Talk:Taiwanese aborigines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Taiwanese aborigines is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 3, 2007.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Taiwan (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Taiwanese aborigines    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwanese aborigines, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
WikiProject East Asia (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.
Vista-file-manager.png

Pingpu Tribe in Taoyuan County[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Please help[edit]

  • 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)
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[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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)

Percent of Taiwanese aborigines by Counties of Taiwan[edit]

Where I get Percent of Taiwanese aborigines by Counties of Taiwan?--Kaiyr (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Cannibalism[edit]

The following information with multiple sources was recently deleted. Can someone explain why? Readin (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Reports from American envoys and others suggest that Taiwanese aboriginals under Qing rule were treated extremely harshly. Presbyterian missionary George Leslie Mackay in From far Formosa (1896) reported that "if a savage is killed inland, the heart is eaten, flesh taken off in strips, and bones boiled to a jelly and preserved as a specific for malarial fever" (Mackay 1896:276). American consul James W. Davidson described in The Island of Formosa (1903) how the Han Chinese in Taiwan ate and traded in their aboriginal victims' flesh (Davidson 1903:255), a practice also mentioned by Owen Rutter in Through Formosa (1923), whose account bears some similarities to Davidson's (Rutter 1923:224–25). Sangren, in History and Magical Power in a Chinese Community (1987) mentions Davidson's account, adding that elderly Ta-ch'i informants had corroborated his claims (Sangren 1987:223).

Readin, you do realize that those alleged instances of Han chinese eating taiwan aboriginals will not reflect badly on mainland chinese, but on Taiwanese people who are the descendants of those han chinese "cannibals"? Since you eagerly defend the POV of taiwan independence, I cannot help but wonder what your motivation is. What is the point of this ad hominem attack?

Okay, now I see that you weren't the one who added the paragraph nor readded it, sorry for jumping to conclusions. But the paragraph is still in violation of wikipedia rules, see my explanation.

And the paragraph constitutes WP:Synthesis and WP:OR, because since most of the sources are primary sources, you can only quote the,verbatim. Any interpretation and combination with other sources in order to prove a point, ie. that aboriginals under Qing rule were oppressed ans Han chinese were all cannibals, is synthesis and original research.

And why not put the source in context? The cannibalism happened during raids by aboriginal head hunters looking for victims to behead.

Should the head-hunting expedition end in failure the braves are utterly ashamed, and in some tribes dare not return to their own village for three days. Failure is in any case a disgrace, and they take care to fail but seldom. But should one of their number be caught or killed, then there is wild lamentation in the tribe, and the fatal place is shunned for years.

And woe to the head-hunter that falls into the hands of the Chinese. The mercy he has shown is meted out to him. At Sa-kiet-a-koe, a Chinese city of sixteen thousand inhabitants in the Kap-tsu-lan plain, I witnessed a scene illustrative alike of the character of both races. A month before, at a Chinese house a mile out of the city, where many were assembled at night for idolatrous worship, one came in and reported a mysterious stirring among the stalks of hemp outside. Savages were at once suspected, and the men armed themselves with guns and other weapons and started in pursuit. The savages fled. Five were killed, five escaped to the bush, one sought refuge in a tree; but the dogs traced him, and he was taken prisoner, brought to the city, and imprisoned. He was kept in ignorance of his fate until on the appointed day he was led to the execution ground near the military mandarin's yamen. People crowded about in large numbers. Two executioners arrived, each with a heavy broadsword about two feet in length. Men and boys stood around feeling the weapons and remarking on their worth. The third gun sounded, and in a few minutes twenty soldiers with musty Remington rifles came hurriedly along. Behind them two coolies carried the miserable creature in an open, shattered sedan-chai1. A bamboo stick, holding a paper with written characters stating the crime for which he was to die, was stuck through his hair and down his back, inside the cords which bound his hands behind him, and extended two feet above his head. When the chair was dropped the wretch crouched and had to be dragged out. His face was horribly contorted and the very picture of despair and cowardly fear. He crouched for a moment, then fell forward. One blow was struck from behind, then the other executioner advanced and sawed the head off with his large blade. The head was tied to a bamboo pole and carried away to be put up on the west gate. Scores were there on purpose to get parts of the body for food and medicine. Under such circumstances, or if a savage is killed inland, the heart is eaten, flesh taken off in strips, and bones boiled to a jelly and preserved as a specific for malarial fever.

