Talk:Taiwanese aborigines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
Taiwanese aborigines is a current good article nominee. If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page.

Nomination date: 2007-03-20

Contents

[edit] "cooked" and "raw"

熟番 and 生番 should not be "literally" translated into "cooked-" or "raw-". although one of the meanings of 熟 and 生 are such, people who speak and read chinese know by context which meaning is implied, and would not cognitively think "cooked" or "raw" when used in the above manner. an example in english is the word "live" - which can be pronounced in two different ways with different meanings (ie, "to be alive" or "in person"), depending on context.

You are entirely correct. Maybe the terms "assimilated" and "unassimilated" would come close enough. The basic idea is that one group is familiar with and to the Chinese, and one group is not accustomed to contact. One might also use the terms "enculturated" and "unenculturated." A better translation would avoid the idea (which "assimilated" and "enculturated" imply) that these groups have entirely come over to a Chinese way of doing things. Instead, they are capable of interacting with the Chinese group in an effective way. They may not have entirely the same values or the same worldview, but they at least know each others values, mores, ways of communicating things that go beyond what would be present in a word-for-word translation. P0M 00:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

2 March 2007 - I've come back and realized someone decided to change the translations for the words 熟番 and 生番 back to "cooked" and "raw". Who keeps doing this? They obviously have no understanding of Written Chinese, and how a character can have multiple meanings depending on context. It's as if someone just looked up the characters in the dictionary and simply chose the first definitions listed.

You Are Not Correct: The terms "cooked barbarian" 熟番 and "raw" 生番 are consistant with the terms used in official documents of the Qing era on Taiwan and reflect contemporary Qing cosmologies, threfore it should remain in place. These are also the terms used in academia to discuss the perceptions of the indigenous people of Qing era Taiwan and should not be confused with the pioneering work of Claude Levi-Strauss "The Raw and the Cooked". The use of "Raw and Cooked" has been used by most English language scholarship on the subject and thus maintains continuity with the referenced material. For those interested in Taiwan research, the terminology "raw and cooked" will be familiar and common. For those people who are beginning their research into Taiwan, these terms will become familiar and common.

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. As you can see... the article uses quotations to put emphasis on the terminology of the era and not the contemporary meanings of the individual characters. See the sources section if you would like more information on Qing era terminology. If you cannot provide a proper source for your changes, then leave it. Furthermore, I would encourage you to register with Wikipedia before making such a strong assertion for change. It makes it easier for all of us to work together. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maowang (talk • contribs) 3 March 2007 (UTC)

also btw, "familiar and unfamiliar" for "熟 and 生" are not just "contemporary" meanings, as far as I know. Qing era Chinese, whether literary or vernacular, already possessed these meanings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.18.100 (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
I agree with Maowang (who forgot to sign his post above...). There is a significant body of scholarly support for the translations as originally given, including Shepherd (whose book I happen to have at hand) and others. Setting aside this body of work would appear dangerously similar to an attempt to bleach the past (i.e., POV-pushing). --Ling.Nut 01:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

- Then the problem is the original "scholars" (Shepherd, Levi-Straus et al). They obviously translated the terms with a cursory understanding of Chinese writing, at best. If you want to keep those terms translated so sloppily as such, then I suggest you first translate them correctly for the Wikipedia article, and then make a parenthetical note that earlier research used inaccurate translations, and provide them for the sake of reference. There is no "bleaching of the past". The original Han Chinese who wrote in reference to these tribes never thought of them conceptually as either "raw" or "cooked", but as "unassimilated" or "assimilated". It just so happens that the characters 熟 and 生 can represent more than one meaning.

I can not find a single author who uses you terminology, furthermore, I can't find a single source in Chinese that disputes the original translation. In fact, one book uses English Raw and Cooked to augment the Chinese. Simply put, the Qing era literati used these vivid terms "Cooked" and "Raw" to express the amount of "化 hua" peripheral peoples demonstrated. This terminology was used for peripheral peoples on the fringe of the empire. see Frank Dikotter: A Discourse of Race in Modern China.

You can find similar support for continuing to use these terms in Melissa Brown's Negotiating Ethnicities in China and Taiwan, Stevan Harrell's Cultural Encounters on China's Ethnic Frontiers, Ways of Being Ethnic in Southwest China, Pamela Crossley's A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology and Susan Blum and Lionel Jensen's China Off Center: Mapping the Margins of the Middle Kingdom.

