Talk:Huli people

Untitled

There is a lot of information about the Huli at the reference link in the article. I only stubbed and created this article because I needed a better target for the featured picture (Image:Huli wigman.jpg). howcheng {chat} 16:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger proposal

From what I can gather the Haroli are some sort of smaller tribe within the Huli. I was considering having a deletion discussing for the Haroli but thought about WP:DBN and figured this article might be able to use what it has. Oroso (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Haroli are not a smaller tribe within the Huli. They are a group of young men in training to become Huli adults. Over a period of three years, they receive traditional education and finally "graduate" or complete the rites of passage to be accepted as full adults in Huli society. The bachelor cult was the Huli form of education akin to our high school.

I would be glad to work on the Huli stub and make the Haroli article a subsection.

Concerning notability, the Haroli are a prime example of rites of passage as presented by Victor Turner and van Gennep. The rapid decline of traditional Huli culture was accelerated, or as many folks believe, caused by the demise of the Haroli bachelor cult which had handed down traditional norms, values and customs.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroli (talk • contribs) 21:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The cult being discussed is/was/still there a bit, but a part of Huli culture, but being heavily male oriented -a large part. So saying there has been a decline in huli culture is hugely debateable, what is culture why shouldn't it change, values and customes remain they have broadened to include western icons but they have remained, this I know becuase I have lived there for many years. So please leave value laden statements out of discussion and stick to factual information, The huli are a part of a HELA supergroup which includes the dunas etc , similar religous customs and stories join these tribes. I would think the Haroli gear could be included with huli culture, but is needs to be clearer that whilst these customs existed , they have diluted(although I have seen new mens houses going up), many men don't miss the initiation ( parts of it were not at all pleasant) but the passing on of correct' cultural actions is missed-- many men don't know how to paint their faces properly to dance anymore, but many men still keep up elements of the traditions of huli, as a matter of pride. Placing blame for this dilution is foolhardy, having asked arround myself, Huli's themselves do not heavily critisize missionaries or colonial governments, in fact with things the way they are they,( spontaneosly) ask whether Australia would re-colonise the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.205.40 (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mandarin chinese

The assertion that they speak Chinese is freaking stupid. 79.2.52.49 (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first, too. When the one who added that promptly reverted its removal, I gave it the benefit of the doubt and tagged it instead of starting an edit war. After all, a fair number of Chinese people live in Papua New Guinea, and it is easy to believe that some Chinese words or phrases are used by the Huli. That would not amount to them speaking Chinese, of course, but still... Since then, the editor who added it has been indefinitely blocked as a racist vandal and block-evading sockpuppet, so the good faith of any contributions from that source may be questioned. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Colonialist rhetoric, Chinese and the Haroli and Gabe Lomas

I made some brief changes to the Huli text based on my extensive reading on the area, related to University fieldwork. The section on history was full of colonialist rhetoric: 'undiscovered by outside world', 'one of the last to be discovered', 'colonized'. The Huli were well known in New Guinea before Europeans invaded the area. The 'discovery' by Europeans does not constitute some incredible event, that signifies their recognition by others, they were known to other people, who just happened to be non-European in origin. History does not start with European contact, the Huli, as with other New Guinea people, have long oral histories of their own. The idea of 'undiscovered' people is almost always a way of signifying otherness, 'primitiveness', timelessness, all of which are false concepts in regards to the diverse peoples of the world. Chinese language common amongst the Huli, certainly not, there have been Chinese people in PNG since early colonial times, some prominent PNG people are amongst those of Chinese heritage, and their is a 'bidding' war in PNG between China and Taiwan over aid and political influence. However the Chinese language is not extensively known in PNG. The Huli often are able to speak surrounding languages as well as their own dialects and Tok Pisin. Haroli are Batchelor Groups in Huli society, some scholars even refer to 'Batchelor Cult', because of the few members who retreat long term from outside pollution. Gabe Lomas, contributor to the page, is one of the few knowledgeable scholars on the Huli, as any shallow reading of the contemporary literature would give, so treat him with respect people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunswicknic (talk • contribs) 01:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of material

@Neutrality. Your deletion of my restored material seems to be based on an incorrect interpretation, and therefore use of, your own cited WP:BURDEN guidelines. Those guidelines proves my point, not yours. Please read them again. Here is a relevant section.

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed (not 'must be') and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. (I said in my edit summary that the material seemed uncontested, meaning that it did not warrant an immediate full deletion, certainly not without prior discussion.) In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] (which is what I have done) When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] (You did not do that.) If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. (Did you follow this guideline?) "

Statements without reliable citations are not automatically wrong or of no value. The next steps are outlined in guidelines you provided but did not follow. If all editors followed your approach the WP site would halve overnight.

I have not yet reverted your edit so as to avoid an edit war but I would be grateful if you could consider re-reading your own supplied guidelines. I think they are there for a good reason. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

(1) No, WP:BURDEN is very clear. Any user may remove any material not cited to a reliable source. That's a very straightforward rule.

(2) Notably, the article has been tagged as improperly referenced since January 2012 — more than five years!

(3) I don't like the idea of unreferenced information anywhere, but I especially don't like it when the text gives a general statement on the life/culture of an actual living people. In my view that's even more important to get right and cited than other kinds of information.

(4) I was very surprised that you restored not only unsourced information, but also a "further reading" source to a commercial website ("Papua New Guinea Scuba Diving Adventure"). It really should be obvious to any editor that this is not an appropriate source for anthropology/ethnology information.

(5) It's better to have no information than information that is possibly wrong.

(6) Feel free to improve the article with references. Neutrality<sup>talk</sup> 23:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I restored the scuba diving citation for completeness to return to the start, not because I thought it was valid. Perhaps I should have made that clearer or simply not restored it at all. I did not see the 2012 tag, which is my mistake, for which I apologise, and that alone probably justifies the mass deletion. I am still a bit uncomfortable about the use of your point (1) though, not just here but elsewhere on WP. I think the guidelines should stress more that with the right to delete at will goes an obligation to check if the deleted unreferenced material has merit and can be referenced easily. However, in this case, that obligation seems to have been met with the January 2012 tag that I overlooked. I'll see what I can do to add to the article with good citations. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Traditional Beliefs: Christianity. 🤣

Yeah....OK. Does Wikipedia check anything? "Traditional" beliefs.....🤣 2600:1005:B008:53E1:19A1:6C76:DE17:BB9 (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)