"From far Formosa; the island, its people and missions, ed. by J.A. Macdonald" (1896) By George Leslie Mackay

http://books.google.com/books?id=IAUPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA275#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=IAUPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA276#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

  • [As far as I can see the Hans in question are mainlanders; hard to see how they could be Taiwanese]. But here's the real point... Crying WP:Synth is the refuge of choice for lower-intensity edit warriors. The reason is this: just about any passage in any article can be framed and discussed in a manner that makes it sound like synth, at least on surface inspection. So people, here's the thing: the sources exist. They are easily located. We quote the sources. If it offends you, learn to accept the fact that your ancestors were not as admirable as you may wish them to be. Don't feel alone; no one's ancestors were. But don't delete reliable sources because you don't like what they say. • ServiceableVillain 06:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Other rajamann edits need scrutiny. For example, the editor deleted this text, saying it is unsupported by the source: "which sought to transform Taiwan into the supply-end of an extremely unequal flow of assets". Raj was even kind enough to supply a link, which clearly says precisely the same thing as this article says. That is, Japan intended to exploit Taiwan's natural resources in a unilateral manner. That what the source says. that's what this article says. I'll look at other "edits" as well... • ServiceableVillain 06:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
as far as I can see, you know little about the history of Taiwan. The modern day Taiwanese people are the descendants of those Han chinese migrants from Fujian on the mainland. I'm not Taiwanese, so those cannibals are not "my ancestors". The "Taiwanese people" refere generally to the Hokkien and hakka speaking descendants of mainland han chinese. Less than 2% of the population of modern day taiwan is aboriginal, the majority of taiwanese are descended from han mainlanders. Thats like claiming Singaporeans are mainlanders because their ancestors came from mainland China hundreds of years ago. Singaporean chinese are still referred to as han chinese. Have you bothered to wonder out why we have separate articles on Taiwanese aborigines and Taiwanese people?
secondly, it is a serious violation of original research. You apparently haven't listened to anything I said about the source. I did NOT say the source was wrong or that the author was a liar. However, you CANNOT interpret primary sources and use them like secondary sources. You can only quote VERBATIM, which means word by word, with absolutely none of your own input -Wikipedia:OR#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources . You are also not allowed to do things like compare two primary sources (thats user generated original research, you need a secondary source which compares the two accounts) and the paragraph contained information not even mentioned in the primary source, such as Qing being oppresive to aboriginals.
also see Wikipedia:Synthesis#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. You CANNOT pass your own judgement, like saying that the Qing were oppresive or that Han were exploitive. You can only quote verbatim from the primary source. I know this because when I tried using primary sources myself, User:CWH kindly corrected me. Contact him yourself or an admin and ask them to explain synthesis and original research regarding primary sources.
regarding the second link, the text the ip (who is from china, not Japan) deleted, the text says that Japan exploited Taiwan's resources in its own words. You can't quote directly from modern secondary sources since tht is copyvio, so the original editor who added that text was correct. The specific source was not linked to the entire article but rather that single sentence.Rajmaan (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
and speaking of personal attacks, I count at least three ad hominem attacks in your comment - speculating sbout by ethnicity and insinuating that I don't like the content because of it, insulting my edits, and accusing me with "Crying WP:Synth is the refuge of choice for lower-intensity edit warriors". you'd do best to keep the personal attacks down. You've only been here two months and somehow you know about all these instances of edit warriors crying synthesis? Can you show me an example?Rajmaan (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Dear Rajmaann, your comments are all over the text of the entire article, including this unrelated to cannibalism... I am wondering if a new section titled something like... ummm.... "Some concerns" or something like that would help... or if you have a suggestion for organizing this thread, please do say it... Also, if you see personal attacks in my remarks, then by all means call an experienced admin and have him/her discuss it with me... and as for being on Wikipedia two months, I've been a Wikipedian for... 6 and a half years now, see User:Ling.Nut3. I brought this article to FA (or more accurately, another editor and I did it together) and defended it at FAR/FARC. I'm supposed to be retired, but I still reply to... concerns... such as yours. • ServiceableVillain 02:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Mmm, back in 2010 I doubted the Davidson account as well, but I found this: Michael Rudolph (2006). From Forced Assimilation to Cultural Revitalization: Taiwan's Aborigines and their Role in Taiwan Nativism”, in: Barry Sautman (Ed.), Cultural Genocide and Asian State Peripheries, New York: Macmillan Palgrave, p. 63-102. SEE note on page 90. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ServiceableVillain (talkcontribs) 09:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Davidson and other primary sources are not to be used because its against the rules, and Wikipedia is not a university or academic publisher, so we as editors don't get to use primary sources. Its not about whether Davidson is lying. We are not allowed to analyze primary sources. We can only copy and paste them them into wikisource. We editors using primary sources are the equivalent of a random unknown author picking up a text of George Washington's letters and self publishing a book on it. That would not be considered reliable, even though the letters are real.Rajmaan (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry I'm really busy. Just to let you know, I'm leaning toward accepting your position on the cannibalism, but also leaning toward deleting your additions to the article... I am sorry i don't have time to explain; will explain more later... probably tomorrow. • ServiceableVillain 14:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