- Well, obviously you possess the scholarship on the article's main subject, I have no dispute with you there, I don't think. But just because you cannot find a Chinese language source that has disputed the "established" translation does not prove its correctness. Even many native Chinese speakers don't mind these quaint little mis-translations, since it affirms for them the impression given to non-Chinese that it is somehow an esoteric language with "mystical" properties, hard to decipher, and thus worthy of self-praise for having surmounted the challenge of learning it. Please find me a source in Chinese that definitively shows that 熟 and 生 in this specific instance are somehow meant to convey the sense of "cooked vs. raw" in the culinary sense and NOT "familiar vs. unfamiliar"/"assimilated vs. unassimilated" in the cultural sense. You do that for me, and maybe I'll drop this argument. Otherwise I see no reason to continue to use incorrect terminology other than for the sake of doing research with pre-existing sources. Why should Wikipedia perpetuate a mistake, just because everyone else so far has done the same?

Look at 陳秋坤 著 ；清代台灣土著地權 or 洪麗完 著；台灣中部平埔族

After discussing this with a colleague, it would be fair to say that it is possible the meaning may have been "familiar" or "unfamiliar", or "cultured" and "uncultured" or a variety of similar meanings, but the terminology of the day was "raw" and "cooked". This is all detailed in the body of the existing text posted on Wikipedia.

ok, although it's just a google search, chinese webpages and essays which reference those works you just cited seem to simply use the terms 生番 and 熟番 without alluding to the culinary sense of the words 生 and 熟. which, as your colleague said, means that the context in this case indeed is probably "familiar/unfamiliar", "cultured/uncultured". as for "terminology of the day", again, from what i can gather on google of chinese language articles/pages which explain or quote the Qing era classifications, none of them seem to indicate the culinary senses of the words. what this indicates to me, again, is that it is the English language "terminology of the day" which has been incorrect all along in using "raw" and "cooked".
if anything, i suggest a change to what i argue is the "correct" english translations (albeit with indication that the extant english language material on the subject continues to use the "wrong" ones, for the sake of reference), because "raw" and "cooked" gives the false impression that the Qing era literati were cruder and more insulting in their ethnocentrism than they really were. (which may indeed be the case in other instances or overall, but not in this specific coining of these terminologies.)24.91.18.100 01:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
btw, i don't know how this discussion topic got moved to the top. i didn't do that intentionally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.18.100 (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
I moved this thread to the top... or more accurately, I archived all the old stuff before it. I might move some other old stuff that is currently below this as well, but I'm feeling kinda lazy...
Wikipedia is not about truth! Wikipedia is about verifiability. The burden of proof is very definitely on those who want to "correct" the mistranslation. Find a good verifiable secondary source for your assertion. Then come back. otherwise, this would be considered original research. [Speaking of which, if you can get your assertion published in a refereed journal, that would definitely be a verifiable source...). --Ling.Nut 00:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me attempt an example:

During much of the Cold War, many people in United States, including government officials, referred to people with Marxist leaning ideologies as being shades of "Red". By using terms like "Red China" or "The Reds", people with opposing ideologies sought to lump those "others" together in a definitive category. They did not mean those people were actually "red" or "pink", but they sought to imply those people held views that were sympathetic to Marxist ideology. So if I were to write: --During the Cold War, American officials often referred to the people of The People's Republic of China as "Red Chinese" (Communist Chinese) due to their adherance to Mao Zidong's Marxist based doctrine...-- That would be wrong because "Red" is a color and Chinese are not actually red...that would be silly...what American officials really meant by the word was "Chinese who believe in Communist Ideology"? Is this a correct reading of the argument?Maowang 07:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

this example would only be valid if the common translation back into chinese was 红中国(人), and if it wasn't also commonly accepted in both english and chinese that the word "red" in certain modern contexts can also mean "communist", "socialist" or "leftist" (depending on how pejorative the label is intended to be) in addition to the color itself. in english, the words "raw" and "cooked" do not have the secondary meanings of "unfamiliar/unassimilated" or "familiar/assimilated". thus it is a mistranslation, and should be labelled as such. - 71.232.100.151 01:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Try this one: Groups of people identified as 漢人"Han People" based on similar patterns and practice of Confucian culturism, referred to China as 中國(The Middle Kingdom). This would be wrong because prior to the Republican era, China was conceived by Han people as simply being "central".

