Talk:Plains Indigenous peoples

political views against Taiwan independence
Plains aboriginals are against Taiwan independence and against Hoklo and Hakka claiming aboriginal identity

http://udini.proquest.com/view/how-han-are-taiwanese-han-genetic-pqid:1668343911/

http://gradworks.umi.com/33/43/3343568.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=I2OMVmp-7mwC&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false

有唐山公，無唐山媽

"Have mainland (Tangshan) grandfathers, don't have mainland (tangshan) grandmothers

http://books.google.com/books?id=I2OMVmp-7mwC&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=I2OMVmp-7mwC&pg=PA21#v=onepage&q&f=false

01:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Propose Merge

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose merge with Pingpu peoples.Hongthay (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

https://www.tumblr.com/search/artist:%20john%20thomson

John Thomson, Pepohoan male, age 36 years, Baksa, Formosa, 1871.

http://shihlun.tumblr.com/post/129465708714/john-thomson-pepohoan-male-age-36-years-baksa

John Thomson, Formosan aborigine woman and infant, 1871

http://shihlun.tumblr.com/post/99074694864/john-thomson-formosan-aborigine-woman-and-infant

http://themafucage2.tumblr.com/post/27411091957/john-thomson-pepohoan-of-formosa-john-thomson

http://nativethoughts.tumblr.com/post/15531195433/pepohoan-of-formosa

John Thomson, “ A group of Pinpuhuan [平埔番] and Chinese [Hoklo] “, Taiwan, 1871.

http://shihlun.tumblr.com/post/129083038674/john-thomson-a-group-of-pinpuhuan-%E5%B9%B3%E5%9F%94%E7%95%AA-and

Costume Of Pepohoan Woman, Baksa, Formosa [1871] John Thomson

http://junejett.tumblr.com/post/43711727370/costume-of-pepohoan-woman-baksa-formosa-1871


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lin's research
We should not give this FRINGE theory UNDUE emphasis. The current article covers way too much over the dispute between Lin and Chen, which took place more than a decade ago. Multiple researches have since conclusively settled that dispute, with Lin's hypothesis thoroughly debunked. Lin herself is on one of those papers debunking her own hypothesis. The hypothesis is now pseudoscience, and is only promoted by a small fraction of Han Taiwanese nationalists who, by western standards, would be considered racists. Furthermore, the current text misrepresent Lin's 2010 book as an academic publication, when it's just a collection of her previously published papers and essays, printed by a publisher that mainly focuses on history and literature and has a clear ideological leaning towards Taiwanese nationalism. --C9mVio9JRy (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the article focusses too much on this one dispute, but which papers have debunked Lin's analysis? Do you have any opinion on this? --Glennznl (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , unfortunately it isn't a topic I'm familiar with. I proofread the page for grammatical errors only, so I can't really take part in this debate, sorry. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are the three papers that I referenced in my edits but you reverted.
 * These three papers use modern methodology to investigate the genetic heritage of various ethnic groups in Taiwan as well as in Asia-Pacific. Han Taiwanese are shown to be most closely related to other Southern Han Chinese while indigenous Taiwanese are in their own group with the Austronesians. The third paper coauthored by Lin shows that if there were a genetic mixture between Han and Austroneians, it took place thousands of years ago when Austronesian were sill living in China. --C9mVio9JRy (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright. My biggest problem is the part where you seem to have modified the text reading:
 * A doctoral candidate named Chen disputes the results of Lin's genetic testing, arguing that there are several statistical inconsistencies in her research, which has led to an unreliable conclusion
 * to:
 * Lin's claim is highly controversial among academics and points have been raised that her statistical analysis is incorrect or only relevant in a sense that is meaningless to the question, as in, while the study found 85% Taiwanese people share at least one gene with the Plains indigenous people, the same kind of analysis can prove that 100% of Taiwanese people share genes with bonobos. The use of genetics to promote (Han) Taiwanese nationalism is further criticized by some in the indigenous community
 * This reads in a sensationalist way and aside from that, alteration of sourced content is not allowed. Also, I think that the last 3 paragraphs, about Taiwanese identity and blood nationalism, could be kept. They don't use Lin as a source and nothing seems wrong with them, from what I can see. --Glennznl (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. I've edited in a new version based on your suggestion. What do you think? The issues I have with the original text are that it 1) seems to be questioning Chen's qualification as just a doctoral candidate, and 2) completely ignored his coauthor Duan, who is of plains indigenous ethnicity and raised a lot of good points in the paper about the political aspect of Lin's research. I left out the bonobo example, which is actually from Chen's paper, but I suppose it's too specific. I also choose not to keep the original last paragraph. The cited pages are only hypothesizing possible processes by which Han and indigenous people may have had intermarried, yet the paragraph wrote them as facts. Given the new research disproving large scale intermarriage, I think those hypotheses are no longer relevant. C9mVio9JRy (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good now, thanks. --Glennznl (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This reads in a sensationalist way and aside from that, alteration of sourced content is not allowed. Also, I think that the last 3 paragraphs, about Taiwanese identity and blood nationalism, could be kept. They don't use Lin as a source and nothing seems wrong with them, from what I can see. --Glennznl (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. I've edited in a new version based on your suggestion. What do you think? The issues I have with the original text are that it 1) seems to be questioning Chen's qualification as just a doctoral candidate, and 2) completely ignored his coauthor Duan, who is of plains indigenous ethnicity and raised a lot of good points in the paper about the political aspect of Lin's research. I left out the bonobo example, which is actually from Chen's paper, but I suppose it's too specific. I also choose not to keep the original last paragraph. The cited pages are only hypothesizing possible processes by which Han and indigenous people may have had intermarried, yet the paragraph wrote them as facts. Given the new research disproving large scale intermarriage, I think those hypotheses are no longer relevant. C9mVio9JRy (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good now, thanks. --Glennznl (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

"Various anthropological studies have emerged in recent years arguing that circa 85% of Hoklo and Hakka Taiwanese are actually descendants of Plains indigenous peoples through intermarriage with Han immigrants. This is still an ongoing debate and has been used as political leverage to promote Taiwanese independence and ethnic consciousness. An increasing number of Hoklo and Hakka are beginning to search for Plains indigenous bloodlines in their genealogy, and many are starting to claim themselves as Plains indigenous peoples."

Do "various" studies actually prove this, or did it all come from the aforementioned Marie Lin? If the sources that debunk her claims are indeed right about her data abuse, which are very convincing, I don't see any reason this 85% figure should be included in the article, especially not at the very top. A good idea would be to have a separate section about the controversy and politics of indigenous genetics among Han Taiwanese at the bottom. Also, this is not a recent development, and was conducted more than 10 years ago. Chokoladesu (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed those two sentences. There was no reference to those sentences but the 85% figure is most certainly from Lin. --C9mVio9JRy (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)