Talk:Taiwanese aborigines

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Pingpu Tribe in Taoyuan County

This link http://www2.tyccc.gov.tw/tyccc1/walktaiwan/client/intro19_e.htm describes the Pingpu Tribe in Taoyuan County. Maybe someone could find interesting information from it. This was written by the Taoyuan County government. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups in China Category

We are having a disagreement about whether or not to add the Aborginal page to the 'Ethnic Groups in China' category. This is not a POV issue, this is more of a technicality issue. 'Ethnic Groups in China' category is for categorising the ethnicities of China. However you interpert 'China' as is up to your own descretion, whether it be the PRC, ROC, or both, whatever way you may interpret it, but the category should still go. If you interpret it as ROC or both, I don't need to explain anything, it's pretty self-evident. If you only interpret it as PRC however, then here would be my explanation. There is no POV issue associated with this categorising. This is categorisation, not dealing with the article itself. This is a technicality, in order for this page to show in the category page, the category must be listed on this page, that's how the categories are made. The PRC as said before recognises the Aborginals as one of their ethnic groups under the name Gaoshan. Since most of you lads interpret 'China' as the PRC, then it would make the most sense to include this article under that category. To not do so would not only be a hindering in the 'effectiveness' of wikipedia as you are denying an article into a category for a perfect reason. Even if you want to make this a POV issue, then I will have to again pull the NPOV policy which states that all significant sides of the POV should be noted. In this case, the POV that the Aborginal or 'Gaoshan' is a 'Chinese Ethnicity' is a 'significant POV'. I don't want to make this a POV issue, but if it be, then it be the case.

And as the lad who was criticising my logic, that's not correct at all. When I put the categorisation back up, I specifically stated my reasons as one being a technicality and of the other being that the PRC officially recognises the Aborginals as their 'Gaoshan' group. Now, let us take the first technicality logic. If you take a look at the category page, you'll see that the category lists only those ethnicities that are of 'origination' in China (don't start bull****ing me with what's China and what's not, you know what I mean in this context). For those that are not, the groups are 'localised', eg. 'Pakistanis in China' and 'Russians in China'. So based on that logic, no, that does not mean catogorisation of every nation for the Han group. Based on that logic, it should be 'Ethnic Han in WHATEVERNATION' articles be categorised into the 'Ethnic groups of WHATEVERNATION'.

Now on to my second explanation, I said that the PRC officially recognises the Aborginals as their Gaoshan group. Based on this logic, the Han Ethnicity article should be categorised only into those nations which officially recognises the Han as one of their ethnic groups. Now, how many nations recognises the Han ethnicity as one of their ethnic groups? My logic is well founded and thought out over and over again over the years, do not take lightly of them. Liu Tao (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I for one don't have a problem with a simple category, so long as POV-based additions aren't made to the text of the article. • Ling.Nut 01:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are being strictly technical, then the fact that there are a couple of thousand Taiwanese aborigines in mainland China(PRC) and obviously hundreds of thousands in Taiwan then it seems they could be listed as an Ethnic group in China if you define China as being the PRC or China being both the PRC and Taiwan. But since they are such a minimally small group on the mainland, I don't think they should be included in this category because it only makes sense if you define China as being both the PRC and Taiwan, which is a POV. Apexinsignia (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not take your words lightly, and I respect your views. The PRC also "officially" recognizes Taiwan to be a part of its territory, but we don't just take their word for it; this is Wikipedia. Yes, we take into account all "significant" POVs, but there's a reason why Taiwan is not categorized under "Provinces of the People's Republic of China", but rather "Territorial disputes of the PRC/ROC". You mentioned that if "China" refers to the PRC, then it should not be a problem categorizing the article as such. I will have to disagree with you here; it is fine to list and link to this article from the "List of ethnic groups in China" page (and vice versa) because it's strictly informational - it's how the governments define it. However, the reality (from neither side's POV) is different. Simple put, Taiwanese aborigines originated on the island of Taiwan, which is not under the control the control of the PRC (i.e. China). I take it (in this case) that you take "China" to mean the PRC, because you are justifying the article's inclusion based on a PRC-produced list. If the PRC had not included it on the list, then we probably would not be having this conversation. Take another example, if we're talking about categorizing ethnic groups as where they originate, I would not include Han Chinese in the "List of ethnic groups in Taiwan" since they simply did not originate there (FYI, it's not included). The government can choose to say it's so, but that doesn't make it so. The "effectiveness" of Wikipedia does not hinge upon categorizing something based solely on a list a government puts out; it's about looking at the facts and different viewpoints.

When I reverted your edit, I was pointing out that you were choosing to include the article in the category because some aborigines had migrated over to mainland China. Based on your logic above, shouldn't they be categorized instead under "Taiwanese aborigines in China" or "Gaoshan in China" rather than "Ethnic groups in China"? A large number of Japanese live in China (>120,000), but they aren't included simply because they originated in Japan.