I think the problem may be that we are dealing with a language based on pictograms and translating it into a phonetic alphabet. 生 in essence means "Raw, Uncooked" As a pictogram, that may also imply other meanings, just like in English "Raw" can mean "unrefined, bare, vivid, basic", regardless.. it still gets back to the base meaning of "uncooked".

As Qing rule expanded over wider groups of people, writers and gazetteers refined their descriptions from reflecting the Aborigines degree of acculturation, to a system designed to indicate which groups had submitted to Qing rule and which groups were still hostile. Qing literati used the term “raw barbarian 生番” to define those people who had not submitted to Qing rule, and “cooked barbarian 熟番” for those who had pledged their allegiance through their payment of a head tax.

The existing verbage works well for the pictogram as it conveys the meaning of a picture... which is worth a thousand words.

As you can see, the passage you are having difficulty with explains the meaning of the terms quite clearly as the "degree of acculturation" while using quotes to demonstrate the essential meaning of the characters. "Man, Taiwan is filled with all kinds of those raw types." Which means... Those guys on Taiwan are very unlike us. So if there is any question as to the intent of the Qing literati it is made clear in the paragraph.

So, unless you can provide a source that conclusively contradicts the provided sources I think this matter can rest. If you would like to contact the authors of those materials for further questions contact me on my talk page.Maowang 14:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC) 洋鬼子 (Ocean Ghost)


Regardless, you still have not provided any authoritative source to contradict the extensive list of materials compiled by the contributors of this page. We will follow their lead and use the literal meaning of the characters. In a space like wikipedia I suggest you act a little more mature and read the Wiki guidelines.

Answer: The issue comes down to the belief in China in Yin and Yang as a form of environmental determinism, which sought to denigrate the "other" into a form of subhuman. It was believed Yin and Yang were the primogenial forces of all living creatures. Yin was negative, female, cold, dark... Yang was male, hot, positive and related to heaven. Yin was north and Yang was south. Humans were the result of a balance between both forces. Fur covered and feather covered creatures were associated with the Yang. Fish, shelled creatures and reptiles were Yin. The Chinese believed their world consisted of five colors of soil, which had an impact on the humans and animals of each region in a superior/inferior dichotomy. It was believed the quality of the local earth fluid could explain the physical differences in human populations (i.e. dark soil=black people). Many of the theories involving geomancy and physical/psychological composition emerged during the Tang Dynasty as Han people encountered growing numbers of "barbarians". One Tang era literati explains the differences between Han and "barbarians" as being related to the "barbarians" living in a less favorable environment. They lacked the spiritual guidance of the sages, who had been nurtured on Han soil under the guide of heaven. Some of the "barbarians" ate their food uncooked. Food was a social signifier to differentiate different ethnic groups. Culinary tradition marked social, class and cultural identity. Based on a person's behavior at a meal, their degree of cultural alienation was exposed. In most civilizations the distinction was between raw and cooked food, with fire being the transformative power and a symbol of culture. Han cosmologies included "Sheng Fan" and "Shu Fan",as we have been discussing above. The consumtption of raw food was regarded as a sign of savagry that negatively affected the psychological composition of the "barbarian". A good example may be the Li of Hainan island, who were divided into "raw" and "cooked" groups by Han officials, based on the "ability" of the Li to enjoy the refined lifestyle of Han civilization as opposed to life in the hills where they would reside on raw meat and worms, far from the humanizing center. There are even roports from Guangdong of officials keeping African slaves who were reported to have a negative reaction to cooked food, thus blocking their "advancement" to becoming human. The relationship between cultural beliefs and written language is essential to understanding the meanings of the words discussed above. See: Forke, A. 1925. The World of Conception of the Chinese. McMullen, D. 1987. Views of the State in Du You. Dikotter, F. 1992. The Discourse of Race in Modern China.(pp.8-9) Case Closed!Maowang 23:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

fine, i have moved the hopefully more civil conversation to your talk page, so that it will not further clog this page at least for the time being. 71.232.100.151 03:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


