Talk:Lisu people

message: 12/19/07
I have removed significant portions of the first paragraph which started out stating the history of insulting words that others would use to call the Lisu people.  This would be the same as if we were writing an article on African Americans and the article started out telling a history of the derogatory words that they would be called in the first paragraph of the article.  Not relevant at all.    Also written in the same tone are accusations of slave trading which may or may not be true however just as the recent fad of Christianity, they should not be the defining point for the Lisu people and would require more proof before placed in the first paragraph of a wiki article.  
-Mr. Married to a Lisu. Wwind (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  accusations of slavery and insults 

message: I totally agree that the Lisu church page should remain a page of its own, it is more church history than ethnology. But of course the religion has to mentoined shortly - as is the case now. As is easy to see for anybody visiting the Lisu in Yunnan, China, Christianity has had a big impact on the people and their culture, whether you like that or not that is the case. I know nothing about the situation in the other countries, but the figure of 40% Christians in the page (not my figure by the way) is certainly no exaggeration for the Chinese Lisu. If anything, the opposite.
But let's keep the more specific information on the Lisu church on that page.
By the way - the statement that Lisu "knéw nothing of Christianity until very recent years" is not true. A century cannot be called "very recent years".
Gerard  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laplandgerard (talk • contribs) 08:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Lisu are almost 80% Christian, then it deserves more than a passing reference. The small paragraph is not POV.Brian0324 (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is doesn't matter who you are or where you live. The information that you are deleting is sourced and relevant. It is neither an endorsement or propaganda.Brian0324 (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Wwind has deleted all of the information regarding the substantial Christian population among the Lisu, especially of China on four separate occasions within the last 24 hours. There is a separate article about the Lisu church, which is a separate subject. However, this blanket deletion of a pivotal cultural quality of the Lisu people indicates a bias against the subject as the above comments show. This talk page should be about building a consensus among editors, however when there are only deletions and nothing offered as a contribution, this process breaks down. The information regarding the Christian influence in Lisu culture should be included, and it is noteworthy for many reasons. Wwind's edits of the past 24 hours amount to nothing less than censorship.Brian0324 (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter what you think about Christianity or who you are or where you live or even what I may feel. Your bias against this information being included is evident. Who are you to decide that religion only deserves a passing mention? You're not improving this article at all if you are only deleting information that is neutral and relevant. If the article said,"Because some missionaries came to the Lisu long ago, now they know that Christianity is the best religion for them and Buddhism is for the birds" of course that would be a biased perspective. But as it was, I am unclear why you think the fact of this missionary influence is reported at all is so out of place, unless you hold it in contempt, personally.Brian0324 (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The material has been put back in, with some slight tweaks. I really don't care to attempt to follow your very biased rule about what belongs in this article. The history of the Lisu did not happen in a bubble. It's OK to mention the notable individuals who have shaped Lisu culture.Brian0324 (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If you persist in this edit war you may be blocked from editing. Deleting material is just vandalism, unless you have something to contribute.Brian0324 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Wwind has broken the three-revert rule twice in the last 48 hours, despite warnings.Brian0324 (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Lisu church does have its own article, which goes into more detail. The point is that Wwind has decided that the history of the Lisu religious culture and their alphabet in China and beyond is not relevant, here. This is nothing short of bias. An argument for inclusion is not an "agenda". But the attempt to censor this kind of history is in line with some long-standing government agendas in this region of the world.Brian0324 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  lisu people and lisu church 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I stumbled upon the dispute regarding Christianity (Christian influence et al) and the Lisu people and thought I’d comment that the article Onomastic, orthographic, dialectal and dialectical borders: The Lisu and the Lahu offers a good overview of the Lisu people, and the influence of Christianity among the Lisu has an impressive presence in the article. If editors are interested in reviewing this article as a potential means (source) to help resolve the present dispute the bibliographic data is:
Bradly, D, Onomastic, orthographic, dialectal and dialectical borders: The Lisu and the Lahu, Asia Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 38, No. 2, August 1997, pp. 107-117. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on Lisu and Christianity

