Talk:Dungan alphabets

Mention of Chinese characters and the Hui people’s language in the page

User:Modun has deleted several of my edits (which I made from other IPs) on the following grounds:

the Dungans and Hui, are supposedly distinct people
the page “should only discuss the writing system of the Dungans exclusively”

One such argument this user made, is that, in contradiction to a source I provided which stated the following: “ ‘Dungan,’ a Russian word, describes Muslim people of ethnic Chinese descent”, the user deleted my edits on the basis of that “This is not quite a Russian word, it is a Turkic term that was borrowed into the Russian language.”, which is original research, without a reference. The user also says “The Dungans were officially singled out as a separate ethnic group, therefore they are considered separate from the Hui people”, which falls under an opinion, as it contradicts things I have provided sources for. I feel it is necessary to point out that:

my edits were sufficiently sourced
my edits provide encyclopaedic content that is relevant (as I have sufficiently demonstrated the connection between the Hui and the Dungans, which quite frankly should not even be questioned as even the Wikipedia pages for these groups extensively discuss in detail the connection between the two)
the last revision deemed acceptable to my colleague, states “In China, to write texts in their native Chinese language, the Huizu used either characters”. While what “characters” refers to is seemingly vague, heuristically speaking in this context it refers to none other than Chinese characters. At no point in my edit did I introduce original research or personal claims, but merely split off existing content in the page to its own section.

I would also like to inform my colleague, that to revert multiple edits it is not necessary to manually revert each edit, and rather it is sufficient to edit the last “acceptable” edit and publish that revision to perform reversion. 2605:8D80:13E5:D48:24C1:C830:53EC:1848 (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "original research"? It is described literally in the first paragraph of the main article "Dungan language" in a brief history. Just open the article and read. The source you indicated simply mentioned in passing that “Dungan” is a Russian word and this interview is simply an advertisement for some local Dungan café.

Here is a source that briefly describes the history of the Dungans in the countries of Central Asia (from the history of migration to language, including clarification of the ethnonym): 1. Here is a small excerpt from this article. The article is in Russian, so I will translate this small part for you:

russian: “ Как только хуэй попали на территорию Российской империи, им было присвоено другое название — дунгане, — происходящее от тюркского «дөн-ген/dön-gen», что в переводе означает «обратившийся», «возвращенный», или в смысле обращенности в ислам, или в смысле возвращения в лоно ислама после своей «обращенности» к китайской культуре и языку. Буквальный перевод иероглифа «хуэй» (回, Huí) означает «вращение», «возвращение», «круг».”

english: “As soon as the Hui arrived on the territory of the Russian Empire, they were given another name - Dungans - which comes from the Turkic "dön-gen", which means "converted", "returned", either in the sense of conversion to Islam, or in the sense of returning to the bosom of Islam after their "conversion" to Chinese culture and language. The literal translation of the hieroglyph "Hui" (回, Huí) means "rotation", "return", "circle".” Modun (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I am to grant you the things you say here, regarding the etymology of the word “Dungan”, or «дунган» as it is in Russian, none of them contradict my citations that demonstrate the link between Hui and Dungan peoples. Nor do they invalidate the informative relevancy of what was added. Based on these, I continue to maintain my stance that my edits should be included.

I also believe it should be mentioned that these citations appear also on the Dungan people Wikipedia page.

2605:8D80:13E5:D48:24C1:C830:53EC:1848 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the Dungans are a fragment of the Hui people. Yes, Dungan is essentially a variant of Mandarin. But the Dungan people were singled out for socio-linguistic reasons. Accordingly, their language was singled out for the same reasons, and is essentially one of the standards of Mandarin. But the Hui in China do not have their own separate language (even if we take into account that they are spread throughout China and speak different dialects), and the Dungans have their own separate language, which developed independently of the rest of the Hui. Ultimately, the article is about the development of writing of a specific language, and not about the Hui. Modun (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but none of my edits served to “derail” or change the general topic of the pages in any large or even notable capacity. All they did was include a few lines mentioning the language of their ancestor ethnic group, and the writing system used by them (and the fact that their ancestor group continues to use the Chinese writing system). It is not significantly changing the topic of the pages, and in fact I believe it would help a reader understand the differences between the Dungans and the Hui by mentioning at what point their writing system broke from the Chinese writing system entirely. 72.136.112.242 (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I have not heard an objection, are my edits now acceptable to you? I will proceed with restoring my edits if so. 2605:8D80:13E5:D48:A526:7224:D956:1388 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]