BTW. I have never met any officials or literati from the Qing Dynasty, so I can not be sure who is or is not guilty of ethnocentricism. But, research materials have conclusively shown a definite negative bias by Han people toward non-Han. In Qing era cosmologies, the Emperor was the cultural center and the further from the center the less culture could be found. Simply put, China was not viewed as a nation or an empire, but as "central". Those people who did not practice Han Hua, were not considered "ren" (humans/people).It would be reasonalbe to believe the Qing literati would consider ping pu people as less than human. Look at classical Chinese depictions of Europeans. Tell me those are not degrading and ethnocentric. Read the Dikotter Book and Emma Jin Hui Teng's Taiwan's Imagined Geography for more info.Maowang 07:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

please also re-read my comment on Qing and Han Chinese ethnocentrism. i fully acknowledge that the chinese, even to the present day, exhibit such chauvinism. and certainly even if we translate 生 and 熟 as "unfamiliar/unassimilated" and "familiar/assimilated", there obviously remains a sino-centric point of view inherent in using such terminology. and i never denied that imperial era chinese, the literati in particular, actually thought of non-Han "barbarians" as sub-human. they probably did more often than not. all i am trying to say is that in this particular instance of coining this set of terminology, they likely were not thinking in their minds, "raw" and "cooked" in the culinary sense and thus rendering the tribes into mere "things" to be treated in the same way as pieces of food. this is not to say that they didn't perhaps relish in the coincidence (many literate chinese love wordplay and homonym puns, after all). - 71.232.100.151 01:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
There seems to be a lively debate going on here, and of course that is a good thing. But it seems we are veering in the direction of trying to establish Truth. Perhaps a bit counterintuitively, Truth is not the gold-plate standard for Wikipedia's articles. Instead it is Verifiablity. If you or I believe that we have a more accurate reading of the facts, that is OK. However, the place to publish such observations is in a journal, NOT in Wikipedia. That is because "more accurate reading" is synonymous with "original research." Wikipedia is simply not the appropriate or correct forum for original ideas, original interpretations, or original research! In other words, it simply does not matter who is right and who is wrong; it only matters whether you have sources to back up your assertions! Again, that may seem counterintuitive, but there it is. There really is no room for debate here; whoever has the sources to back up what they say, wins. That is the case whether or not the sources are accurate, in my opinion or yours. Truth is not the gold standard; verifiability is. So that is all there is to that. --Ling.Nut 22:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polynesian and Maori origins

Recent genetics research links Maori and Polynesian origins and migration paths to the indiginous people of Taiwan, which backs up the linguistic links mentioned in the article. There is a brief overview here at TVNZ, and Chambers' academic profile. Example sources:

Volume 17, Issue 4, pp. 271-280.

(sorry - the anonymous IP edit was me!) Jon 00:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA: Tips for improvement

This article was nominated for GA status on November 30. I have had to fail this article for good article status for the following reasons, based on good article criteria:

  1. It is well written.: Parts are well written and parts are uneven. It is clear that this article is the work of many hard-working editors and that is part of the problem: It is uneven and clearly has flow and consistency issues.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Though heavily referenced, it is inconsistent as to which system you are using. Some inline citations, and some Harvard citations are being used, and the mix of systems is a distintict problem. See WP:CITE on how to unify these two systems. I have some suggestions as well, see me at my talk page if you are having trouble.
  3. It is broad in its coverage: that it is. No problems here.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.: Seems good here too.
  5. It is stable: good here too.
  6. It contains images...any non-free images have a fair use rationale Big problem. The image named: Taiwan aborigine en.jpg for example is NOT covered by Free Use, as it is clearly copyrighted, and clearly not illustrating an "object", and a free version could be created by someone fairly easily with a free map of taiwan and a graphics program.

Please fix these problems, and feel free to renominate when you do. Good luck and happy editing! --Jayron32 04:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixes

Unfortunately the review was conducted during a period of growth on this page before we could sync everything together.

Lately, I have had some time away from research and students and all that goodness to start adding citations and filling out the material. I too have been thinking about smoothing out the style and uniformity of this page, but I recognize and appreciate all the work some of you others have put into this project. Especially User:Ling.Nut for cleaning up a lot of my mess.

As the original author of the 6/2003 addition, I will volunteer to make the following contributions between now and the end of Lunar New Year vacation.

  1. Uniformity Of Content and flow
  2. Citations (Use a variety of sources in a uniform system with page numbers)I usually prefer APA format... but that's negotiable
  3. Include valuable wiki links
  4. Add original .jpg (though I am unsure how to do this wikiwise)

I have a library of about 300+ books regarding Taiwan in my posession and access to Academia Sinica and the NTU Anthropology Department.