message: I have started this new section in order to work through the present conflict on this page.  First, after a look at the history of the article, it appears that both Wwind and Brian0324 have violated the 3RR rule in fact or in spirit at least once.  However, since there was no one moderating this article up to this point, I am willing to talk through this now without imposing any blocks.  However, both of you should know that any further revert warring from either side may result in disciplinary action.  I suggest that everyone just lay off editing the article for a little while.  In addition, the Request for Arbitration initiated by Wwind is premature, because there has been no request for comment or other attempts to resolve the issue.  In addition, it was placed under the wrong heading on the WP:RFAR page.  I doubt that it would be accepted anyway, as this is very much a content dispute.  For these reasons, I have removed the request from that page.  Let's just try to work through it here before we resort to those kinds of measures.
Now, reading through the above discussion, it seems that both parties agree that something should be said about the religions commonly held by the Lisu.  The crux of the disagreement seems to rest on whether or not missionaries and institutions should be mentioned by name in this article.  Wwind's preferred text looks like this:
Religion
The Lisu religion is part animistic part ancestor worship, but was mixed within complex local systems of place-based religion. Most important rituals were performed by Shamans.
In the beginning of the 20th century, many Lisu people in China converted to Christianity[1]
Currently Lisu people are either Animistic or Christian.
While Brian0324's text looks like this:
Religion
In the period up to the 20th century, the Lisu religion was part animistic part ancestor worship, but was imbricated within complex local systems of place-based religion. Most important rituals were performed by Shamans.
In the beginning of the 20th century, many Lisu people in China converted to Christianity[1], at first largely through the work of the Scottish missionary James O. Fraser.
Fraser developed a script for the Lisu language and used it to prepare a catechism, portions of Scripture, and eventually, with much help from his colleagues, a complete New Testament. Working initially on Mark and John and then on a handbook of Lisu history and language, Fraser handed on the translation task to Allyn Cooke and his wife, Leila, coming back to help the team with revision and checking in the mid 1930s. The complete New Testament was finished in 1936. In 1992, the Chinese government officially recognized the Fraser alphabet as the official script of the Lisu language.
John Kuhn and his wife Isobel, Eugene Morse continued the work after Fraser died, but by that time the Lisu church was already self propagating, and were sending their own missionaries to other tribes.
As of 2007 Christianity is thriving in the Salween River valley where the Lisu live 50 years after the death of missionary Isobel Kuhn. Of the 18,000 Lisu who lived in Fugong in 1950 - 3,400 professed to be Christian. As of 2007 there are estimated to be 80-90 percent of the 70,000 making the same profession. In Yunnan it is estimated that there are between 100,000-200,000 total Lisu Christians. More than 75,000 Lisu Bibles have been legally printed in China following this growth.[2]
My thoughts upon looking at this is that one possible compromise may be to remove mention of those missionaries who do not have Wikipedia articles.  Fraser seems to be the most central figure in all of this, since he introduced Christianity and invented what is now the official script of the Lisu language.  Wwind would have to be willing to accept the presence of the most important missionary in the article, and Brian0324 would have to be willing to accept the loss of the other missionaries.  
I think we also need to find more sources for this text, as I have no idea if OMF International represents mainstream academic opinion on this.  Also, both of you should solicit input from others on this issue, so that we can know what the consensus actually is.  With just the two of you, there is no way to form a consensus.  Leave a message on WP:CHINA, perhaps?--Danaman5 (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These are acceptable suggestions. The information should not be excluded. I look forward to being able to make the changes with civility in kind.Brian0324 (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of the Lisu and Christianity issue 

