Talk:Kam people

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

Copyright[edit]

Khoikhoi inserted several paragraphs of copyrighted material from a "prayer site for the Dong people"[1], a subsidiary of the evangelical missionary-linguist organisation SIL International / Wycliffe Bible Translators. I've removed them. —Babelfisch 10:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't insert them, actually. Check the history section. --Khoikhoi 00:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I had misinterpreted the version history; it wasn't Khoikhoi, but 202.5.89.121, now registered as DongTeam. I'm sorry. —Babelfisch 02:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the problem folks. I did not yet understand Wikipedia and was trying to help out by adding some general information about the Dong. Having written that text for the DongTeam site, I simply copied it over, which I now understand it not acceptable. I look forward to helping add information to this site in the future that will be helpful for all. -- DongTeam 14:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It is ok if you release your text from your website under the GFDL. --Khoikhoi 00:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Affiliation of authors[edit]

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so sorry if I took out something I shouldn't have. However, I'm wondering why it is specified under the references that two authors of the first are SIL members. I've never seen an academic work do such a thing, and haven't seen it on other Wikipedia pages, but like I said, I'm relatively new. This seems like it would be more relevant to a page about either the author or the book--and even in the context of the book, probably only relevant if it introduces some significant bias. So I took that out.

I have read parts of the second book, and I can assure you that whatever the source of the funding, the book is not remotely religious in nature. It reads like a work by Chinese linguists, as in fact it is. AwesomeTruffle 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read both books and travelled to the area. It is relevant for the whole article that foreign missionaries are active among the Dong/Kaeml and that two of the sources given were produced by missionaries and/or their affiliates. Maybe there is another way of incorporating that information into the article. —Babelfisch 02:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
My thought is that this would be a better approach, or, as I mentioned before, to put it in a page about the books themselves. This article is currently very limited in scope and doesn't touch on religion or western attitudes towards the Dong, western influence on the Dong, Christian influence on the Dong, etc., at all. Also, as far as I can tell, nothing in the article relies on either of these two books. Although I haven't read the first one, I didn't learn anything about the culture from this page, leading me to believe the information here isn't taken from the first book. As to the second, it's clear from the fact that SIL published it that SIL is somehow associated with it. However, I guess I'd have to dig out my copy to check--I don't remember any indication in the publication information that it was funded by a church and am curious where this information comes from. 24.20.169.145 17:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry! Wasn't signed in. AwesomeTruffle 17:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles[edit]

Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

I rated the Dong people article: Start-Class, with the following comments (see link to Comments page in the Ethnic groups template atop this talk page):

You can give this article (and any other article) a rating, as described below.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. A link to this page can be found in the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the article's talk page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 00:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


npov[edit]

What's these "excellent" necklaces I hear of? Sort it out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.215.13 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC) I believe there needs to be more about the suffering of the dong people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.179.4 (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC) There needs to be more innuendo concerning the dong people.

Great Joke[edit]

"Long Dong Silver (龍東銀), retired porn star." as a notable dong, rofl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.12.33.80 (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Number of ethnic by county of PRC[edit]

Hi! Could you find Number of yao, dong and yi people by county of PRC like there: Miao_people#By_county ?--Kaiyr (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Kam People of China: Turning Nineteen edited by D. Norman Geary[edit]

http://books.google.com/books?id=oNLcSlAae6YC&pg=PA76#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kam people/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*Has a reference section and one cite.

Substituted at 01:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kam people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kam people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)