I would just like to ask for everyone's permission before I cut, rewrite and paste. I know any major overhaul is a delicate task.

Things I would keep in mind.

Leave contributors information. Write With A Balanced Approach. Base Writing on Current Social Theory (a.k.a. decolonizing methodologies). Writing about indigenous peoples must be very delicate. Make this page valuable to beginning researchers as well as the layperson.

[edit] Overhaul Update

I have started outlining an overhaul to smooth this page out. There may be some overlap as I proceed, but this will take a little time to work out where everything is covered. Please try not to add too much during this process, so I can keep track of what has been done and what needs work. I hope to get this done before the end of Lunar New Year so we can reapply for GA status.

I retooled the assimilation section to move away from a narrative that implies assimilation and acculturation were only active on the part of the colonizer "domination", to better show the Aborigines own role as active agents in assimilation and self colonization.

This might better set up the migration part... not sure yet.218.170.115.96 08:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)→ Thanks Everyone!Maowang 05:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(My Page History)

Before 6/2003 this page was a stub and not a very good one, with highly politicized viewpoints creating friction on both the Taiwan History and Aborigines pages. So I hunkered down for an afternoon and ripped out an essay from my materials and recollection of my materials. That sloppy blurb became the foundation for a "real" Taiwan Aborigines page.

At that time, most people had not heard of Wikipedia, news media outlets were certainly not linking to Wikipedia at that time, so there was less importance on structure and citations. There was also a lot of vandalism. I have been accused of it myself, when my information contradicted someone's faith in their "history".

When I wrote the original blurb, I was trying to concentrate on putting to bed some the resistence to non-nationalized historical narratives.

I then checked back later and found I was being accused of plagerism, so I posted my source list. Kind of a backwards approach.

Since then, many of you guys have added significantly to the accuracy and content on this page.

Thank you all for your effort in making this page a viable candidate for "good page" status.


Thanks Again! Maowang 03:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Maowang
I deeply appreciate all your work! :-)
I'm home visiting relatives for the holidays, and am sick on top of that. I won't be doing much of anything for the next few days.
I'm a GA reviewer too, and the fail on this article was somewhat marginal IMO, EXCEPT for the the lack of consistency in citation styles (half footnotes and half Harvard/APA style). When I started this, I was an utter newbie. :-)
I strongly prefer APA. The templates I've created are quite similar to that style. Please look at the linked references that are in that style and see if they are OK. I wanna convert all the footnotes to the other style , except perhaps for the two in the sidebar. I'll take responsibility for straightening out all the footnotes, but won't touch them for a week or so. Also, if you wanna work on footnotes to you can, but what I mean is that I caused the problem, so I'm willing to clean up the mess. :-)
Some sections are still clearly unfinished and unpolished. I quit in midstream, frankly a bit burned out on the topic. I've been working on a multitude of other Wikipedia projects since then.
I'd like to keep in close contact regarding this page and all changes. I hope we can work together productively, perhaps with other editors. PLease feel free to email me if you like, but most things can be worked out on this talk page.
I agree with the general principles you've outlined above... in general. Details in which we disagree can be worked out. :-)
Thanks a million thanks! --Ling.Nut 04:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
PS I'll help with images etc. --Ling.Nut 05:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highland–Lowland rather than Gaoshan–Pingpu or Mountains–Plains

"Gaoshan–Pingpu" and "Mountains–Plains" are horrible renditions into English. The best rendition I have is "Highland–Lowland" (with analogy to Scotland). – Kaihsu 17:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar

  • The sidebar was in my user space rather than template space deliberately — there has been something of a movement, for various reasons, to move template out of template space & into user space. But that is not my concern, really: I don't care where it is located.
  • The sidebar presents a "one glance" summary of info. It is far far far quicker to pull this info from the sidebar that to read the lead.
  • The sidebar is visually appealing.
  • FAs with sidebars include Tamil people, Azerbaijani people, etc.

--Ling.Nut 18:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] no more footnote-style references, please!

Am converting all references to one format. Footnotes should be for comments, not references. Thanks! --Ling.Nut 04:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] outdated info?

