Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chonos tribe


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep. Cúchullain t/ c 07:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Chonos tribe

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

While the Mongolian word "chono" does indeed mean "wolf", the rest of the article seems to be entirely OR. It is the only work of its creator, who is unlikely to return for adding sources. Other than stated, Genghis Khan belonged to the Borjigin, which is probably the only Mongolian tribe notable enough to justify its own WP article. --Latebird 01:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Needs a template on article page .--Sandahl 01:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed John Vandenberg 02:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice to re-creation, unless references are found and added. I disagree with the nominator that no Mongolian clan other than the Borjigin is worthy of an article, but that will have to be decided when other such articles are made.  - Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, sorry for references - they are just added. There are Rashid ad-Din and Altan Tobchi, also Gumilev and Kozin. The tribe is still exist, so I hope you do not want to delete the article. Some people say Chonos is a remains of Ashina (Gumilev supposed that Ashina was a mongol-speaking tribe of Wolf, Kozin called 70 chonos boys, who was boiled by jamuha after Zeren, princes. - but. of course, in a such way big part of mongolians can calls themselves nobles... Chonos - tribe with a very long history, that still existing, so maybe it is no need to delete the article, just read Rashid ad-Din, where he writes about old and new mongolian tribes, or see Altan Tobgchi where about Zeren battle or Mongolian Old tribes. If somebody does not know books about mongolian history it is better to read than to offer to delete the article...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arasha (talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that the tribe existed/exists. The question is whether the information you gave us is enough to justify an article in an encyclopedia. Right now, the text just claims they are "famous", but doesn't explain what it is that makes them famous. The only substantial information you give us is: "the tribe exists, and it joined Genghis Khan back then". That is not enough, and doesn't distuinguish them from any other Mongolian tribe. Listing half a dozen books doesn't really help either. The relevant information needs to be in the article. If you prefer that people read the books themselfes, then it is clearly not necessary to *keep* the article... --Latebird 19:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The story of the 70 boys (or princes) being boilt to death by Jamukha is also mentioned in one sentence in the Secret history of the Mongols, however this was the only reference I could find on the Chinos in that work, but then I didn't look too hard, either. But IMO it's hard to establish notability just because of some very short mention in old texts (or are the passages in Rashid ad-Din's work any longer?) and the fact that a same clan name exists today. Even then, Outer Mongolians seem to just pick a clan name they like, so the existence of that name there doesn't seem to prove much, and I'm actually unaware of clan names now being used in Inner Mongolia, though I might just be ignorant.
 * Maybe it would be useful to first create a useful reference on clan names among the different mongolian peoples, before proceeding to create entries for the more notable clans Yaan 08:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A general article on Mongolian clans would be most helpful, at least in my opinion, and give this article some of the context it needs to address claims that this particular clan is "not notable." If these clans are as wide ranging as this article's text suggests, they would end up resembling a Roman gens, and as such have no real notability problems.  I gather that the references to Rashid ad-Din and the other added references are names of individual authors; letting us know the names of the books in which the information is found would also be helpful.  - Smerdis of Tlön 14:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Altan Tobchi is the name of a mongolian chronicle from the 17th century, Rashid ad-Din is an author from the 13/14th century, Lev Gumilev's book is probably Ancient turks (wrong date in the english article?), Kozin is a Russian mongolist who also did some work on the secret history.
 * Are there sources that mention the usage of clan names in 19th/early 20th century Outer Mongolia (i.e. before the socialists allegedly suppressed them)? Just curious. Yaan 16:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In Mongolia, information on the clan association of most families has been lost during socialism, because it was suppressed from official documents. After democratization in 1992, people were allowed to register their clan names again, but most of the claims were really unfounded, with a disproportionate number flocking to the most prestigious "borjigin". In some cases, new names were made up (eg "sansar" = "space" for the first Mongolian cosmonaut Jügderdemidiin Gürragchaa). All in all, the topic is only of historical relevance. Clan names are purely symbolic today, and have no practical purpose other than to brag about it with your friends. The situation may be different in Inner Mongolia and Buryatia, but most likely only marginally so. I have no idea if we'll be able to gather enough material for a Mongolian clans article (I'm not even sure if there's a comprehensive list of names available somewhere). Maybe a paragraph of two in Mongolian name would serve the same purpose? --Latebird 15:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Understand your position, sorry for my bad English. 1. I just wanted to open an article about tribe I belonged to, and make our WP more rich of knowledge. Also, as I supposed, perhaps it was interesting to some mongolists. For example, L.N. Gumilev in "Ancient Rus and Great Steppe" wrote, that he did not understand why among thousands killed in battle od Zeren 70 Chonos are mentioned, and he wrote that it is interesting what is it. And he wrote in some books that Ashina was a tribe of Wolf and mongol-tongued. So for some people maybe it would be interesting. Then in Buryatia and Irkutskaya provence I met people who belong to Chonos too (I am from Kalmykia). Then one guy from China said that in Inner Mongolia there was a tribe in Chinese named LangZu, tribe of Wolf, but he did know Mongolian name. Some guys from Mongolia said that Chonos is a part of Borjigin or Borjigin is a part of Chonos, (Borchigin is a Bor Chono/Chino - Grey Wolf, when Chonos is Wolves). In May 2007 National Geography had took 50 probes of genetic of members of Chonos tribe to search it (and 250 of others Kalmyk tribes). And many old Mongolian tribes, as Kereits, Taichiuts (Chonos in 13 century belonged to Taichiuts), Merkets, Hoits and Derbet, Choros, Hoshud, Torgouts-Keshictens etc. 2.In Kalmykia we very carefully look at tribes, and during soviet period most tribes, relatives and male lines were saved. as you know, among western mongols was not a melting pot.


