Talk:Nataoran language

Please move back to Sakizaya language
Reason can be founded at m:Talk:Language_committee. --111.30.229.17 (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Premature to do this. Please see next section. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Revert to August 28 version (for now)
I propose to revert to the August 28 version (or something substantially the same as it) for now. Two main reasons:
 * Much of what is here properly belongs in Sakizaya people, not here.
 * The question being discussed at Meta (see point above) is effectively whether SIL intends for language code ais to belong to Nataoran (whether that is actually Nanshi Amis or something else—see Glottolog) or Sakizaya. The government of Taiwan seems to apply it to Sakizaya. SIL is less clear.
 * You could create a new article about Sakizaya language, containing large parts of what is actually here. But that would be in addition to this page, not a move of this page. It would need to take the tone that "some classify it as a dialect of Amis, some as a separate language", etc. And then this page could me modified to take that into consideration. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I oppose, because there's resources mixup which is pointed by a meta-wiki user on Ethnologue, thus it's unlikely that any revert shall be fair, . --59.63.248.136 (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There was never a change from Sakizaya to Nataoran. I wrote the Nataoran article at the Sakizaya name so I wouldn't have to create a separate Sakizay rd. It was always a Nataoran article, which apparently is a spurious language. The apparent mixup will probably be resolved with next year's ISO changes. (I supposed it could be moved and the histories merged if we want.) Meanwhile, I took the above advice and created a Sakizaya article, with a note that the use of the ISO code is inconsistent. (There's no real Glottolog code either,, the one I used is for the supposed Sakizaya dialect of Amis, but Glottolog dialect codes are inherited from Linguist List and are mostly gibberish.) — kwami (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, I have done this. Everything all of you have written about this may be correct. Still,
 * (a) A fair amount of the editing was not neutral in point of view.
 * (b) Like it or not, the official use of the code ais is for something called "Nataoran". And this code is different from the one used for something called "Amis", which has the code ami.
 * It may be appropriate to edit this page with a section called something like "Controversies" or "Dispute", where a case could be made that either (i) there is no such thing as the "Nataoran language" or (ii) it is the same as Amis, and/or (iii) nobody in the real world uses ais for anything except Sakizayan, per the usage by the government of the RoC. I'll warn you: that kind of section will have to include reliable sources, or it will be reverted.
 * But for the time being, where language definition is concerned, the rulings of the official keeper of the ISO standard—namely SIL/Ethnologue—are assumed to be correct. Write what you wish (properly sourced) about differences of opinion on the different pages for Nataoran language, Amis language or Sakizaya language. But please do not start moving pages around right now. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I'm one of the contributor in Sakiyaza Wikipedia. I would like to point out that, if you have read the discussion on the Meta page here, then will konw we plan to submit our change request to SIL in the 2018 series requests, and we're gathering the material at present. I would like to ask that please keep the enwiki of these related pages stay intact at the moment before the outcome turns out. The situation of Sakizaya People and their culture are quite weak, any simple edit here may hurt them and they might lose the chance on SIL.

I'll try to make some small neutral edits and not to bother the original contexts. If there are any problems, it's welcome to write here. It's also really nice, if someone could provide any kind of helps. Please feel free to contact. :) Corainn (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, this is in fact my first edit on enwiki, but yes, I support Corainn that we should wait until the related formal SIL request in the next year, so there will have a judge process from linguistics and jurists that maintain ISO 639 sort of standards. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)