Talk:Lhoba people

Untitled

In the history section, should "Cathoilism" be "Catholicism"? I don't know much about the Lhoba or Asian history in general, so I don't want to change it.

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 20:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the Neutral Dispute Sign because the person who put the sign there didn't explain on the discussion page why he or she put it there.Lie-Hap-Po (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Idu Mishmis in Arunachal Pradesh

I heard that Arunachal Pradesh has quite a bit of Idu Mishmis. --KRajaratnam1 (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Obscure origin of the term "Lhoba"

The article begins by saying "Lhoba (Chinese: 珞巴) is a term of obscure (though probably Tibetan)". Is it really obscure? If it's lho-pa, then that means "southerners" in Tibetan. They live south of Tibet. It seems pretty straightforward.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Misspelling in Tibetan text

I've changed the name "Lho-yul" towards the bottom of the article to its proper spelling in Tibetan, ལྷོ༌ཡུལ་ , which was mis-rendered as ལྷོ་རྗོང་ (lho-rjong).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Lhoba 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/20090715192324/http://www.56-china.com.cn/china1-12/4q/zgmz-nw4m32.htm to http://www.56-china.com.cn/china1-12/4q/zgmz-nw4m32.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030212308/http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Jrp/pdf/jrp_133_02.pdf to http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Jrp/pdf/jrp_133_02.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041230185614/http://www.ksafe.com/profiles/p_code5/767.html to http://www.ksafe.com/profiles/p_code5/767.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050418220507/http://www.zytzb.org.cn/xizhang/zazhi/2001-3/eng/p6.htm to http://www.zytzb.org.cn/xizhang/zazhi/2001-3/eng/p6.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D11125%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060507075340/http://tribaltransitions.soas.ac.uk/publications/home.html to http://tribaltransitions.soas.ac.uk/publications/home.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615002541/http://tribaltransitions.soas.ac.uk/publications/blackburnHeidelbergfuneral.pdf to http://tribaltransitions.soas.ac.uk/publications/blackburnHeidelbergfuneral.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312215026/http://tribaltransitions.soas.ac.uk/gallery/funeral/ to http://tribaltransitions.soas.ac.uk/gallery/funeral/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Acc to Hudson

Kautilya3, Hudson sounds like he knows what he is talking about in this paragraph:

The Lhoba people were inhabitants of what is now NEFA, the Indian North-east Frontier Agency, which is claimed by China as Chinese territory and has been subjected to Chinese military invasion. To-day the only people who count in terms of power in this wild country of precipitous mountains and deep valleys are the soldiers of India and China who contend for its possession. But in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the NEFA country was not really either Indian or Chinese; it was not even Tibetan, but a zone of independent primitive tribes, too small and unorganised to form "states," but strong enough in their inaccessible mountain strongholds to resist absorption by their more civilised neighbours to north and south.

And the date of the writeup, 1962, is interesting. DTM (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Not really. The original Tibetan term was "Lopa" (Wylie: klo-pa) which meant literally "barbarian". The term was applied to all the tribes of Assam Himalaya (some of which is on the Tibetan side). When the tribesmen figured out how they were being perceived, they changed it to "Lhopa" (Wylie: lho-pa). The pa-ba variation in pronunciation is fairly common, and it looks like the Chinese prefer ba. The Chinese characters also change it luo-ba. (I presume the don't have a way to write lo.) I will dig out the sources for all this.

And, now you also know where Lowa/Luowa comes from!

As for Hudson, yes, he was the editor of Far-Eastern Papers published by the St. Antony's College of Oxford. He is quite knowledgeable about the India-China interface. He is absolutely spot-on about the independent-ness of the tribesmen. You should also see the horse's mouth:

• Caroe, Olaf (April 1963), "The Sino-Indian Frontier Dispute", Asian Review, LIX (218) – via archive.org

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, the McMahon Line was a true "colonial line", i.e., big men sitting in board rooms and drawing lines on maps for countries that nobody owned. (Africa is full of such lines.) Influence was extended after the lines were decided. This was entirely normal clonial practice. The Chinese idea that they had "owned" it is just wild imagination.

• Lin, Hsiao-Ting (2004), "Boundary, sovereignty, and imagination: Reconsidering the frontier disputes between British India and Republican China, 1914–47", The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 32 (3): 25–47, doi:10.1080/0308653042000279650

However, if you look at all the evidence impartially, the tribes had more connections to Assam than they did to Tibet, mainly because Assam provided a far bigger market for their produce. Sedentary societies surrounded by wild tribes is a commonplace phenomenon in South Asia. (For example, Hampi Vijayanagara was ransacked by exactly such tribes, after the capital fell to the Bahmani Sultanate and was left defence-less.) Tibet did influence some religious and cultural influence in some border areas, e.g., Migyitun (Lo Mikyimdun), but such places weren't many. That is precisely why Tibet agreed to give up any claim to NEFA. The border was truly negotiated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Reference 10

Reference 10 does not mention "miniscule" even though it is scare-quoted in the article. I'm not sure if this is from some Chinese government source and translated, but the scare quotes should obviously be sourced. 73.82.6.199 (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Merge the "Lhoba People" article into the "Tani People" article.

Rationale

Terminology: "Lhoba" is an exonym used to refer to the same group of people who identify themselves as "Tani." The use of endonyms is preferred for accuracy and cultural respect. Content Overlap: The information about the Lhoba people can be seamlessly integrated into the Tani People article. Both articles cover similar cultural, linguistic, and historical aspects.

Article Size and Weighting: Merging will not cause any issues with article size or weighting. It will streamline content, making it more comprehensive and easier to navigate for readers. Proposed Integration: Introduction: Briefly explain the terminology, noting that "Lhoba" is an exonym while "Tani" is the endonym. History and Culture: Combine sections to provide a unified account of the Tani people's history and cultural practices. Linguistic Aspects: Consolidate linguistic information, highlighting the various languages and dialects spoken within the Tani group. @KRajaratnam1:@Lie-Hap-Po:@Kautilya3: Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

"Lhoba" is a term used in Tibet/China. It is not used in India. So, I don't think it can be identified with any other term or ethnicity in India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

But it still refers to the same group. Lhoba as a term is used by the chinese to refer to tani communities in china. Like indians call themselves bhartiya among themselves and indian outside. So my proposal is to merge the Lhoba people page within Tani people, since it doesn't make sense to have two separate pages for the same group. Even Naga people page, for myanmar and indian naga are the same Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Lhoba as a term is also used by monyuls and Na tanis to refer themselves in the state of arunachal, but yes the term Lhoba/Luoba are derived from tibetan and mandarin respectively. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This page should be the one that should be merged with the Tani people page since the term, Tani is an endonym, and it would make sense to include the page title after an endonym. All exonyms can be mentioned separately in this page itself, and any searches with Lhoba or any other exonym can be redirected towards this page. Even in India, there are multiple exonyms for the Tani community such as Hill Miri, Abor, Dapla, etc similar to the term Lhoba, which is the exonym used in china. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)