old Map of Taiwan with dotted line between Han and Aboriginal areas[edit]

On the front cover of this book.

The Missionary Review of the World, Volume 35 (1912)

http://books.google.com/books?id=D1wDAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Pictures of aboriginals[edit]

Pictures from old magazines and books. The first two are in public domain. The third is still copyrighted

The National Geographic Magazine, Volume 37

http://books.google.com/books?id=KPB_AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA280#v=onepage&q&f=false

Peoples Of All Nations: Their Life Today And Story Of Their Past (in 14 Volumes) By J.A. Hammerton

http://books.google.com/books?id=aYbHbqG3h94C&pg=PA2097#v=onepage&q&f=false

Adventures in Photography: Expeditions of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology By Alessandro Pezzati

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZLiVMof1xhcC&pg=PA83#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ethnography and Education[edit]

these sources are public domain and primary, they should be put into wikibooks and linked from there to this article.

Japanaese ethnography

http://books.google.com/books?id=DASbFaFwTUgC&pg=PA87#v=onepage&q&f=false

Dutch, Chinese, and Japanese education of the aboriginals

http://books.google.com/books?id=2opLAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA4-PA21#v=onepage&q&f=false

Modern source on Dutch education of aboriginals

http://books.google.com/books?id=uDdDaXtUhPQC&pg=PA233#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Shipwrecked sailors[edit]

Page 23

http://books.google.com/books?ei=TXENUfOJFeaJ0QHi4ICYBg&id=aL0UAAAAIAAJ&dq=aborigines+killed+shipwrecked+sailors+formosa&q=rocky+death#search_anchor

Prom the beginning of the nineteenth century scores of ships of all registries had been shipwrecked on the rocky southesm and eastern coasts of Formosa, and frequently the crews met with death or enslavement at the hands of the aboriginal ...