I think the main point we need to work out here is: What exactly does "Ethnic groups in China" refer to (the political entities (PRC/ROC), the cultural entity, etc.)? In my opinion, when we refer to "China", it's almost always referring to the PRC rather than mainland China & Taiwan as a whole (i.e. the cultural entity). Pages are fine to discuss differing viewpoints - that's what they are for, but categorizing something should be based on solid fact. I see your point, and I respect it, but I have to disagree on the categorization. -Multivariable (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Change the category name to Category:Ethnic groups officially recognized by China. • Ling.Nut 07:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this really even an issue? I thought the PRC governing the mainland claims Taiwan and the ROC governing Taiwan claims the mainland. Lambanog (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely everything is an issue to someone or other on Wikipedia. Just let this thread die so we can archive it. • Ling.Nut 01:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

BBC News: Taiwan seeks to save indigenous languages

• BBC News: Taiwan seeks to save indigenous languages • Ling.Nut 03:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please help

• Need someone to get a copy of this book and verify that two images in this article are in it. If the book is in your library, please check it out and contact me:
• (Tanxian taiwan: niaoju longcang de Taiwan renleixue zhi lu 探險台灣: 鳥居龍藏的台灣人類學之旅 (Taiwan Expedition: Tori’i Ryuzo’s Travel of Anthropology in Taiwan). Translated by Yang Nanjun 楊南郡. Taipei: Yuanliu 遠流.) • Ling.Nut 00:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Qing cannibalism: will delete in one day

First, and most importantly, I am not getting an overpowering feeling of reliability from Davidson as a source. If the Chinese actually ate human meat, wouldn't it be documented elsewhere??? Cannibalism is not documented among the Han, AFAIK, so this source is extremely suspect. Verify with more sources, or I will delete in one week two days. • Ling.Nut 01:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm still gonna delete it tomorrow. I don't care if the source can be verified; I question the source's reliability back in its inception. There are no accounts of Qing cannibalism elsewhere – none! – making this extremely hoax-ish. Find more sources that say the same thing, or will delete tomorrow. • Ling.Nut 03:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Demographic tables

I'm hoping to transfer the tables from Demographics_of_Taiwan#Aborigine to this article, but I'd like to get a consensus from everyone else before I do this, since this is a featured article. The tables are highly helpful to those who'd like to learn the Chinese pronunciations and demographics of the aboriginal tribes, and I think they'd be a great asset. — Stevey7788 (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, I've just added the tables. If anyone has any objections please voice them here. — Stevey7788 (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Harvrefcol->Citation / Wikicite->Citation

This article uses two very unusual citation templates. {{Harvrefcol}} is used in less than twenty three articles. {{Wikicite}} is used in about 100 articles, and usually only in circumstances where there is no other choice. These templates are poorly maintained and may eventually be deprecated.

I would like to convert the citations in this article to the more standard citation template, {{Citation}}, which is used in more than 56,000 articles, and is uses the same core as the {{cite *}} family of templates, which are used several million articles. This family of templates is very well maintained and well documented.

The output seen by the reader is identical in most cases; the only exception being the way the journal volume, issue and number appear.

It appears that {{Wikicite}} is being used only because {{harvrefcol}} does not support "corporate authors" (such Taipei times). Citation does support corporate authors. (Which is an example of the advantages of a main-stream template; the bugs are worked out.)

Any objections? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course. Your "corporate author" argument is specious. It seems, if you look into the matter, that no bylines were available for the newspaper articles whose cite format you find objectionable. Citing the name of the newspaper itself may be one format, but it is not APA. "Alphabetize works with no author by the first significant word in title." The format used in this article is obviously a variation of APA (it has some minor differences in punctuation). Locke'sGhost 02:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you are right about "corporate authors". I'm starting discussions over at {{citation/core}} and WP:CITE about the recommended ways to cite "corporate authors" (what's the right term for these anyway?). The techniques used in Wikipedia for this are all over the map. It would be nice to agree on a recommendation, at least for {{citation}} (and similar templates, such {{harvrefcol}}).

(I would prefer to think of my argument as "wrong" rather than "specious", if that's okay with you. I just noticed that this article uses {{wikicite}} for "corporate author" citations and {{Harvrefcol}} for citations that have an author, and the rest was assumption, which I concede was wrong.)

You did not address the first (and more important) issue: {{Harvrefcol}} vs. {{Citation}}. Do you feel that {{Harvrefcol}} is a better choice than {{Citation}}? If so, why? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is where the "specious" adjective comes into play. Neither is better. There is no such thing as better. FA (and indeed, Wikipedia) requires only consistency within an article. People who want to pursue consistency across articles are doing something I find a bit offensive at worst, and.. uh... empty... at best. Locke'sGhost 12:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I argue that the major templates are better maintained. The rare templates aren't. My goals are pretty pedestrian really: just reliable software, ease of maintenance and use, i.e., the basic goals of software engineering. My arguments address these issues directly, I think, and as such, are not specious. I have no other goals here. It's not clear to me what's offensive about these goals. If there's no (major) difference in the output and it's easier and more reliable to use, what's the problem? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit of context. There are many issues on which editors disagree --- date format, spelling, use of templates --- and so on. I don't have a horse in those races. Honestly, on all those issues, I don't care either way and I think it is silly to fight over these things. However, I respect the fact people have strong feelings about many of these issues, so I don't make edits that could possibly be contentious.

