan as compare to that English who lives in British Isles, they looks different. So do you seems to imply and said that the populations of europoids that includes black hair and eyes, are the result from diffused on other populations, such as cases from Mongoloid, in the paleolithic or neolithic? Since black hair and eyes are Mongoloid --Eiorgiomugini

I have not understood what you want to demonstrate, but I think that now the discussion is not concerning Dinlins, right?. However the concerning point is that, probably, in the Bronze age some Iranics and Tocharians merged with proto-turks in Central Asia and Siberia. This hypothesys does not seem too strange , or scandalous. What do you think about it?. --User:Giorgiomugnaini

Well, it could be, since the Iranics are generally having black eyes and hair, with darker skin, the Chinese in some sense are whiter than them, or maybe the Chinese are europoids? I thought you said that this is not a concerning of Dinlins anymore, why do you keep discuss about the coloured eyes and hairs of europoids? Do you want to talk about it? I can talk about it, I would love to hear your explanation --Eiorgiomugini

The early iranics had often a somewhat fair complexion (see for example the modern iranic Ossetians). Indeed the modern Iranians ( inhabitants of Iran) are often dark. The main idea was that the Dinlins and also Kyrgyzes were a fusion of steppe-iranics (or tocahrians) with proto-turks. Now, probably this is not the case for Dinlins, if an antropological reference for Dinlins does not really exist in Chinese literature. --User:giorgiomugnaini.

The early iranics? Which part of the early iranics population are you talking about, because they looks different too. The Kyrgyz could be, but the Dinglings are not part of the steppe-iranics, because the features of Dinglings are unknown, I'm talking about the majority of them. It is not because that the antropological reference (usually not very detailed) does not really exist in Chinese literature, but the facts is these were only used as a differentiate for themseleves, unless there's a different circumstance, such as the cases for Yenisey Kyrgyz (Black hair and eyes, blue eyes and colour hair, remember?). But, since you are referring to an ideal, its nothing wrong then --Eiorgiomugini

Well, if I have understood, you admit the possibility that at least Kyrgyzes contained early iranics or tocharians elements. Right? However it is a very shame not to know the Chinese language. Bye! --User:Giorgiomugnaini

Gaoche means Göç(migration) in Turkic langs

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)

Gaoche literary means High wheel, it had got nothing to do with a common semantic, so before you rised your hands and asked a question, at least grasp a clue on that. Eiorgiomugini 01:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

About Dingling antropology

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)

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)

Again another POV, I had see no made comments on that, I don't care if the non-English sources were to exclude from English wikipedia. So far I had seen no resemble for your sources you provided with my Chinese sources. Is not the matters of excluding, but the whole article are pretty baised filled with bad english and racist comments, and its accuracy is somewhat twisted. Eiorgiomugini 03:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Please do not make such accuse, I don't see any excuse right here, I'm following accroding to the rules in wikipedia. This article itself is based wholly on L.Gumilev work alone, is pretty much baised in such case, and the comments in the article are clearly racist and fancy oriented, it talks about the antropology on Dingling that don't even existed under Chiense chronologies without an clear reference, In addition it also violated aginast WP:MOS-ZH style, I don't care what kinda of view you had on Gumilev, but citing an non-English sources without clear interpret is violated aginast WP:REF, this edits simply cannot stay. Eiorgiomugini 01:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say in WP:REF that non-English sources cannot be used on the English WP? Am I missing something here? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 02:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.

Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.

Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:

• Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
• Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.

Eiorgiomugini 03:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Well, first of all this article is badly translated, and secondly I couldn't even verify the sources. Here on my two my Chinese sources ISBN 7-2070-3325-7 and ISBN 7-5000-0016-2 mentions not a single hints on abt Dingling nor Di antropology that drawn from ancient Chinese chronologies references. So we have two sources in contradict here, one who explicitly said there's an antropology reference according to Chiense chronologies, another which said doesn't. Eiorgiomugini 03:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