"Very few Taiwanese are willing to entertain the idea of having aboriginal genes." I know that was true a decade ago... Is that current, or outdated? --Ling.Nut 16:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • In my experience, when I ask Taiwanese people (who are neither aboriginal nor "mainlanders") whether they have any aboriginal blood, their reaction is usually something like "Heavens no!" Bubbha 08:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was discussing this recently with some of the "Chinese" scholars at work, children of KMT soldiers and I was surprised to find how readily accept the mixing theory. Most Taiwanese accept this now, but just not for their family. I have a harder time explaining how most people in Taichung are Hakka-Pazih... they have a hard time with the Hakka part.

I was out conducting a little field work along a Pazih migration route and I was stopped by a policeman who wanted to investigate what I was doing. He invited me to a political event where I was required to drink alcoholic beverages and soup (before driving again) and I met all kinds of people. The group was made up of laborers illegally pulling gravel out of a stream in Miao Li, near an "Atayal" reservation. As I explained the purpose of my trip, one woman boldly spoke up that she was Ping pu. I was shocked that a someone would know her plains roots and I assumed she could be related to an established community of plains aborigines. When I asked her "tribe", she just said "Ping pu". She finally explained that since she was a Taiwanese with no knowledge of family from China...therefore she must be Ping pu.

[edit] Failed GA (2nd nom)

This article has improved markedly, but I still have to fail it again for Good Article status. It is MUCH closer now, and there are only 2 issues that need fixing:

  1. Everything is referenced (which is good) but we still have a mix of styles. WP:CITE and WP:MOS does not favor one style of references over another, but please pick a single style and stick to it. Either do all inline footnotes or all parenthetical notes. Note, I would not have failed the article ONLY for this (see below) but it would have caused me to put the article on hold.
  2. Non-free images: No article can be elevated to GA status while its legality is questionable, and this one has some issues with images of questionable usage. Mainly, there are several images where either the fair-use or free-use status is unclear (such as Rukai chief.jpg in the infobox) or which appear to be outright fair-use violations (such as Taiwan aborigine en.jpg ). This MUST be fixed before GA status will pass.

Once those issues have been addressed, please renominate it again. This is a very well-written and extensive article yet, and it is almost up to the qualifications of a good article. See WP:WIAGA for general criteria for Good Articles and WP:FAIR for issues relating to the fair use of images. Good luck, and I hope you can make these fixes! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] review of Failed GA

  • This article listed at WP:GA/R for review of failed GA. Thanks! --Ling.Nut 23:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops I was confused about the dates. Sorry! I have archived the review. --Ling.Nut 01:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Uhh, please choose one style to list references, I've noticed that there are two or three.--Jerrypp772000 19:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No, there's only one referencing style. :-) You do see a separate "notes" section, which includes Footnotes, and which is accomplished via <ref> tags. You do not see more than one referencing style... or if you do, then please provide examples :-) --Ling.Nut 20:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Footnotes are a kind of ref style, aren't they?--Jerrypp772000 20:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) That's a trick question. :-) many people, esp. here on Wikipedia, use a footnoting style when making their references. But that doesn't mean that footnotes are references. :-) --Ling.Nut 21:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So footnotes aren't references? What are they then? Because it says in WP:CITE that they are a way to cite sources.--Jerrypp772000 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
yes, that format is a way (read: a style) to cite references... there is probably a section in WP:MOS about separate Notes and References sections... footnotes are notes, and a footnoting style can be used for references and/or notes. --Ling.Nut 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Notice the section above this one, it says Either do all inline footnotes or all parenthetical notes.--Jerrypp772000 21:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Here we go — from WP:CITE:

Some publications use Harvard style notation for sources, and use footnotes exclusively for tangential comments or more detailed information. In this case, in other words, footnotes are notes with relevant text that would distract from the main point if embedded in the main text, yet are helpful in explaining a point in greater detail. Such footnotes can be especially helpful for later fact-checkers, to ensure that the article text is well-supported. Thus, using footnotes to provide useful clarifying information outside the main point is fine where this is needed.

Thanks! --Ling.Nut 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There are two styles according to the reviewer of the section above: footnotes or parenthetical notes. And I see both in this article.--Jerrypp772000 22:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Ah, the problem at the time of that review (above) was that both styles were being used for references. The reviewer's concerns were valid, at that time. At that time, our referencing style was not correct. :-) Now, however, one style is used for footnotes, and one style is used for references. Moreover, using both in this manner is completely and explicitly in accordance WP:CITE, as is quite clearly explained in the quote I pasted above. :-) --Ling.Nut 22:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closely related to Malays and Indonesians?