The changes I am recommending for this article do not address one of those issues. I believe that our discussion here is the first blood spilled over {{harvrefcol}} vs {{citation}}, at least the first blood I am aware of. So, if you feel strongly, I will be happy to back off this and go on to other problems.

While I don't care about all the major disputes, I am bothered that Wikipedia has a lot of broken wikilinks and bad citations and so on. This is an issue I care about. User:Citation bot is patrolling wikipedia fixing problems with the major citation templates, and more powerful bots will be written in the future. Articles like this one will not be checked by bots. This article is in great shape, of course, and the changeover is, as you point out, unnecessary. This article doesn't currently have any problems that need fixing, and so maybe my argument is specious in that sense. But still, if one unreliable editor comes in here and adds a bad citation, citation bot and the bots of the future will not be able to detect it, because they won't know about {{harvrefcol}}. So I am recommending that it "come in from the cold" and join the rest of Wikipedia.

I doubt I am going to convince you, because you seem to have some strong feelings about this. At the very least, I hope I have helped you to assume good faith in this case. I am still unclear on what's "offensive" about this recommendation. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Very far from first blood, or second blood, or tenth blood even. Getting rid of all templates but one (or, in the perennial proponents' collective opinion, perhaps two could charitably be retained) is a perennial suggestion, and in fact, I believe it will probably happen eventually -- but it is a Bad Thing. People who make these suggestions are usually (but not always) also people who have made no real contributions to article writing. They are usually only template-makers and vandal-whackers. They have nothing to do but twiddle with the fringes, and they try very hard to assert that their twiddling constitutes a meaningful improvement or major contribution. I am not saying that you are one of those trivial twiddlers. I am only saying that people who make this suggestion usually are. And these people are almost always relative newcomers (or relative newcomers to this issue, at most, but usually simply newcomers to Wikipedia) who are blithely unaware that these issues have been argued out and consensus hammered out for five or more years now. And they don't care, in fact, about anyone or anything else but their license to twiddle. They want to standardize everything, because they think that makes them feel like real contributors. I am not saying that you fit into this category, but only that most people who raise this cry do. The reason why I think this will eventually succeed is that old-timers are fading one by one, and the pool of newcomers is refreshed nearly daily. Eventually Wikipedia will have one citation style (or, charitably, two). By extension we will also have only one citation template (or, charitably, two). But that is a Bad Thing. The reason it is a Bad Thing is because out there in the real world there are many well-established styles, and Wikipedia needs to accommodate the entire real world. Domain experts should be able to write in the style most commonly used in their field. The reason that the cry for standardization is offensive is because it discounts the legitimacy of all viewpoints but that of... standardization. Internal consistency is good, but coercing people to learn and to use one style is bad. That's all. Locke'sGhost 04:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Standardization is Bad Thing when it causes harm. I agree with that and there are many kinds of standardization that are harmful (I mentioned a few above). But that doesn't imply that this particular template merge is harmful. The only specific harm you've described is the bit about editors "the style most commonly used in their field". That's a solid objection, of course, but I don't believe you can point to a field that prefers {{harvrefcol}}'s output over {{citation}}'s, so I'm not sure that any part of your argument applies to this particular case. These aren't two different styles (I think). This is a redundant template. Or am I missing something? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Harvrefcol is LSA, the format of the Linguistic Society of America and its flagship publication, Language (journal). Locke'sGhost 12:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You win. That's a solid objection. (Sorry for the late reply.) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, now this is the only page using {{Harvrefcol}}... Mark Hurd (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• The reason it is the only page is because the noble,intelligent and valued contributor above deleted the format from other pages, admitted he was utterly and completely wrong to do so, but then refused to undo his wrongdoings. I forgot to admit "mature" to his list of attributes: noble, intelligent, valued and mature contributor. 'Nuff said. OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Autonomy

Are there autonomy territory for Taiwanese aborigines in Taiwan?--Kaiyr (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

substantive chanes should be done 1 by 1, with appropriate edit summary

• There is a difference between copy editing, which leaves all info intact but corrects/improves the writing, and substantive editing. Edits which incorporate both at the same time are poor form. Most especially, cryptic edit summaries such as "clarify" are misleading. Please do all copy editing separately from substantive editing. The copy editing can be labeled as a minor edit, with edit summary "ce" or "copy edit", but removal or addition of content must be clearly noted. Thanks. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)