I have a few problem with this edit, first of all there's no antropology reference for Dingling, and the connection between Sayan-Altai Afanasev culture is somewhat slur, Dingling do not dwell in between Sayan-Altai, if anything this connection had not even met scholarly consensus except maybe for some russian, this like the Xiongnu and Hun article should be separated. Most importantly, this article had forcus too much on the "Hun" than Dingling itself, so any related topics to Hun and not with Hun should be moved away, any Chinese naming must be used pinyin, such as the cases for Hun. Eiorgiomugini 01:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

There's no antropology reference for Dingling which believe I had repeated myself very clear. As for the location of the tribes you stated at the edits (based on Chinese chronologies) is quite different from my soures right here, Sayan-Altai Afanasev culture is by all means should be removed from the article as there's no scholarly consensus, the over-focus on Hun is not the point for this article, which is based on Dingling. The facts that there's just too little from extant documentation to make such addressing on the cultural influnce background for the Dingling. Eiorgiomugini 04:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Since you insisted, I had made several references for it under published materials, it makes very clear of it, this discussion can be end. Eiorgiomugini 06:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• You cannot remove/replace other people's sourced well-written contributions to push your own version. This is against Wiki-policies. Another user already warned you before [1]. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. On the other hand, sources other than English are also valid here. You cannot ignore them as you did here [2]. See WP:Verifiability One more note, your contribution history [3] reveals that you're stalking Barefact's contributions. Do not do that again! See WP:STALK. Thank you. E104421 21:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Right down here I had three to four sources that supported my view, how many does he have? So tell me which should I believe. Plus his source was old and contain pre-1960 researchs. We have both well sourced and written contributions for article here. Eiorgiomugini 02:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• The number of references does not confirm that yours are more valid and others are less. You should look for evidence and reliability. Do not remove other users contributions to push your version. Regards. E104421 03:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, number of references does confirm to be more valid than that are less based upon NPOV. I will take that as a POV from you, I had no idea what did you meant by I'm pushing my version, all references are based on published sources, and I had nothing to do with it. Gumilev relies on the works of antropologists such as Debets, Ismaigulov etc drawn from primary sources, which is considered as tertiary sources. While mine are based directly from primary sources, published by scholar under a secdonary sources. Here is what WP:RS said:

Three classes of sources exist, each of which can be used within Wikipedia:

• A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term mainly refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, and court records. Experts usually have advanced training, and use as many different primary sources as are available so they can be checked against each other. Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources.

• Secondary—The informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion. In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources.

• Tertiary—Summarized material drawn from secondary sources, as in general encyclopedias. These sources generally lack adequate coverage of the topic to be considered comprehensive where arguments are subtle and nuanced. They generally do not discuss and evaluate alternative interpretations. Tertiary sources can be used for names, spellings, locations, dates and dimensions. Articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and similar encyclopedias can be regarded as reliable secondary sources. (Unsigned articles, and those signed "X." are less reliable.)

Tertiary source–––Where a primary source presents material from a first-hand witness to a phenomenon, and a secondary source provides commentary, analysis and criticism of primary sources, a tertiary source is a selection and compilation of primary and secondary sources. While the distinction between primary source and secondary source is essential in historiography, the distinction between these sources of evidence and tertiary sources is more peripheral, and is more relevant to the practice of scholarship than to the content.

Furthermore his book is not subjected the topic of Dingling, but the 'History of Hun People", and not all topic covered the contexts over this. See:

These issues are particularly pertinent to Wikipedia where various editors involved in an article may have their own expertise or position with respect to the topic. Not all sources on a topic are equally reliable, and some sources will have differing degrees of reliability in different contexts. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors. Common sense is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically. If you have questions about a source's reliability, discuss with other editors on the article's talk page, or if the source is already used in the article, you can draw attention to it with the {{unreliable}} template.