Page 63

http://books.google.com/books?ei=lHMNUauaL8qC0QHc2YD4Cg&id=_5QOAAAAIAAJ&dq=The+crews+of+many+British+and+American+ships+were+thus+murdered.+...+no+better+than+the+aborigines%2C+made+a+business+of+stripping+wrecks%2C+and+torturing%2C+enslaving%2C+or+killing+the+survivors.+...+Shipwrecked+sailors+of+all+nations+were+still+being+murdered%3B+attacks+grew+upon+the+traders+and+especially+upon+the+missionaries.&q=crews+murdered#search_anchor

The crews of many British and American ships were thus murdered. On the west coast, too, the Formosan-Chinese, no better than the aborigines, made a business of stripping wrecks, and torturing, enslaving, or killing the survivors. ... Shipwrecked sailors of all nations were still being murdered; attacks grew upon the traders and especially upon the missionaries....

Page 16

http://books.google.com/books?id=5OdHAAAAYAAJ&q=aborigines+killed+shipwrecked+sailors+formosa&dq=aborigines+killed+shipwrecked+sailors+formosa&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TXENUfOJFeaJ0QHi4ICYBg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAjgK

The unruly state of the aborigines and the Chinese distrust of foreigners caused many critical situations and even tragedies for foreign shipping; shipwrecked sailors being maltreated and sometimes killed.' The foreign nations retaliated with ...

Page 185

http://books.google.com/books?id=xwQeBlF4YQwC&pg=PA185#v=onepage&q&f=false

"It was open season on shipwrecked sailors"


And speaking of primary sources, since you defend their use, why not throw a few in?

http://books.google.com/books?id=wWQvAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA263#v=onepage&q&f=false

The slight intercourse they have had with Europeans has commenced to tell. Until recently no unfortunate mariners, driven on the southern coast, met with any mercy at the hands of the savages; and the massacre of Captain and Mrs. Hunt and the crew of the American barque Rover, by the wild Koa-luts, is still fresh in the memory of us all

http://books.google.com/books?id=eWQvAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA73#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=OQwcAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA256#v=onepage&q&f=false

Their first purpose accomplished—after the Americans, for example, had ignominiously failed— they established a permanent camp, and refused to remove or apologize until the Government at Peking had bought them off with an indemnity. From that time dates the first serious attempt to make the island an integral part of China. Even yet the eastern coast is a menace to civilization, and the prospect of crews being shipwrecked and eaten is by no means an imaginary one. The Chinese pirates —as the recent attack on the American steamer San Pablo in the Formosan channel shows— are bad enough ; but to have cannibals inhabiting with impunity a long coast of nearly two hundred miles in the very track of the world's commerce is a disgrace to China. True, the eastern side of Formosa is much less traversed than the western or Chinese side, yet it is an inexcusable shame that China has not yet subdued the tribes on the cannibal side of this beautiful island. Our own records of mercantile disaster on this coast, though few, are sufficiently horrible, while the death of our sailors and the loss of the gallant young officer Alexander Slidell Mackenzie, jr., are still fresh in the minds of naval men of this generation.

Rajmaan (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Why We Can't Use Primary Sources[edit]

Rajman has flattered me with a mention above and asked me to comment on the use of primary sources. I haven't had time to familiarize myself with the details of the discussion on this page, so I will confine my comments to the general principles, which are not self-evident. You probably know all this already, but it might be useful to spell it out.

Wikipedia: No original research is a policy article which says "rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources explains the differences, but in a nutshell, a Primary Source is an eye-witness account or document from the time.

It is frustrating but entirely justifiable that Wikipedia policy does not allow us to use eye-witness missionaries or diplomats such as MacKay,Davidson, or Rutter to establish facts, though quotes could be used to illustrate or give spice. They are Primary Sources. Sangren is fine. The reason is that we as editors have no way to evaluate primary sources.

We also need to avoid Tertiary sources, which means general textbooks, encyclopedias, and books which do not use primary sources but rely on secondary sources -- tertiary sources can be good if the author is familiar with the sources in the field. The principle is to get the source which is based on an expert's evaluation and synthesis of primary sources. A reliable source will also be one which is published in a place where it is aimed at specialists who will tear it to pieces if it's wrong. No source is infallible, but some are less fallible than others.

