User talk:Nposs

Archives

Archive 1 (27 Feb., 2007) Archive 2 (5 April, 2007) Archive 3 (7 Sept. 2008)

Hi Nposs, I don't understand why my selection of Stable food for Hmong continues to get deleted in reports as vandalism? When in actuality that is the ultimate most truthful fact of Hmong stable food. Majority of us grew up eating broth and rice occasionally with eggs, etc... I want people to be aware of our stable food and I how much we have improve and grow with influences from other cultures. It was not until the Americas, where we as, as individuals started mimicking other ethnicities influences in food. That is the newer younger generations (us) started experiencing with other cultural cooking tactics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJXiong81 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on your talk page previously: your interest in contributing is very much appreciated. But the content you have repeatedly added (which has been removed by other editors, not just me) does not satisfy the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Here are the reasons: 1) It is a statement based on your personal experience -- not based on scholarly source of information. Wikipedia does not allow original research or personal essays. Please read

WP:ISNOT#OR. 2) The information does not fit well into a general article about Hmong people. It is more appropriate to a more specific article like Hmong cuisine. 3) Almost the exact same sentence is already present in the Hmong cuisine

article -- so your addition is redundant.

I removed it as vandalism because it was recently re-added by an anonymous editor and it was unclear what the intentions were. So far, 3 different editors have removed your paragraph. This would suggest that there is growing consensus that it does not fit in to the article. If you disagree, I urge you to discuss it on the talk page of the Hmong people article. Repeatedly adding it against the consensus of other editors will be considered edit warring and could end up in you being banned from editing Wikipedia. --Nposs (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you deleted the link to Asian-Nation.org's page on Hmong Americans? It is a valid article on a non-commercial site. ZennedAgain (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ZennedAgain. Welcome to Wikipedia. The link I removed was added twice by an anonymous editor

WP:COI

. Editors should avoid linking websites they are directly involved with. The proper action in such cases is for the editor to propose the link on the talk page of the respective article and let other editors make the decision about its inclusion.

If you believe there is valuable content on the Asian-Nation website that would be appropriate for the article, I encourage you to added content to the article and link the website as a reference. Keep in mind, adding links to the same url across multiple articles will likely be viewed as a form of spam (

WP:SPAM), even if actions of the editor are well intentioned. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Nposs (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Vang Pao

Most Hmong write using Chinese characters. There is an assertion on the talk page that Vang Pao's name was originally written using the Lao script, which I find to be far more untenable. Tomer^talk 18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. When you say "most Hmong", do you mean Hmong in China or in Southeast Asia? I've never met any Hmong people who were born in Laos who were familiar with Chinese script or who wrote their name with it. I've also never seen any references to Vang Pao in writing that use Chinese script. Do you have any references? Vang Pao was born in Laos and was employed by the Royal Lao Government, so it it seems likely that his name would have been written in Lao script in official documents. Of course, there was no widely used Hmong script until the 1950s. Nposs (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wkasey = Kasey Wilson ([email protected]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.253.106 (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[email protected] So Youn Ahn —Preceding unsigned comment added by So851031 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Lormong Lo - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nposs, Mong is an incorrect spelling for Hmong. Recently there is a scholar trying to equate Mong to Hmong Leng and Hmong to Hmong Der; however, this is not acceptable by the majority Hmong populations (both Hmong Der and Hmong Leng). In our language, no matter how you pronounce it, Moob or Hmoob, it refers to the same native, Hmong. Please also note that besides Hmong Der and Hmong Leng, there are many other subgroups such as Hmong Dou, Hmong Chai, Hmong Shi, Hmong Pe, Hmong Kouaba, Hmong Joua and etc. We Hmong has been separated so badly in our history, we are now trying to reunite. So please do your part to stop separating us.