I think this assertion needs to be reviewed in light of evidence from population genetics that seems to argue strongly against a particularly close relationship between Malays and Indonesians on the one hand and Filipinos and Taiwanese aborigines on the other. Although Filipinos and Taiwanese aborigines do appear to be closely related to each other (both carry Y-chromosome haplogroups O1a-M119 and O3-M122 at high frequency) as well as to the Tai-Kadai-speaking peoples of Hainan Island and southern China, the populations of Malaysia and Indonesia are genetically distinct from the Austronesian-speaking Filipinos and Taiwanese aborigines and the Tai-Kadai-speaking Hlai, Zhuang, etc. Ethnic groups like the Malays and Balinese may speak Austronesian languages, but they appear to be genetically more closely related to the Austro-Asiatic-speaking peoples of Indochina, such as the Khmer; all these groups display Y-chromosomes that belong to Haplogroup O2a-M95 at a high frequency. Ebizur 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm mainly into linguistics. :-) I've seen people throw several different article cites back & forth on this issue, and the general impression I got was that there really is no consensus position. Each successive article seems to say something a little different from the previous one...
But I'm gonna try to find all the relevant citations & post them here.. meanwhile, can we leave the page unaltered, and consider it an ongoing question (at least for a while)?
Thanks!! --Ling.Nut 19:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Update — I've found these two, so far. Please note that I am 'not supporting one position or another (I have no POV); I am just providing cites that have been mentioned elsewhere in this context:
--Ling.Nut 20:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) From what I have read, the emphasis is on culture and linguistics and not DNA. The example I see most often has been how the majority of the people of New Guinea are Negrito, from a southern migration 40,000 years ago, they are culturally and linguistically Austronesians. How and why Austronesian culture spread so quickly is still a mystery, but Taiwan as the starting point of Austronesian dispersal is still supported. It's like Han culture. Although most of today's Han are not the DNA descendants of the originators of Han culture in the lower Yangzi valley, certain characteristics of the culture allowed it to rapidly spread over vast distances allowing people to assimilate.Maowang 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've asked a wikipedian with professional insight into these matters to look into the question. Me personally, I'm biased in the sense that I'll take linguistic evidence over DNA evidence every time, because I believe that when it comes to... procreating... there are no borders.. But that's just me. I still want to see what verifiable sources we can come up with on the DNA issue. --Ling.Nut 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Lingnut. There is no cultural memory in our DNA and it really gets qite convoluted all the way back to "Lucy". Identification of "oneness" comes from behavior before genes. Maowang 00:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah, but I'm a linguist, and you're an anthropologist ;-) Let's wait 'n see what the biochemist has to say.... :-) --Ling.Nut 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Bellwood source covers this, but it is slightly dated. Let's bring in the Pope and see what happens ;-)Maowang 01:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote Of The Day: I believe that when it comes to... procreating... there are no borders.. But that's just me-Ling.nut. Whoah! ;)Maowang 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

They're all related 'cause... they all look like me....Yee-eaa-eah. That's the ticket!! --Ling.Nut 01:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, from my brief reading of the evidence I'd say that no single model has been conclusively proved, with the most likely model being a mixture of expansion from China and/or Taiwan and mixture with pre-existing populations in Austronesia. I can do some more research on this if you want. TimVickers 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your help! We appreciate your time & effort!

I think if I change something without an authoritative reference, it may rub people the wrong way... if you can come up with a reference that would support any statement at all, even a statement that the truth is uncertain, we would deeply appreciate it! But I hope we don't intrude upon your time...

thanks! --Ling.Nut 16:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing text: "The Taiwanese Aborigines are Austronesian peoples closely related to the people of the Philippines and possibly Melanesia" I have good sources, as listed in the notes. Found no sources for Indonesia/Malaysia. --Ling.Nut 18:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ling.Nut! I think the text requires much less of a leap of faith now. Although I would not dispute that the languages of the Malays and the Taiwanese aborigines are related, I just cannot convince myself that these groups should be lumped into the same "race." They actually tend to look quite different from one another. The text as it was before your edition (i.e., claiming that the Taiwanese aborigines were closely related to Malaysians and Indonesians) was just as disturbing to me as a claim that any of these peoples were "closely related" to Polynesians. Ebizur 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Protocol