How do we find good secondary sources? In a a field like this, as opposed to science or popular music, for instance, it's going to be some work. Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship talks about what they are. I'm afraid the bad news is that you can't just search Google Books, though this is a terrific resources which we should all take advantage of. But the place to begin is a good public or college library to locate solid works from reputable academic or scholarly presses. Another wonderful tool is WorldCat, which often will give a link to a Google book.

In this case, in just a few minutes I searched WorldCat for "History of Taiwan," and it showed me that the category I should have searched was "Taiwan -- History." OK, then with a few clicks I got a long list, from which I chose the ones with Previews. First was Rubenstine's History, which I searched for "Cannibalism." No dice. Then: Josiane Cauquelin, "The Aborigines of Taiwan the Puyuma: From Headhunting to the Modern World," [1]. Bingo. There may well be better ones I could have found with a few more minutes work.

It may very well be that the best source does not have a Preview, and in that case it might be possible to get the book from a local library, perhaps through inter-library loan. In many cases if you are going to work on a particular topic, you can buy good sources in paperback. They may be available second hand from a local store or online at AbeBooks, Alibris, or Bookfinder.

You can't take shortcuts if you want to make a good article, but it's tremendously satisfying when you put in the work and produce something which will last.

Hope this helps. This article is an important one, so the aim should be to give the reader the facts arranged into a clear story, explaining the debates.

Cheers, ch (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the nice comments. See mine above, if you're interested. If not, have a nice day. • ServiceableVillain 09:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Taiwanese aboriginal cuisine[edit]

This is a good source. Something for Everyone: Taiwan Indigenous Cuisine by Joseph Yeh Komitsuki (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Speculation about aborginal head-hunting, cannibalism[edit]

Those with a "garden of eden" a generalized approach to aborginalism (that is supported by consitent aborginal activism against "civilized" environmental destruction) are taken back when confronted with evidence of headhunting and tribal warfare. Lewis Mumford (in Technics and Civilization) created a "marginalized" model were maladaptive individuals or groups were forced away from early farming villages to form gangs of hunters that did not limit killing to animals. (Mumford goes on to assert this as the violence of the nation-state.) Given this, and also the Cree concept of bear-killers as cannibals (as many Cree belong to "bear society"), I wonder if there was significant difference between mountain humters and plains farmers resulting from this kind of marginalization. That is to say that the head-hunting was liminted to marginalized gangs--who may have been called cannibals for their hunting practices--as a distinct, possibly minority, culture. --John Bessa (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it. I've read modern narratives from elderly people who were alive in the days of headhunting. The narratives describe head-hunting as universal among men in some tribes, and women participated in various communal activities related to the preparation of severed heads for various purposes. There's no evidence of marginal gangs etc. Inserting that into the article would be WP:OR. • ServiceableVillain 09:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Percent of Taiwanese aborigines by townships of Taiwan[edit]

Where I get Percent of Taiwanese aborigines by townships of Taiwan?--Kaiyr (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Two questions[edit]

1) What is up with the reference formatting? 2) Are we in UK English or US English?

Seems a bit scrappy for a Featured article! --John (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. Formatting, as everyone who is well-versed in Wikipedia style issues knows, is not limited to those damned ref cite tags. Formatting must be consistent; that's the only real rule. The style used is LSA.
  2. It should be in US English. It was originally written ( or massively extended and revised) in that style, since maowang and I are both US speakers etc. • ServiceableVillain 03:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Issues[edit]

  1. People keep adding images. Many of those images were rejected at FAR/FARC for copyright issues etc. I know they look cool.. the Tsou warrior etc... but are they real? And just as importantly, is their licensing acceptable?
  2. The whole bit about migration to the cities needs to be deeply re-researched by someone who has the time. Maybe 5 or 6 years ago the trend reversed (at least temporarily, perhaps?). I have no idea what the trend is now, or whether there even is still a pronounced trend.
  3. Some of the labor data etc. is 4 or 5 years old too. Needs to be re-researched and updated. Tks. • ServiceableVillain 04:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)