Talk:Jingpo people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Language? Gringo300 07:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. Happy? Babelfisch 05:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I won't be happy until I get free gasoline. Gringo300 (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Categorization makes for lots of work[edit]

Um... this is going to be a lot of fun to sort out. Lots of red links out there that refer to either a language or a sometimes recognized ethnic group, and nearly all should probably redirect here. Before embarking on that, though, we should try to clarify a structure. Key questions:

Using Maru as an example for all the (sub)groups

  1. Do we mark Maru language and Maru people as their own pages?
  2. Alternatively, do we decide to treat the dominant meaning of Maru as the language, make a page for it called Maru and describe it as "one of the languages used by the Kachin ethnic group".
  3. Do we accept some dialect classification scheme for the languages and redirect the dialects to the "main" language? Leach (1965) for example, calls Lashi, Atsi, Maingtha, and Hpon (plus "Normal Maru") dialects of Maru.
  4. Where do we redirect Atsi, Lisu etc.?
  5. Adding links to disambiguate Maru, Guari and maybe more.

This is too much work for me alone, so I'm asking for input and creating a space to discuss it.--Carwil 03:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you dodn't mind; I've changed your asterisks to numbers, in order to facilitate point-by-point discussion. My opinions:
  1. Yes.
  2. No (see 1 above).
  3. Could be done, depending upon how authoritative/controversial the chosen scheme is. If you have more info, please provide. (Maybe ethnologue can help some?)
  4. What are they? I'll go look...
  5. Is that a question?
Thanks --Ling.Nut 03:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me make things a little more complicated here... While I agree that people vs. language distinctions should appear wherever possible for nominalized adjective ethinic group titles, I have doubts about separate articles for each group.

In terms of different views, it seems that most sources have a hierarchy, but disagree substantially on the importance of language groups. Leach (1965) says the Kachin are an ethnic group, while the Maru, Jingpo (i.e. Kachin-speaking Kachin, he creates a fake distinction for clarity) etc. are populations. Leach also argues that clans, which cross language lines are more significant. Cultural Survival[1] uses "confederacy of peoples". The Kachin Indepence Organization and Kachin National Organization use "an ethnic affinity of several tribal groups". The Myanmar government has an awkward neologism for the Kachin overall and "ethnic group" for the subgroups. Some groups are recognized "minority nationalities" in China, without necessarilty having a clear territory within Yunnan province. Since the China people are on top of creating ethnic group pages, they already exist, though they need to be related to Jingpo in some way.

In any case, I'm not sure that Maru people will have very much distinct content for quite a while; indeed, ultimately, it may have little more content than "Maru people are those among the Kachin/Jingpo who speak Maru. It has been recognized by the Myanmar government as an ethnic group." Okay, there will be a bit more, but not without quite a bit of research. For comparison, checkout the Ogoni people who speak five languages which are at least somewhat geographically arranged.--Carwil 06:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you don't choose easy problems, do you. :-)
Perhaps one top-level article could be created which would basically include everything you just said, well-cited. Every sub-article could include a link to the topmost, with a sentence in each sub-article explaining that any ethnic boundaries that exist may not be as salient as clan boundaries. Every article would be completely uniform in that respect, for at least the first one or two sentences of the lead. Then after those sentences, you could give more specific details about that group.
Does that sound like a workable solution? I'm not nearly as familiar with this situation as you are; I'm just sorta making general observations.
Thanks for all your thought & good work
--Ling.Nut 14:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it proper to redirect Kachin to Jingpo?[edit]

Apparently the population who call themselves as Kachin are far more than the Jingpo--Ksyrie 22:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think so, as it's what Kachin (from Burma) say in English. Ironically, it's a Burman word for them; Jingpo/Jinghpaw is the native term. In terms on notability, I think Kachin wins out. I promise to take up the disambiguation issues in more detail one of these weeks.--Carwil 02:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
For now, I'm changing the infobox to put both in the header.--Carwil 22:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert on the matter but the path from the dab page Kachin leaves the reader completely confused who the Kachin are and where to go. If I understand the Jingpo page correctly, the term "Kachin" is ambivalent and can either refer to a language called Kachin or an umbrella term for various ethnicities? Could these be listed on the dab page along the lines of "Kachin is an umbrella term for the following ethnicities X, Y, Z who are linguistically/culturally (un)related(?)? I think if the people involved in these pages could take another look at these pages that would be greatly appreciated. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Ethnohistorical Dictionary of China speaks of Jingpos as a subgroup of Kachin, not as a same group per se. J.K Nakkila (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a third article that should be merged, too: Singpho people. To my understanding, "Singpho" ist just a different spelling of "Jingpo", the one being transcribed from Burman, the other from Chinese script. --RJFF (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The term 'Kachin' has been used as the British arrived to the northern Burma. Young people in Kachin are told a story related to how Jinghpaw people got the name Kachin. One day a group of British (don't know British troops or not) are coming to the areas nowaday called Mogaung. The land surface of that area is normally red. The British asked the local Jinghpaw people in Mogaung, "What is the name of this town?" by pointing their fingers to the ground. Since the locals did not understand English. They answered "Ga Hkyeng" which mean, "the red ground". Since then the British recorded people around the northen Burma as the place for Kachin people and named Kachin State later. The term Kachin is now used as an ethnic name in Burma and English name. People in Kachin state use themselves as Jinghpaw Wunpawng (Wunpawng means united). In Kachin, there are six tribes_Maru, Lashi, Ahzi (Zaiwa in China Singhposu), Rawang, Jinghpaw, Lisu. Jinghpaw is a common language and it is known to have similar words to Maru, Lashi, Ah Zi and Rawang. Jinghpaw language is mixed with those languages from the six tribes.

Kachin from Burma say Kachin State as Jinghpaw Mung (mung is state). They don't use the term "Kachin Mung" in thier own use. The term Kachin is mostly used when they speak or write in Burmese or English.

This merge proposal has been kicking around for a long time, and I think that there is more than one reasonable solution. Given that Kachin is a broader group that Jingpo and Singpho, I'll move to merge the latter two, but ensure clear linking between the two pages and seek to maintain Jingpo/Singpho distinctions on their combined page. I think that this is consistent with the views expressed above.Klbrain (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)