 * Well, any verifiable information based on reliable published sources would indeed be very interesting. Unfortunately, both are missing from your text.
 * Btw: According to my dictionary, "bor" means brown, not grey (that would be "saaral" or "orog"), so your "grey wolf" theory may also need some more checking. --Latebird 23:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It's badly in need of more referencing, but it doesn't appear to be OR.  Edward321 22:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

about grey or brown - hz - my english is not good enough and I do not have time to use dictionary. I suppose it is no need to delete the article. I do not have Rashid ad-Din now, but still remember that you can find description of the tribe, including one Persian emir, among descriptions of old and new mongolian tribes. Arasha 07:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep verifiable not OR, found a reference and added it, but needs more work and sources.--Sandahl 19:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * comment - The existence of the tribe was never debated. But somehow the question whether the article sufficiently asserts notability seems to have fallen under the table between all the details. --Latebird 21:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, but clean up and expand significantly. BovineBeast 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable, possible OR G  1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 00:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty of reliable sources; the first one written by Charles Darwin in The Quarterly Review about the adventures of HMS Beagle. The question of notability is laughable; there has been no clear rationale for why a tribe would be not notable. John Vandenberg 01:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Enough notability. Also, per the sources shown right above (Jayvdb´s "Keep") ♠ TomasBat  01:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Folks, the "Chonos tribe" reported about by Charles Darwin (and probably most of the other sources) has absolutely nothing to do with our topic here. Or did you seriously think that his HMS Beagle passed through Mongolia on the way to Polynesia? Those sources that actually do talk about Mongolia usually say little more than "this tribe exists". That doesn't make it notable, and it also doesn't offer enough material to "expand significantly" as some demanded (not that I'd object to any sourced expansion, mind you). --Latebird 01:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Latebird is correct; the Chonos tribe I linked to above is/was above the Strait of Magellan somewhere. John Vandenberg 05:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources provided on the article all at least appear to exist. I've updated the article to point to two of them; the other two sources need to be clarified:
 * "Gumilev 1967" returns three different results, but looks probable and is in English, but only held at Harvard University Library
 * "Kozin 1941" returns four results which all appear to be the same book
 * Given this, I think a merge to Kalmyk people (with history retained) is an appropriate outcome. John Vandenberg 06:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * According the the passing mention in the external link (Mongol tribes in the 6th century? hmmm...), a possible place to mention the Chonos would be in Dörbet. But that may only be one of several other tribes that assimilated former Chonos members over the centuries.
 * As has already been mentioned, the ancient Mongol tribes were of a rather volatile nature. Tribal association was only partly a matter of inheritage, but also one of individual agreement. Tribes were created, merged, split, and otherwise remodelled along the lines of shifting alliances as a matter of routine. As a result, any group of Mongols existing today may include a few descendants of the original Chonos. The same can be said about quite a number of other tribes as well, and I don't see any information in the article that makes this one more notable than the other ones. I still hope that someone might dig up a list of the two or three dozen original clan names, which we then can collect appropriately into an article Early Mongol tribes (or similar). That would hopefully eliminate any desire to create a whole series of articles, all saying nothing more than: "this is one of the Mongol tribes that originally joined Genghis Khan and its descendents still exist among the Mongols of today". --Latebird 16:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not start it right now, with this one, and add others as possible? DGG 17:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.