Talk:Indigenous peoples of Sikkim

(No Title)

Yesterday, I made edits to this page because it had some serious problems. I changed the wording in some places and in various other places I removed whole chunks of text, either because they had very limited relevance to the topic of article or because they were incorrect (for example, the article claimed that Nepalese is the official language of Sikkim, but, according to the article on Sikkim, English is actually the official language). The article also contained 0 references at the time. Today, the originally author, Yuhai (虞海), reverted my edits with the note "You removed all". This is not only hyperbolic, but irrelevant: I removed only material that needed to be removed. Yuhai also added one source, which is a blog, and removed the "unreferenced" tag. Consequently, I have reverted the article to my version, keeping Jerrch's verifiability tag. Let's discuss the material on the talk page before seeing them restored again.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'll find the original text and change the source. Then I'll do it again. --虞海 (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the source: it's on Assist and Guide for Junior Middle School Students (ISSN 1002-6932, CN 52-1073/G4), 2007-Z5. You can download it here at CNKI. Will revert to my edit. --虞海 (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I removed a series of statements because they were incorrect or irrelevant. Adding one source does not make inaccurate statements accurate, or irrelevant ones pertinent. The statement that you sourced says "In 1700 A.D. Nepal Gurkha Army invaded Sikkim, and take the former capital Rabdentse by storm. The king of Sikkim exile into Tibet. Here, Dalai lama stationed him 春丕谷 in 熱日宗 (today's Yadong County, Zh:亞東) to stay." What does this invasion have to do with Native Sikkimese people other than being the general history of Sikkim? Therefore, I removed it.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect: Then what's you standard about correct and incorrect? And what's the Wikipedia standard? --虞海 (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant: It's not irrelevant because after writing the "Chinese and Bhutanese comming" section you'll find that it's one of the reason why 90% people in Sikkim are Nepali people. These is not a history section, and it's /*The Origin of Sikkimese*/. And that means it'll emphasize particularly on History on population structure. --虞海 (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By incorrect I simply mean factually inaccurate. Wikipedia's standard for incorrect information depends on the quality of the sources provided. However, you provided no sources for these claims, so I removed them because I believe them to be incorrect and, in one case, because it disagrees with another Wikipedia article.

As for the Gurkha invasion information, it sounds great. But there has to be some kind of limit on what kind of material you can put in the article while it is a work in progress. In this case, I think it would be a better idea to complete the section before adding it to the encyclopedia where everybody will read it.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undid revision 235170098 by Guy0307 (talk)

(for this edit) Please maintain why it's "bad structure and tone" before edit it. And if it's really "bad structure and tone", you can change its tone, but not remove any informations from it. --虞海 (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See edit summary. And yes, I can (and supposed to) remove information. Rewriting is optional. Guy0307 (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the /* History */ tag of this article is not aimed at discribe a history of a country but a history of ethinc groups. i.e. It's not "History of Sikkim" but "History of Sikkimese". Rewriting is also optional. --虞海 (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know it's "The Origin of Sikkimese" tag not "History of Sikkim" tag. If you want to write history, please go to History of Sikkim. --虞海 (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what you don't get. The structure of the history section simply doesn't meet our standards. I'll give you an example:

"In 1700 A.D. Nepal Gurkha Army invaded Sikkim, and take the former capital Rabdentse by storm. The king of Sikkim exile into Tibet. Here, Dalai lama stationed him 春丕谷 in 熱日宗 (today's Yadong County, Zh:亞東) to stay."

First of all, who is the "King of Sikkim"? Which Dalai Lama? What is 春丕谷 in 熱日宗? The section also isn't wikified. Also, there's a lot of bad grammar. Guy0307 (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working out it now, those question will be answered. Now I'm search http://www.savetheteesta.com/. --虞海 (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 熱日宗 (Rèrì dzongkhag) is located in Yadong County (Zh:亞東);

2. 春丕谷 (Chumbi Valley) is almost the alias of Yadong County, now;

As for the bad grammar, you can correct it.

--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 虞海 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this page?

Is it some attempt to identify the autochthonous people of the region? Why does this need to be a separate page? Is there some political agenda driving this? It doesn't seem like a useful contribution to have an entry that attempts to define "native Sikkimese." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.174.126 (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

[2]:<Ref name=Extensive /><Ref> --> {{fact|please provide source details in English}}:

The problem is: it hard to find Chinese source. I seek for such source for several months, most things I found are blogs. Thesedays I find it in China National Knowledge Infrastructure and started to get some PDF source. Then I corrected some former false info. It's even harder to find English source possibly because nobody have enough time to translate such huge amount of information.

Also, Bhutias people are not Bhutanese. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today I find an ancient Chinese book (written in classical Chinese). It may consist a lot of information, but still now I can not download it. It mainly talk about Tibet, and the very source I gave ("III. A History of Sikkim") cited it. You can see the top page, here. It must be reliable. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I said, westerners know little about Sikkim. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: the article ("III. A History of Sikkim") didn't say Chumbi Valley, but it says another name, which seems to be another translate of it. It also mentioned that 7th Dailai Lama gave him another place, which is 1 or 2 fazenda(s). --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the language of the source is the problem, but can you please translate the author's name, title etc. to English? Guy0307 (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get it. Done. THanks! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move page, content suggestion

First, I suggest a Wikipedia:MOVE to Indigenous Sikkimese or to Indigenous peoples of Sikkim because the current title is ambiguous: anyone born in Sikkim is a native. Any objections?

Second, I suggest avoiding more than a summary of what might best belong on the History of Sikkim article (that article itself needs citable content), and what might present a Wikipedia:CFORK or a Wikipedia:POVFORK. That is, the history belongs summarized in one section here so that indigenous issues – as opposed to history from an indigenous view – is what's presented. Any thoughts? JFHJr (㊟) 05:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Support the move; Oppose the “POVFORK” statement. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there multiple indigenous people of Sikkim?

Satyajit Ray Documentary Sikkim issued by the Royal King of Sikkim suggest that Sikkimese identity is of multiple origins. The Lepchas solely being indigenous to the place called Sikkim. This page is a political narrative to place other ethnic communities as Indigenous without any sources whatsoever. There are no indigenous peoples in Sikkim. The title of this page is also a misnomer or altogether wrong with no factual basis whatsoever. Another section provides justification that the page be named Indigenous peoples of Sikkim. Sikkimese identity and indigenous identity are not synonymous. I suggest the original author to put relevant factual sources to back up the claim of indigenous peoples of Sikkim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historynerd0 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]