Talk:Dvals

Forceful Removal of Sourced Material and Discussion of Dvals as a Proposed Nakh people

Well, I can understand the debate over the use of the category of Nakh peoples, however, the deletion of sourced material is completely uncalled for. It is not OR, so technically it is "protected" if you prefer, with a citation next to it. And may I add that my citation was the only properly cited instance in the whole page (which didn't use intext citations, nor did they give pages, meaning no one really knows if the books actually say what you say they do), so in a way it does considerable damage to the article (though that's not my objective, to admit). I will be putting back the CITED MATERIAL momentarily.

Regarding whether the Dvals were Nakh... personally I believe it is likely. But what I believe, or what Taamu believes, or what Bouron believes, what Alaexis believes, etc... is all pointless. The actual beliefs of the authorities hover between two viewpoints:

1. The Dvals were Nakh, like a number of their neighbors (Dzurdzuks to the East, Malkh to the West, etc.).

2. The Dvals were completely untraceable linguistically/culturally.

I believe I more or less made it clear that the first viewpoint (which the ethnic Circassian, Caucasian historian Amjad Jaimoukham, who I cited, endorses, among many others) is not universally excepted. I seriously fail to see why there is any excuse what so ever for censoring Jaimoukha's arguments. Let's portray BOTH sides of the dispute over the Dvals' ethnicity, why don't we?

As for the category, I may be making a Nakh peoples template. When I do, the Dvals, just like the Tsanars and others we aren't 100% sure about will be included in "postulated but unconfirmed members" or something to that like. I put it in the Nakh peoples category with that status. I could, if you prefer, make a separate category for "unconfirmed" though I view that as being mainly unnecessary. --Yalens (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

They can be a Nakh people. But there is still no consensus on this issue. Nowadays people from Dvaletia (or Tualgom in Ossetic) consider themselves to be Ossetians. But at the same time Georgians consider Dvaleti to be a historical province of Georgia. So, let's keep the status quo, it would be better if Dvals are just the old people in the Caucasus. Taamu (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yalens, What about provement of that theory?

The actual beliefs of the authorities hover between two viewpoints:

1. The Dvals were Nakh, like a number of their neighbors (Dzurdzuks to the East, Malkh to the West, etc.).

2. The Dvals were completely untraceable linguistically/culturally.

This shows your real knowledge in this topic.

Who are that autorities? Please provide us their names and links to their works. Also you should explain why your source passed all rules from WP:RS.

Please provide link for this "Jaimoukha, Amjad. The Chechens: A Handbook- Partial Ancestry and Kindred Peoples" This is source on questionable information. it should be verifiable. And explain Why the source of unknown circassian author about chechen people is super important and super reliable on Twals, modern part of ossetians?

Please give us the statements from your sources of the conclusion "Twals are Nakh people".

Now I am reverting your edit because the source is unverified, unreliable and questionable.--Bouron (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

@Bouron: Luckily for me, Jaimoukha's book happens to be available for partial view online: here- http://books.google.com/books?id=PnjAlei9fe0C&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=Dvals+Chechens+Jaimoukha&source=bl&ots=cBdGsyn3uD&sig=S-_XrHPwTc3lxot38j3IAPN1JBc&hl=en&ei=65EfTKixK4G78ga4mvGRDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false .

In any case, may I point out the double-standard here: my source was the only one that was cited in the text and gave pages on this whole article (meaning the rest of your info is therefore even more questionable than my sourced info), and without the dead link that I removed (which, may I add, had little to do with the topic at hand, taking place outside the Caucasus) there weren't really any citations at all. How can you say that the info that you have on this page, written by Ossetes but lacking citations of any sort whatsoever, is somehow better than the info written by a non-Ossete, yet with citations, but which happens to be viewed as objectionable by Ossete nationalism? I agree that the Dvals were not necessarily Nakh- however, censorship via deletion of sourced (and now linked to online viewing) material is simply not warranted, and it is not acceptable either. I seriously do not see what is so wrong about showing both viewpoints.