message: I am providing a third opinion on this content dispute at the request of User:Wwind, whose abortive request for arbitration I had seen.  I don't claim any particular expertise on the subject of the Lisu people, Christian missionaries, or any of the other issues at play; I do claim a certain amount of expertise in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which is the expertise on which I'm drawing to provide this third opinion.  Please note as well that my opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's, despite my status as an administrator.All of that said, here is my considered opinion:
*Some mention of the Lisu people's current religious breakdown, whatever that may be, is appropriate.
*This mention needs to be well-sourced.
*Given that Christinaity is the religious affiliation of only a minority of the Lisu, WP:WEIGHT requires more prominence to be given to the majority religions.  Unfortunately, I have no idea what they are.
*If it is well-sourced, it would be appropriate to include (on the subject of Christianity) something a little bit longer than "More recently some Lisu have adopted Christianity".
*I have some doubts about the suitability of OMF as a reliable source on the subject of the religious affiliation of the Lisu, although, since I don't have the book in front of me, I really can't be certain of this.  For example, if the book was merely reporting on the findings of an impartial study, then that would likely be appropriate.
*I also have some doubts about the credibility of the Chinese government when reporting religious affiliations of its residents.
*For the time being, I would suggest something similar to the following:
In the period up to the 20th century, the Lisu religion was part animistic part ancestor worship, but was imbricated within complex local systems of place-based religion. Most important rituals were performed by Shamans.  In the beginning of the 20th century, many Lisu people in China converted to Christianity, and many now belong to the Lisu Church.  According to estimates by missionary organization OMF International, there are now between one hundred and two hundred thousand Christin Lisu in Yunnan.OMF International (2007), p. 1-2
*From there, there is a great need to expand the section to describe the religious affiliation of the rest of the Lisu.  Unfortunately, I am in no position to perform such an expansion, as I don't have access to any reliable sources on the subject.
I hope this has been helpful.  I will be monitoring this talk page for the proximate future, and will respond to any responses here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that as the expansion of the section takes place, it may be appropriate to include several of the details that I have omitted (for example, surrounding the part about James O. Fraser - actually, there might be place for him in the culture section now, given his apparent importance to the Lisu language). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: I believe that both individuals have made valid comments above.   My view is this
1 - I do not claim to be an expert on Wiki Guidlines, nor a particularly good writer.  However I do consider myself knowledgeable on the Lisu Culture and can share as such
2 - I believe that a compromise is fine enough.   
3-  I will create a section on the Animistic religion practices of the Lisu.   I argue that this will be relevant to the Lisu article because these practices are not 'general' practices such as those of Christainty, but unique in itself to the Lisu
4 - The other user can include information regarding that there are Chritain Lisu.   But not information regarding their conversions nor even facts such as 'there are 50,000 Christian lisu in this one place'   This is because then I could write a stub saying 'And there are 500,000 Pagan Lisu in this other place and the culture is thriving'   I would also take any statistic published by a missionary orginization as suspect as it is clear that there is an agenda at work
5 -  I still believe that reference to missionaries. even the larger ones still has no place in this article as they are touching a very small portion of the Lisu population. 
6-  However I believe that the mention of James Fraser making an alphabet for the Lisu can be considered relevant as a cultural fact, but not in the religion section.  
7 - However the Mention of James Fraser and the alapbhet should be limited to this information.   There should be no mention of how many lisu he converted.   The amounts of New Testments printed or other information is irrelavant.  In my experience, less than %1 of the Lisu I know even know how to read one character in this alphabet, so it is limited to the extreme Lisu Christan community.   
To put this in perspective for the other editors, this edit war resulted from what would be a similar situation if we were viewing a page on African Americans and there was an editor who continued to fill the page with the number of African-Americains who have converted to Nation of Islam and gave details regarding the Nation of Islam organization and the people who helped convert all these indivudals.   I believe that if this was the case, the mention of Nation of Islam would be hardly relavant to an article on African Americans,  more than a passing statistic and maybe a link.
For the Lisu, the situation is the same.  Wwind (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most of what you say is good.  My only concern is that it's important to provide some sense of the overall number of Christian Lisu; I'm not sure what stats are available for doing so, but if we say "may Lisu converted to Christianity" or "some Lisu converted to Christianity", we're going to leave the reader wondering.  As far as I could tell, the best number we had was the one by the OMF, which I agree is problematic.  That's why I included the number along with the source, so the reader could determine for him/herself how much to trust it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As per your changes above, most are still in the article. I have expanded things a bit and again included the notable missionaries. The numbers are a challenge, but besides OMF I do not know what to source. If you have a source for 80% non-Christian, please include it, but it is definitely the low end estimate.Brian0324 (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: your changes were mostly ok with me.  I removed the word 'abandoned' in favor of converted when speaking about certain lisu people migrating to Christainity.   Nice try.  I also removed the names of the missionaries in the religion section as they have nothing to do with the Lisu people.   The religion of the people, whether it be Christianity or Shamanisim, is still defined by the Lisu people and not by any individual or organization.   when the Majority of Lisu people have a picture of James Frasher in their home and speak about his good works daily, then I would consider including his name in the religion section, however when clearly less than %50 (under %20 by my estimates) within the whole population have no idea who this man is, or even Christianity for that matter, then his name shall not remain in the religion section.     Perhaps the mention of James Fraser and his friends belongs in the Lisu Church page?  Wwind (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wwind's view 