Thanks,

Jongseng

Thank you for your comments Jongseng. I agree that Hmong is an inclusive term for all Hmong people, but the current consensus on the Hmong articles is to use "Mong" when referring to the subgroup of Hmong people who identify themselves as Mong Leng. See some of this discussion here: [1]. Also, there are sufficient secondary sources to support this usage. For example, several Mong Leng authors who use "Mong" instead of Mong. Some of them are listed in the references in the Hmong people article, but would also include Yer J. Thao [2] and Paoze Thao. Note that the Mong Leng dialect does not have the aspirated "m" of Hmong Der, so "Mong" is more accurate in that respect as well.

I appreciate your concern for wanting to create a unified Hmong identity, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is intended to be neutral in tone and should not be used to advocate for a point of view (

WP:NOTADVOCATE). If you disagree with the consensus currently reached, I would suggest that you post your ideas to the talk page of the articles that you want to change and see if other editors will change their minds. --Nposs (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Nposs, Thanks for the explanations, and sorry for bothering you. Again, the spelling "Mong" is the opinions of a few individuals or a small group of people who support the Mong Federation Inc. Mong Federation Inc tries to promote the use of this spelling for Hmong Leng. However, Hmong Leng, Hmong Der, Hmong Dou, Hmong Joua or etc are all one, the same people, and should be called Hmong. There are many other scholars who speak the Leng dialect do not agree to promote the use of "Mong" which would confuse others and would initiate the separation of a native.

From the talk page, it appears that only one user by the name Tomx who wants you the include Mong in the article. This individual was also argued to promote the use of "Mong" in Social Cultural Hmong forum; however, the majority doesn't agree. He failed to realize that no matter what the word is spelled, Hmong or Mong, it pronounced Mong.

The spelling "Hmong" has been used as an English spelling for long time, and it is now the most popular spelling. I did a word search in a Hmong forum and found that there are 4,630 results of the word "Mong" used while there are 193,000 results of "Hmong" used. I also did a Google search and found 30,000 results for the word "Mong"; of the 30,000 results only a few refers to the Hmong people; in fact, there a 11 results on first page and only 1 or 2 results refers to Hmong people, and those results happened to be Wikipedia only. On the other hand, 5,160,000 results were found for the word "Hmong", and of the 5,160,000 results refers the people of Hmong.

Please undo your change for accuracy. Thanks.

Jongseng

The current usage of Hmong Der and Mong Leng has been longstanding in the article and to change it I again encourage you to bring it up on the talk page of the article. It is not simply up to me to change. My current position is to maintain the consensus that was previously reached. Consensus is reached through discussion.

My preference would be to leave it as it is. Wikipedia should be neutral and since the matter is unsettled and there are a large number of scholarly works that use "Mong Leng" and many Mong Leng people who prefer that usage that it is worth keeping the distinction in the article. I wrote the extensive "controversy over nomenclature" section to try to address these issues. To be clear, when referring to the entire global community, I agree that "Hmong" is more correct. But when referring to linguistic/cultural subgroups, it is best to be specific.

Using a Google search is not a good way to support your argument. In fact, if you search "Hmong Leng" vs. "Mong Leng", you'll find that "Mong Leng" is more common. But, as I said, that is not a good test. A better test is how it is written in scholarly works on Hmong language and culture. I already referred to the two major works by Yer Thao and Paoze Thao. You will also find it used in "The Hmong: An Introduction to their History and Culture" [3]. Most work on Mong Leng linguistics also uses it:

• Lang, Xiong; William J. Xiong; Nao Leng Xiong (2002). English-Mong/Mong-English Dictionary. Milwaukee, WI: Xiong Partnership Productions. 8th printing edition of comprehensive 2-wayGreen Mong/English dictionary.
• Mortensen, David. “Preliminaries to Mong Leng (Hmong Njua) Phonology” Unpublished, UC Berkeley. 2004.
• Green Mong phonology: Smalley, William et al. Mother of Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. p. 48-51.
• Xiong, L., Xiong, W.J. and N.L.Xiong, Comps, eds. (1992). English-Mong Dictionary. Milwaukee: Xiong Partnership Productions.
• Lyman, T.A. (1979). Grammar of Mong Njua (Green Miao): A Descriptive Linguistic Study. Published by the Author.
• Lyman, T.A. (1976). Dictionary of Mong Njua, A Miao (Meo) Language of Southeast Asia. The Hague: Mouton.