I may also add: now, it seems Bouron has intentionally edited the page in a way so that the Nakh origin theory is not mentioned at all- before I first edited, it was. While I have tried to compromise (I did not readd the category, the primary piece of contention between Taamu and myself), Bouron has pushed it farther in his own direction. --Yalens (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I may add, further, now, it seems Bouron has added the controversial- and may I add, unsourced!- info about the Dvals speaking a dialect of Ossetian named for the geographic region (and not necessarily for any ethnic linkage). I will be reverting this, as it seems to clearly be expression of an Ossete nationalist viewpoint, and may I add, one that has contempt for the rules of citation. --Yalens (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

1) about your source. (!!!)Modern living person, who is not expert neither in nakh people nor in indo-european people, wrote in his book about chechens this "...At the turn of the new era, Nakh people in the trans caucasus were comprised of the dzurdzuks....and Dvals in the west...". The only mention about dvals in the whole book and now it is reliable.(!!!) and Yalens believed that stronger than Christians believe Holly Bible. What that is named?-Double standarts. If not, POV-pusher. --Bouron (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Its actually not the only mention of them(though there is sparce mention of them in the book, as they are not the main topic). It is the only mention of them available from Google Books, however. Amjad Jaimoukha is, in fact an expert in Caucasian history, as his job is a Caucasian historian. In any case, my info is certainly not below yours in verifiability, which completely lacks proper citation. As you may note on his page on wiki, he has wide acclaim as a unique expert on the subject. As a side note, I would prefer if you didn't excessively use (!!!). It is tiresome to read, and it gives the impression you are very angry and cannot control yourself. --Yalens (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

2)Where are statements?.--Bouron (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe I put them in the citations now, did I not?--Yalens (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

3)Dvals and modern day Twals had connection with Georgia all the time they are in the south. So Georgian Historians such as Vakhushti and others sure are reliable. They are not ossetian sources.--Bouron (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree that Dvals had a strong connection with Georgia- which is why they ended up practicing Georgian culture and language, much like the inhabitants of Kakheti. Dvals percieved themselves as part of Georgia and contributed immensely to the Georgian state. As for the Dvals speaking Ossetic, I will have to see a translated Vakhushti work, with at least a name rather than "Vakhushti says so and so" before I believe that Dvals had any connection to the modern South Ossetes. Regarding the Ossetes of the Transcaucasus, the majority opinion is that they migrated there, fleeing Mongol raids. Dvals were hence distinct from Ossetes, and had been there longer. Perhaps the Ossetes assimilated many Dvals (as the Georgians did), through intermarriage or whatever, but this does not make the Dvals ancestors culturally of the modern Ossete populace moreso than the Georgian populace. --Yalens (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

4)I am going to provide example of medieval dvals text which was analyzed by russian scientist(after that, I hope, you will change your opinion). please dont delete it with ou taking a look. I advise you expand your knowledge using section additional literature. I am going to provide links for them--Bouron (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am very interested in seeing these. Please provide links when you edit, however, not after a long hiatus. And as a side note, I still see no reason why my cited info should be deleted. If you can find contradictory evidence, why don't we portray both sides of the argument and let the readers decide for themselves? If you can find a well-sourced opinion of a scholar to contrast mine, I will happily include both in the article.--Yalens (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

---

@Taamu: Yes, this is actually a reasonably good point. I acknowledge it, which is why I said that if we ever include the Dvals as Nakh, they should be as a "postulated member". It is also why I have not readded the category yet before discussion of this point. It seems, unfortunately, however, that with Bouron's mass deletion of sourced info, I have a more important debate at hand, so I have simply left it, as you wish, without inclusion in the category until we have a chance to discuss this. --Yalens (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my mistakes. I hope you will correct my style in future. (!!!) this is for accenting your attention to your source. The book contains only one word dvals. if not, provide another source or give us statements of that source. like my statemens: facts, quotations of famous historians. moreover the book is on chechen history.