message: If the missionaries (like any good business people) want to advertise their conversion ratios and return on investment, then I really don't think it has any place in a factual encyclopedic article on the Lisu People. I have no objection to them starting their own articles on "Lisu Christianity", "Missionary Success Stories and Testimonials", or whatever may increase their chances of receiving a larger budget in the next fiscal period, but they should not fill what has the potential to be a good Anthropological resource with such information. Only non-bias, subjective information should be submitted - and yes, despite my anti-missionary comments, that does include information about the Lisu Christian population, since a small percentage of the Lisu are in fact Christian, but this should by no means dominate the fact that a majority (even the Christians) have their roots Animist and Ancestor Worship. Hodge24 (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lisu Religion 

message: This article is in need of reliable sources for much of its content. The information about Lisu religion is scarce, and most of it comes from old missionary history texts. Reporting the notable western authors and linguists who shaped Lisu culture improves this article. It is either bias or naivete to think that the Lisu have lived in an isolated bubble of existence. The understanding of the anthropology of this culture is enriched by reporting the full story about the thousands who converted to Christianity. Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth. If there are sources that claim a lower number of Christians, add them to the article to provide attributed counter-claims. If there are notable Shaman/Animist people or events, add them too if a source can be found. But if you have nothing to contribute, please refrain from imposing a point of view on this article by deletion.Brian0324 (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "they dont have anything to do with a white man and his wife"?? I don't get it.Brian0324 (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They belong in a Wiki article on the Lisu as much as I do.  Which means not at all .   Wwind (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Counter claims?

message: The religion section is now divided into two subject areas. Both could be expanded, but now there is proportional emphasis on the major strains of Lisu religious practices. I appreciate Wwind's concern about undue weight in addressing the significance of the Christian missionaries. I am satisfied that we have reached a reasonable consensus between the two of us, here that includes their mention. If there are others who would like to contribute to the discussion further, please do so. If there is a lull in this discussion, I will try and archive the debate in the coming weeks so that this talk page doesn't get too long. Thanks for everyone's input.Brian0324 (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if I am satisfied, however It seems a fair compromise for the moment to give us time to reflect and see what others have to say.Wwind (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos to everyone for working out a compromise without having any bloodshed.--Danaman5 (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: On July 25, 2008, I responded to the call for citations in the text and added them where I could.  Despite having read a great deal of English, Thai, and French research and historical literature on the Lisu, I don't know everything (alas!) and so there were some statements that I could not verify but was reluctant to outright delete.  I hope someone else will step up to the plate.  I hope that you will use the best, verifiable, sources you can find, and follow the Wikipedia guidelines for that.  Remember, people actually use these articles in their college papers -- it would be nice if it weren't full of unverified statements.  Let's model good information!!!! 
However, that said, I added a link to the Open Access (pdf) file of my dissertation on the Lisu in northern Thailand just because it has a really, really long bibliography.  It's against the rules to add one's own work, so feel free to delete if it offends.   
Yours, in the joy of sharing the best possible and most accurate information, Kagillogly (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and References 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lisu 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090312021316/http://www.eng.yn.gov.cn/yunnanEnglish/145529160029175808/20050623/378813.html to http://www.eng.yn.gov.cn/yunnanEnglish/145529160029175808/20050623/378813.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified