User talk:Maowang

Re: Taiwan

Taiwan has never been " rumored as the "Island of Dogs", "Island of Women" ". If you cannot show us any evidence, please stop the nonsense. Thank you. — Instantnood 19:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright. If you're sure these are valid evidence, talk:history of Taiwan is the place to go and present. Thanks. — Instantnood 04:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Please leave your comments at appropriate locations of talk pages, and sign them with a time stamp. — Instantnood 05:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan Aborigines

Hi Maowang,

Thanks for the message. I don't plan to move anything else from that page onto other pages. However, I'm hoping to go through the article bit by bit, finding references & updating info wherever possible. Ling.Nut 22:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

migrations etc.

Hi again Maowang,

I just got around to creating the "migrations to highland" section. You mentioned in your earlier message to me that you might want to share resources/discuss on that topic. So I guess it's the appropriate time now, if you still wish to do so. Thanks. Ling.Nut 00:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

hold on there.... Naruw'an very unsourced and very very very POV

Whoa, whoa, do you have proof that Naruw'an is not an Amis word? Also "The Naruwan campaign also demonstrates the continued colonization of Taiwanese indigenous peoples by the R.O.C. " is extremely POV. This is not a political forum for editorials etc.; this is an encyclopedia...

I'm not trying to start a disagreement, but I need to remove some of this. Please read this:

• Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l insist on sources", WikiEN-l mailing list, July 19, 2006.

--Ling.Nut 15:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Get Dr. Li to publish that statement, and I'll back you to the hilt! Otherwise it's a primary source, and primary sources are not acceptable as Wikipedia references. :-) But excellent work & initiative on asking him that question. Kudos for the elbow grease.

--Ling.Nut 04:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I honestly don't think that any of the emails are suitable sources for Wikipedia. You can mention the fact that the word does not appear in the Amis dictionary. If you have a secondary source regarding its prior use in songs, that would be good. But comment about "colonization of Taiwanese indigenous peoples by the R.O.C." must be deleted. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant; all that matters is whether or not it's verifiable (since truth is a slippery construct). If you find a secondary source in which notable person X says something like "colonization of Taiwanese indigenous peoples by the R.O.C.," then you can quote that person &attribute the thought to him/her.
• I'm hoping you'll tear into the article and fix its many patchy spots. But we must keep it WP:NPOV ...
• Thanks! --Ling.Nut 15:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

re: written chinese

i have replied to your latest comments on the "raw and cooked" discussion. let me say that i would not tread into waters with which i am unfamiliar with, such as more detailed anthropological and cultural research on taiwanese aborigines, which you obviously have some background in. similarly, i would advise that you also do not tread into places you are unfamiliar with. as has become apparent to me, one of those areas is chinese linguistics and even written chinese as a whole. my commentary has been re-edited to include relevant wikipedia links to help you at least gain a cursory understanding of that which you had little of prior. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.232.100.151 (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

insults, tone of voice, etc

Brain Fart: It probably would have been easier to simply change the offending word.

the fact that you call chinese a "pictographic" language shows to me that you have even less understanding of it than i previously thought. chinese has very few, if any, "pictograms" in the real sense of the word. nor does it have many "ideograms". written chinese is a phonetic writing system, albeit a complicated and "flawed" one. anyone worth their salt in chinese language studies or linguistics knows this. scholarship by Y.R. Chao, B Karlgren, John DeFrancis, and Jerry Norman, etc, who are central figures in chinese linguistics, can attest to this.