I have extremely poor internet connection in tskhinval so excuse me for beeing late with links.

your author is expert in circassian history, not caucasian.--Bouron (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As I noted before, the book is not about Dvals, so its only natural that there only be a couple references to them. I believe there are a couple that you do not see do to Google books blocking the pages, and the book also isn't the only place Jaimoukha notes them. Jaimoukha is a Circassian, but he is an expert in the history of the Caucasus as a whole, and writes books (like The Chechens) on others. Primarily he wants to educate Westerners (writing in English and French) about the Circassians and their culture, but its probably that he felt sorry for Chechens (he hinted at this in the intro), and he wanted to help prove to the West that we are civilized people with the needs of a civilized people rather than animal-like barbarians as many people have come to view Chechens (seriously, when I tell someone I'm Chechen, one time someone asked me if my relatives had blown anything up recently... it was supposed to be a joke, but it really wasn't funny). That's why he wrote about Chechens. But his works show much knowledge not only on Circassians and Chechens, but on the Caucasus as a whole. --Yalens (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.theotokou.org/bulletins/Oct03holy.html

I am removing it, as when I try to load it, it results in the "Not Found" error... perhaps if someone can find a working page, please put it back up. There is no point in having a non-working page as a citation, however.--Yalens (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I will provide another link.--Bouron (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nakh version

Yalens, please avoid that style you used in this section. You should write

"...Paris is the capital of France<ref>Johns book</ref><ref>Bills book</ref><ref>Martins book</ref><ref>Georges book</ref>...

instead this

"...John wrote in his book that Paris is the capital of France. Also Bill backed the same. Hi said The capital of France is Paris. Martin Notes that Paris is the capital of France. So do George writing in his book that France capital is Paris..."

Second is for talk page. Please keep first style in this article.

This is the reason of my Changes. And provide sources of Melikashvili and Gamrekeli works. --Bouron (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You can feel free to change the citation method. However, I want to put it in each author separately if the authors have slightly diverging views. For example:

The view Gamrekeli and Jaimoukha is that the Dvals were completely Nakh in language, culture etc.
Melikishvilli's view is that the Dvals were Nakh, but unlike Gamrekeli, he compounds this with evidence from modern Nakh clans (i.e. the foreign origin clan of Dvali)
Kuznetsov's view is that the Dvals were not Nakh, but however, there is evidence of the presence of a Nakh people who were not the Dvals, but there before the Dvals.

...and so on. The views are not equivalent, that's why I prefer to separate them. Gamrekeli and Jaimoukha are different, even though their view is the same, because Jaimoukha is modern and Gamrekeli is not, and there are certain differences (although small) in their views.--Yalens (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets call another experienced wikipedian.--Bouron (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Kuznetsov

Yalens, soorry. Kuznetsov really said that. He wrote "древ ний этноним, восходящий к эпохе Наири-Урарту, когда осетин и алан еще не существовало, первоначально был привязан к какому-то автохтонному кав казскому племени. Его принадлежность к протовайнахо-дагестанскому кругу населения Кавказа I тыс. до н. э.— первой половины I тыс. н. э. совершенно не исключена."(I hope you speak russian). But he didn't support Nakh version. He just didnt deny that.

I think we need more experienced wikipedian. What do you think about it?--Bouron (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I never said he supported the Nakh version. He doesn't, I agree with you. What I said is that he did state that there were Nakh placenames in South Ossetia, and that's all that I said he said. Whether he supported it or not is not the question. Its whether he noted the presence of the placenames. --Yalens (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

His quote on the placenames is here: "В горах Северной и Южной Осетии встречаются топонимы вайнахского происхождения: Цей (в Чечено-Ингушетии Цой), Лиа:дон (приток Ардона, Туалгом) и Лиа-хи (Лиахви)."

That he stated that there are Nakh placenames does not mean he supports the theory. It means that he notes that there are Nakh placenames only. I never said he supported the theory. --Yalens (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

But this article is about Dvals. We need connection of that with dvals. If he didnt supported that version why do yo placed that information. But he didnt deny that. So we can put it to article.--Bouron (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Kuznetsov doesn't support it. But he is an academic, and the data that he draws up, the Nakh placenames, are important to the debate, because they show there WAS a Nakh presence in South Ossetia, which may or may not have been the Dvals. So yes, I believe it is important with regards to the Dvals, because it is relevant to the debate about who they were.--Yalens (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)