Here I found another source, which is in English, also does supported my view [4] by Elina-Qian Xu. Since English sources is preferably, or should we just use this. Eiorgiomugini 04:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• You cannot delete other users edits to push your version. E104421 04:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I take it that you do not wish to discuss this matters specifically with me, go ahead and report me if want, I don't care at all. Eiorgiomugini 04:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• You're not respectful to other editors. That's the point. You can always add more information or try to balance the article. However, simply ignoring the sources other than yours is not a way to be accepted. I'm always ready to discuss the issues, if you stop removing the edits of other users in a disrespecful way. Regards. E104421 04:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In what way did you see that I'm being disrespecful, infact I pay attention to to every of other comments, you said that I'm ignoring the sources other than mine, and either is to you too to remove all my referenced article. The facts that both sources are in contradict to each others badly, which cannot be survival in the same article. So do you have any suggestions. Or maybe we should use the English one. Eiorgiomugini 04:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, you deleted paragraphs of sourced information just because you do not like. You are free to add information all the time, but do not remove other users contributions to push your own. That's why i reverted your edits. You should explain your arguments first in the talk/discussion pages before deleting the others. You're just claiming that your references are good and others are bad. You're not discussing the issues. This is not a respectful way. E104421 04:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You claims that I deleted those paragraphs because I do not like it, but this isn't turth at all. Furthermore, I had explained why those paragraphs should be removed, please read the discussion before you revert the article. Eiorgiomugini 04:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

I will take it that you did it inadvertent, but its still excuse. I'm sorry, but in my estimation, the only way to fix those sections would be to rewrite it from scratch, as you can see both our sources are in contradict to each others very badly. Even explaining what's wrong with each sentence would take far more words than were in the section itself. Which is what I'm doing now, your edits on antropology mentions nothing about excavations. Eiorgiomugini 09:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

You should take a look at your edits, before you come up with somethings. There's no anthropologial references for Dingling, and I had made myself clear of that as alwadys do, I do have my sources to support it. For your removal of Hun and Sayan-Altai Afanasev culture paragraphs and the changes of namings I had explained, you should look back. Eiorgiomugini 10:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have strong feelings, and I want to respect your contributions. But blanking contents is not contribution. [[5]] states: "The article should represent the POV of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." In this respect Gumilev is a "main scholar and specialist" who "produced reliable sources on the issue". Your editing should preserve the POV of "main scholar and specialist", not wipe it out in violation of WP rules. Hun and Sayan-Altai Afanasev culture paragraphs are not mine, they are POV of "main scholar and specialist", and therefore can't be deleted or blanked. I suggest that we cooperate instead of fighting. Barefact 19:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no strong feelings involved right here, I am very happy for a cooperation if you could come out with a better solution. I had read every rules on the WP, and I had take a look on what WP:POV had said:

At Wikipedia, points of view (POV) are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. The article should represent the POV of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue. The policy does not mean that all the POV of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented.

In Thought du Jour Harold Geneen has stated:

"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)

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)

• To Eiorgiomugini: Please, do not delete the contributions of other Wikipedians to push your own. This is nothing but content forking. I reverted your edits, you could add them to the article without deleting the previous content. If you continue deleting/removing the paragraphs of sourced information, i'll revert it to a version prior to your disruption. Regards. E104421 11:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I had been writing the article very hard for the past few days, just because of people like you, and I hope that you would not disputed it, If you intend to do so please go ahead, by summing-up these I had already explained the whole contents for this article merge would not work if the other edits did not changes. Eiorgiomugini 13:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thank you for your understanding, and I appreciated that, this discussion had not been wasted so far like the many of past tiring disputes that some of us had been through. I really believe that this reverting war is not quite necessarily seriously, and to aviod that we should make effort on changing the ambiguous words/naming or some cross referencing without OR. At the meantime, I would try to expand on the eariler section for Gaoche and the rest of the contents as much as possible, if you gonna bring over your contents, please do so without constructing much controversial subjects. As I said, the article cannot just contradicting itself for nothing, and by doing that we should first stop the disputed reverting war. Eiorgiomugini 09:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• To Eiorgiomugini: I'm reverting just because you're deleting the previous content in favor if yours. I appreciate your efforts but you should respect the efforts of other users, too. Do not delete them. If you're not agree with them, carry these to the talk/discussion pages first, but do not remove them without reasoning. You can always put "citation needed" tags where you're suspicious on the validity of the argument. Now, i'm letting you to replace the previous content you removed to its place. Regards. E104421 10:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

e104421, I already told you about what happening. And no, you're not "letting" anythings to anyone else. I will not reverted it back, so please don't waste your breath anymore further, I did discussed on the matters and reasoning, and there's no reasons for me to discuss it further with you anymore now. If you are gonna revert it, go ahead and revert it, putting a tags over it will not solved the problem, as both edits are sourced. Eiorgiomugini 14:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• To Eiorgiomugini: See straw man! Regards. E104421 08:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