The last contributor made a point I have been thinking about for a while. Capitals or non. I think we should follow the conventions of J. Shepherd and Melissa Brown an use capitals for Aborigine as an ethnic group in the same manner as Mainlander, Taiwanese. Hakka etc... This avoids the drawbacks of colonized terms of "other" and presents them as equals wit hthe other ethnic groups. Maowang 04:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming and Identity

One definite thing, one tentative thing:

Definite: This section should have something about the law that was passed relatively recently to permit use of Aboriginal names on official documents..... if that is already mentioned in the Modern section, I suppose we should move it...

tentative: Should this section be called "Personal names and Identity" instead of "Naming and Identity"?

--Ling.Nut 14:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source:

Copyright 2005 Central News Agency Central News Agency - Taiwan
November 09, 2005, Wednesday
LENGTH: 335 words
HEADLINE: DPP ENCOURAGES ABORIGINES TO ADOPT TRADITIONAL NAMES
BYLINE: By Y.F. Low
DATELINE: Taipei, Nov. 9

BODY: The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) launched a petition Wednesday to support the country's aborigines re-adopting their traditional names when they renew their identification cards at the end of this year.

According to a documentary released by the party's ethnic affairs department, although aborigines are now allowed to use their traditional names following a 1995 amendment to the Personal Names Act, only 890 out of the total of 460,000 aborigines in Taiwan have done so because of the past stigma attached to the names and the complicated formalities involved.

Of the 890 aborigines who have opted to adopt their traditional names, 65 have since changed their names back to ones of Han Chinese origin, the film shows.

DPP Secretary-General Lee Yi-yang pointed out that Taiwan's indigenous people were forced to adopt Japanese names during Japanese colonial rule and were then compelled to use Han names after Taiwan was handed over to the Kuomintang-ruled Republic of China government.

Lee urged those aborigines who have not adopted their traditional names for fear they will be discriminated against to "shout their names out aloud, " because, he said, the DPP respects Taiwan's identity.

Addressing the issue, Interior Minister Su Jia-Chyuan said that when the new identification cards are issued, the government will set up special counters for aborigines to make it simple and convenient for them to adopt their traditional names.

Su noted that the name column of the new identification cards will have enough room for up to 15 Chinese characters or 20 Roman letters, which he said will make it easier for aboriginal people to use their traditional names on their new ID cards.

Council of Indigenous Peoples Chairman Walis Pelin said the council will consider holding a name-restoring ceremony in aboriginal villages in the future to encourage more people to follow suit.

--Ling.Nut 14:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] geography

In many ways, the Gaoshan (mountain tribes) people have fared considerably better than their Pin-pu counterparts living on the plains. The Pin-pu increasingly encountered “... land-hungry immigrants from China’s southeast coast” (Shepherd, 1993:8). They clashed with Han settlers over possession of western plains lands that are easier to access and more amenable to agricultural development than the mountainous areas of the central-east.

On the other hand, the relative inaccessibility of the mountains (and the plains to their east) afforded far greater protection for the Gaoshan tribes. The mountains not only provided them with physical security, but also reduced the contact and intermarriage between these groups. These conditions have been conducive to their continued linguistic and cultural existence. However, the mountains have not provided the Gaoshan tribes with an impermeable buffer against social and linguistic pressure. Currently the threats to the survival of their languages and cultures are principally socioeconomic, but historically the most important of these were forced relocation, linguistic imperialism, and violent repression. --Ling.Nut 00:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That looks ok. Emma Teng discusses traditional Han taboos against entering the mountain regions and Taiwan's imagined geography that helped keep Han from encroachment. The Hakka intentionally entered the foothills as it resembled the mountainous regions of the Fujianese highlands where they traditionally planted fruit orchards. I modified a little of the opening to accomodate geography as well

OK, but I'm just not sure we made it painfully plain that the western plains were simply more geographically vulnerable to land-grabs, mass immigration resulting in mass-inter-marriage, etc. :-) the mountains and eastern plains were simply less accessible --Ling.Nut 01:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Right! Go agead and put it in if you think there needs to be more on geography. I may insert a small paragraph on conversion to Christianity and the revival of indigenous beliefs... maybe with the Taiwan Presbyterian thing. What do you think?Maowang 01:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/a/i/Talk%7ETaiwanese_aborigines_4ad0.html"