Talk:Taiwanese indigenous peoples/Archive 3

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)

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)

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)

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)

That may be your personal preference, but is there any Wikipedia guideline that says so? (I think when I first tried to find out more on how to use the footnote feature, all examples pertained to using footnotes for citations.)

While I appreciate your effort to keep the format consistent, one major advantage of footnotes are the clickable links in the list of sources and comments that let you jump back to where you came from in the main text. Many people use Wikipedia with internet browsers that allow them to take advantage of this feature. Wikipeditor 08:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Try your browser's "back" button. :-) Ling.Nut 10:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually like footnotes better too.--Jerrypp772000 22:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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.

This would seem to fit with my impression that some Taiwanese do not clearly distinguish between descent from aboriginal Taiwanese and descent from early Chinese settlers. This can be misleading for interviewers who are not careful and thorough. Mccajor 14:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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:

• [1]
• [2]

--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)

As an anthropologist interested in comparative linguistics and population movements but not with expertise in this area, my understanding has been that the aboriginal Taiwanese language is Austronesian is well accepted, but that questions of close genetic relatedness are much less demonstrated. Unless someone can find a good reference, the "genetically related" phrasing should be taken out and replaced with something like "who speak an Austronesian language closely related to languages of the Philippines and possibly Melanesia." As comparison, most of the peoples of northern India speak languages closely related to Slavic and Baltic languages; "genetically", however, by many measures they share more markers with speakers of Dravidian languages in South India, though there has obviously been a tremendous amount of mixing on all sides (and many Slavic, Baltic, and Indo-Iranian language speakers share genes inherited from Mongol conquerors during the time of Ghengis Khan and his successors). It's far safer to stick to statements about linguistic relatedness in the absence of extensive population genetics mapping. Mccajor 14:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mccajor... there is definitely a split between the linguists (and I believe the archaeologists as well) and the people who do DNA research. Linguists are as sure as they can reasonably be that Taiwan is the place of origin of the Austronesian languages (at least as far back we can hypothesize... 5K years). The DNA people are as split as they could be. BUT there is no reason to change the current wording of article, because it already explains this clearly, and gives outstanding references for both... (I'm going on vacation tomorrow and may not be able to reply to any extended discussion). Ling.Nut 18:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)