References

Copyedit

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)

If the meaning of a sentence is changed, it is better to talk about it here instead of reverting back to incorrect English and language that does not flow smoothly. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 07:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, all revision on English had been restored, sorry for the troublesome, I was making fmt over the ref numbers for the notes. Eiorgiomugini 07:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's try this. If I make an edit that changes the meaning too much, you try to rewrite it instead of reverting the edit. I have a hard time fixing some sentences because I don't understand 100% what you wrote. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am the one that tried to expand the article here since from the start, no offend taken by the way since you have a hard time of reading it. Maybe you shouldn't bother to fix it and let someone else with better ability to do it. Eiorgiomugini 01:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

---

This is a difficult sentence to deal with.

After the disintegration of the Eastern Qaghanate in 630, many of the Turk nobles were resettled to the Chinese border and some in the capital by June 28.

Problem constructions are "to the Chinese border" and the conjuction "and some in the capital". Firstly, which side of the border were they resettled to? Or did they straddle the border? Second, it maybe better to split it into two sentences or three sentences.

After the disintegration of the Eastern Qaghanate in 630, many of the Turk nobles were resettled at the Chinese border by June 28. A smaller number of Turk nobles were resettled in the capital.

Another option, although this doesn't distinguish the quantity of nobles that resettled in the two different places:

After the disintegration of the Eastern Qaghanate in 630, many Turk nobles were resettled either at the Chines border or in the capital by June 28

See the problem? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I will take the first one instead. Eiorgiomugini 04:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There's full details on the settling from my book, but don't have to be specific, after all this isn't a article of Gokturk. After 630 (by June 28), a number of 100,000 were settled at northern Shaanxi, Shanxi and what's now southern Inner Mongolia under six prefectures between You (Hebei) to Lingzhou (Ningxia) and 10,000 households/yurts into the capital, that's what I got from the pages. Eiorgiomugini 05:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Language

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)

Dingling antropology from Chinese chronicles (yet again)

I pulled out my copy of "A History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia: Volume 1" by David Christian (ISBN 0631208143) 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)

First of all, the earlier arguments regarding not just to "red beards", but alot more to it, such as tatoo, giant, blonde hair, elongated face, white skin, straight nose and so forth and some other related or off-topic issues included as the discussion went further. I will expand more about Onoq (not to be confused with Oghur) in a meantime, as my book is not at my hand at the moment. I will changed the title to correspond what we're disucssing right here. About red beards I must said that, there's no records for that on the Xiongnu besides Wusun, which was only given at much later date. Dingling did not extended to Yenisei (Minusinsk), there's a lot sources to support this. As for Xiongnu antropology, David Christian did not give us a clue where did he get this from, and his book doesn't cover all topic for the content right here, but just a page. Regards. Eiorgiomugini 01:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sima Guang

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)

Well, I only had this book for exact dates, and some details, which I found it useful. However, most of the sources and dates in Zhizhi tongjian were largely reporduced (quote) from the Twenty-Four Histories, much like the cases for Shiji and Hanshu, infact Sima Guang took more sources from Jiutangshu and Tongdian more so than Xintangshu. The only different is the style, which is in the chronologically manners. Eiorgiomugini 00:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing problems

Please see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. There is no "main editor" concept in Wikipedia. Cbdorsett 05:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You had changed the citation I provided. Don't changed the sources pp and ch. Eiorgiomugini 14:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The only changes to your citations were formatting. We normally do not use chapter numbers (unless, of course, each chapter starts over with page 1). If you are telling me that some of your sources do this, please confirm and I will put all the affected chapter numbers back. You don't have to do it - I will take responsibility for my own mistake. Just let me know. Cbdorsett 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you did removed some of the pp., please look over it. I don't understand, if a book provided its chapter numbers, then what's the reason for us to avoid using it? What I am doing here is a full citations over the footnote, streamlined the line won't help, as there's alot of scholars bear with a common last name (in pinyin). See foot notes examples from WP:REF. Eiorgiomugini 15:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