These are just a few examples. To suggest that "Mong Leng" is used by only a few people is inaccurate. Again, I agree that "Hmong" should be the preferred term for the whole of the community, but when referring to subgroups, Mong Leng is more accurate. Nposs (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am advocating for the creation of a White Hmong Wikipedia. Please see meta:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Hmong WhisperToMe (talk) 10:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see:

- As I responded there. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comments about History of a People - This book isn't a factor in the Merced issue, but I realized it could be something to think about anyway. When Hmong articles develop I would imagine someone would try to use it as a source.

The book turns up in other places. Fadiman, as it turns out, used that book as a source for the sections about ancient Hmong history - she says this in p. 294.

Why not make a post or a comment explaining in detail what is wrong with the book and exactly what parts can be used and what parts cannot be used? How do you know that the content is wrong? Do other sources contradict the book? Where in the book and involving what? How do you know that the other sources are right and Quincy is wrong?

It might help to inquire about this at the RS noticeboard and see if any people there have the book and can share insight on it and what the community thinks about the reliability of the book. The discussion at the RS noticeboard will be archived, and other people can refer back to it easily.

As a note, I personally do not have a copy of that book so I can't flip through the complete text. The book is listed on Google Books, but it does not have a functional preview. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy has been discussed on the Hmong people talk page. As I posted there: Quincy's book has largely been discredited as a source of reliable information and it must be used as a reference with great caution. Suggested reading on the problems with Quincy's work: "The Myth of Sonom, the Hmong King" by Robert Entenmann, Hmong Studies Journal, Vol 6, 2005 and "The State of Hmong Studies". Nicholas Tapp. In: Hmong/Miao in Asia. Ed. Nicholas Tapp, et al. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, 2004: see pages 18-20 in particular for a thorough discussion of several of the numerous inaccuracies in the book.

Since you participated in the merger discussion a while ago, you may be interested to also contribute to the deletion discussion of History of the Hmong in Merced, California‎‎ at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Hmong in Merced, California‎‎. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Hmong Language wiki I added links for iOS and Android application. I now see that these links are not allowed due to the fact that you have to sign up to access the content. I later added a link to http://www.microsofttranslator.com, you removed this as well. I looked over the guidelines for posting external links and I did not find a reason to believe that http://www.microsofttranslator.com/ should have been removed. I am new here as you can tell. I would be grateful if you told me in some detail and in your own words why http://www.microsofttranslator.com/ is an inappropriate link. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballsimtall (talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've noticed you contribute to a lot of Hmong articles and I'm hoping you are an expert in this area. An anon IP just made a huge edit to Hmong people (see this diff) and I would like for you to take a look at it. Most of it doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with the Hmong specifically or, in fact, even the "Miao" peoples in general. I even noticed YouTube was used a "source". However I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to feel comfortable reverting it (in part or in whole). Thanks.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 04:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind...looks like somebody already reverted the entire addition. Cheers. :)--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 05:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You might be interested in what I started: History of the Hmong in Minneapolis–Saint Paul. I also created a navigation template that links between this and Merced. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also started History of the Hmong in Fresno, California WhisperToMe (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of a good source on the Hmong in California in general? I started

but I would like to have some more source variety before I put it on the mainspace

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After finding some articles about Hmong coming north to do marijuana farming, I started History of the Hmong in California WhisperToMe (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! In order to make more public knowledge of controversies/deficiencies in some books I started

to show people documented history of a book that could easily be used by a Wikipedian as a source WhisperToMe (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

Happy Dashain!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nposs! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nepal/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 1 year.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Nepal/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]