This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are repeated references to "ChongBlia Yang", some of which appear historical, and others to date to the 60s. Did a cursory google search which did not help me. There is enough going on with the English for me to get that first, but my concern is whether this may be some sort of family lore that can't be verified and should be deleted. I am definitely not going to have to research this today, if ever. Elinruby (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
"For many of the Miao / Hmong people living in Southeast Asian[1] countries that includes Laos, Vietnam[2] and Thailand,[3] China is the most marked country in Miao / Hmong history, due to their origins.[4]"
Possibly some of the references are good Elinruby (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Apart from the issues above, the article is very disorganized and repetitive. It also seems to rely overmuch on the Encyclopedia Britannica, which isn't in and of itself a terrible thing, but suggests that not very much research went into the article and it should be vetted for verifiability and accuracy Elinruby (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I standardized the name of the province to Xieng Khouang vs. XiengKhouang; not sure which is correct but if somebody knows better it can be fixed with a find/replave, and it should be one or the other, not both. Similarly I standardized on Ban Phou Pheung Noi vs Ban Phou pheung noi or any of the other capitalizations used in the article. My logic was that while the name is a descriptor, in English it isn't and so should be capitalized. If somebody knows more than the admittedly little that I do, please do avail yourself of find/replace.
The article seems to change its mind several times about whether the village should be referred to in the past or present tense. I decided that if it was abandoned, then it is no longer a village and oast tense is more appropriate. Since the article never actually says that nobody lives there now, this could be wrong, but at least it only uses one verb tense now, not both. I have no strong feelings about any of the above.
I do care about this: I would urge a thorough vetting of the references and of the discussion of Hmong clans. In particular, the article conflates Miao and Hmong, yet repeatedly says they are different. But the same. I also seem to recall seeing on one of the related pages I looked at last night that "Miao" is derogatory in certain circumstances, and the article itself says the Hmong were formerly called the Miao, who are in China (where it is derogatory) and yet they are not the same as the Miao/Hmong in Laos. Perhaps I am simply missing something, in which case fine, but I suspect at least two authors, neither of them expert. I Know we don't have to be, but in matters as contentious as Asian ethnicity, it would be good to have at least some journal articles, right?
I have gone over the wikilinks, but haven't checked every single one. I pared off a lot of fuzziness and repetition, I believe without distorting anyone's intended meaning, and took a swipe at some of the more egregious organization problems. The Politics section largely duplicates the History section, so perhaps they should be merged. The chronology also seems fuzzy in places, especially with respect to the arrival in the area of the various ethnic groups. The article does not seem to distinguish between tribe, clan, and family, which is probably wrong in the more scholarly sections such as ethnology. Finally, the Yang clan gets a lot of uncited attention; check for family lore.
PS: Leaving the copy edit tag up since I think that somebody else may be able to improve the organization and double-check my work.
Peace out. I have definitely had enough of this for now. This is the best that I personally am going to get it. Hope this makes things easier for the topic expert I suspect will be needed Elinruby (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)