I'm not saying its not a good advice or suggest, but is this really necessary? I meant after reading through WP:HARV, it takes alot of work and time to change them from one style to another, not to mention about the consistency of style on all the notes. Some of the articles does indeed had its own foot noting style. Althought it might be rarely happened, Author A that bear with a common last name might had written a book in the same year with Author B, I don't think using Lu or Luu is a good indication, after all the name are short as you can see, we don't really have much choices but to provide their name in full. Eiorgiomugini 20:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to info that I had made changes on the foot note to a similar style of WP:HARV which had been suggested on the talk page, however, I still don't think the shortern form are very good with the identification, since name like Li and Lu often got confused easily. I am thinking of changing back to its full citations style, however, I think it would be keep for some time until a book of same author are listed here. Regards Eiorgiomugini 08:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who is reading an article about China and can't tell the difference between Li and Lu needs new glasses. If the family name is sufficient for Western authors, there is no reason that Asian authors should be treated any differently. If there are two authors by the name of Li, then of course, we use either the full first name or initials.

Regarding the citation style, I think most articles use a blend of the two citation formats. It's still being discussed.

Can you please answer my question about the page numbering in your original sources? If we truly need the chapter numbers, I want to fix my mistake as soon as possible. Thanks. Cbdorsett 19:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As I had mentioned earlier on my edits through the summary, I have no problem with the chapter numbers, since each chapter does not starts over with page 1 and therefore not needed to be indicated as you suggested. The only problem came with the citation formats, since many authors would had bear with a common last name and confusing when a particular name are short, as I said earlier not all articles in wiki used the same style. Eiorgiomugini 22:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations

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:

They adopted the last name Zhai (翟) and founded a dynasty known as Wei during the Sixteen Kingdoms period.[16] The name "Dingling" was replaced by "Gaoche" and "Tiele" in historic records between the 4th century and 7th century. Since the word "Dingling" was interchangeable with "Gaoche", "Chile" and "Tiele" and gradually replaced through times, its very hard to reconstruct the early history of the tribes.[17]

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)

I don't see any harm to provide a number of citations over the article. For example, "Some...Sixteen Kingdoms period.[16]" and "The name "Dingling" history of the tribes.[17]" are two separated citations, and needed to be cited. The problem came with the less notable of the subjects that mention itself, not even a several search engines would help. So it really doesn't matter whether they are commonly known or anything, as there is a good reason behind to suspect that others might had not even heard of Zhai or Wei. Eiorgiomugini 22:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Toba

A History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia: Volume 1 by David Christian (ISBN 0631208143) 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)

My book actually stated that many of their clans were related to Gaoche if not the Xiongnu. We could be certain that some of them were related to Gaoche themselves. And also, "related ethnic groups" doesn't meant both must be essential shared the same orign or something. I'm trying to expand the article section about Turgesh, though I had been busying with my work lately. Eiorgiomugini 20:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

what happened to this article !?

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)

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)

PALEO-SIBERIANS ARE YENISSEIANS

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)

Proposed Split

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)

Adrienne Mayor

Following template was left in the article:

The Lee & Kuang source says that the Chinese histories did not provide a description of the Dingling, so who are the ones describing them here as "red-haired, blue-eyed giants"? The citation provided in the source only mentions Herodotus describing the Budini as "large, red-headed, and blue-eyed." Is there any other source which relates the Dingling to the Budini?

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:

"in A.d. 93, they were attacked by an alliance of the Chinese and Southern Hsiung-nu from the south, by the Ding-ling, red-bearded, blue-eyed giants from the north, and by the Hsien-pi from the east."

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: Soviet scientists claim that the Kirghiz have the highest percentages of blue and mixed eyes, blondism and fair skin [...] These characteristics have been cited as evidence that they incorporated the descendants of the 'blonde, blue - green - eyed' Din Lin of Chinese annals ...

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)

@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)