"生" as a pictogram?! ha! sir, you make me laugh. a "pictogram" should be able to convey its meaning, no matter the fluency of the reader/viewer in the language of the original writer/artist. a real pictogram would be, for example, a picture of eating utensils (knife, fork, spoon) on a highway roadsign to designate that there is a hotel/restaurant nearby.

therefore "生" is actually just the written representation of the morpheme shēng. (and please notice that i use the word "representation", because even back then, the "pictograph" was highly stylized and is not easily discernable as a "picture" to someone unacquainted.) even its ancient "pictographic" meaning does not mean "raw" - shang dynasty oracle script shows that it was originally the representation of a sprouting plant/shoot. eventually, this graph was borrowed to represent other uses of the homophonous morphemes shēng (or more accurately, their pronunciations in shang-era old chinese) - uses with very different essential meanings. - 71.232.100.151 20:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My fault for the slip I couldn't find the right word at the time, see... since I speak Mandarin Chinese and Taiwanese for the majority of my day, it is easy to forget the English, but if you don't change your tone from the aggressively insulting I will reccommend you be blocked. It is funny you cite Jerry Norman... he was my professor in Chinese many years ago, I think he retired.

alright, fine, we can calm down before things get out of hand, but let me first bring to light some examples of confrontational language on your part.

may i remind that you entered the argument quite bluntly with the statement, in capital letters, "You Are Not Correct". you want to talk about sounding smug? perhaps keep an eye on yourself as well!

then, prior to my last rejoinder, you concluded with your own sense of superiority, declaring to have "put the matter to rest." ok, perhaps you have not been writing in english as much lately, but may i remind you that this can be perceived as a provocation as well?

this is especially since you had not yet cited your most recent source, re: chinese cosmogony, but instead went on about "pictograms". it is sincerely wonderful to know that you were a student of prof. jerry norman. but perhaps you were just a regular (speaking+writing) chinese language student of his, and not a student of the more specific field of chinese linguistics? his writings on the latter should leave no doubt in any reader's mind that "pictographic" or "ideographic" are gross mischaracterizations of the chinese writing system. this fundamental concept may only get passing mention in a regular language class, if at all. but i cannot easily imagine an english-fluent student of chinese linguistics ever losing sight of that concept, whether or not they are currently in the habit of writing in english day-to-day anymore. so if you were indeed a linguistics student of prof. norman, then i can only suggest that you apparently lost sight of a cornerstone concept within the field, and perhaps need to re-read his and other's writings on. i try to say this with all due respect.

you also argued earlier about how even the english word "raw" has other tangentially related meanings such as "unrefined, bare, etc". but the same cannot be said about "cooked". the only other meaning for "cooked" in english might be the slang usage "his goose is cooked", as in "he is doomed". by translating 熟 as "cooked" in english, this precludes ascribing to the original 熟 any other meaning than the culinary one.

so, while i can agree that the most recent source you cited might begin to shed some light on the possible merit of your position, it remains contingent on the fact that the original chinese 熟 and 生 can have these double meanings. to which i might say "fine, so maybe the Qing era classification might have alluded to the pure culinary senses of the words as well," but they obviously also intended to convey the meanings "familiar/assimilated" vs "unfamiliar/unassimilated". (and my arguement has been that this was primarily what they meant to convey, even if the other "essential" meanings of the original characters were also meant to be alluded to.) however, in the english translations of "raw" and "cooked", only "raw" has the potential to allude to the quasi-suitable secondary meanings. thus again, it is the english translations which are problematic.

therefore an english-only reader of the article will come across the terms "raw" and "cooked", and thus think that the chinese were just obstinately ethnocentric overlords willing to just classify non-han tribes in the same vein as things and objects. that they were or were not this chauvinistic is not the issue (and i would agree that they were indeed quite chauvinistically ethnocentric). but by simply translating the terms as "raw" and "cooked", one loses the more "nuanced", shall we say, ethnocentrism of the chinese literati from that period, because an english reader of the article will assume that only the culinary senses of the word were intended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.232.100.151 (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Kinmen and Matsu

Kinmen and Matsu are part of Fujian province. They still regard themselves as Fujian people. They are definitely not Taiwanese, by their own definitions and by others interpretations. An unregistered user added Kinmen and Matsu. Alex678 02:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)