Talk:Baiyue

Maps and names

@Qiushufang If you need more nonWiki sources to prove the name exists (even though other versions of Wikipedia have these things), then I will provide later.

For the map, I can list at least 2 maps with literally no sources in this article, and yet, only mine was deleted even though I have them? (More sources, especially in English, will be provided of course, but the deletion seems not neutral). File:Map of the Baiyue people’ land.jpg

— Daeva Trạc (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Having unreliable sources does not make the content superior to unsourced content. If anything it makes it more suspicious considering the greater effort to feign legitimacy. Your map is the most obvious standout with names that don't appear anywhere in the article such as Chiem Viet, Ho Viet, and Khoi Viet. Your recent history in your talk page and edits adding fictional flags to pages reinforces the unreliable nature of these additions. Qiushufang (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, the good old arguments of “you used to be wrong, so must be wrong again”.

First, sources are there, in both Vietnamese and Chinese, you deleted the sources and claimed my edits were invalid (I even put the other Wiki versions and here we are

Secondly, those “flag editing” had been removed a long time ago and isn’t even related to this very subject we are talking about. Beside, if you really read the talk page, you’ll find out that the flag wasn’t fictional, but rather unnecessary since it is just an internet-based party.

Please, keep your arguments tidy.— Daeva Trạc (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

So, you argue about names-you-don’t-see-in-the-articles-even-though-you-deleted-them, then argue about a non-related to this article we are arguments about, and somehow ignore what I said about those unsourced map that somehow being kept in this article (which I will delete if we agree that unsource=invalid)— Daeva Trạc (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

“you used to be wrong, so must be wrong again”.

the names I added should still being kept (I have compared with Chinese versions and after doing some results, the names of Yue tribes I added are not fake).

• Of the three names added to the list of Yue polities here, only 東越 appears in the body of the Chinese version, the other names do not appear in either the Chinese or Vietnamese versions. They are from the unsourced Cantonese and Gan Chinese versions listed in the description of the map added. There is no way to know if they are real without further information since they are not mentioned in the English version of the page nor are there sources provided. There are Chinese and Vietnamese versions for for 干越/Cán Việt with no reliable sources, only dead links or UGC. One map does have Hồ Việt and Chiêm Việ in roughly the same locations but it's a Wordpress blog and does not mention any of the other names that you have added in their locations. A Google search doesn't turn up any info on 盔越 (Khôi Việt), 虎越 (Hồ Việt), 幹越 (Cán Việt), or 沉思越 (Chiêm Việ).

Qiushufang (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment, I initially told user "Daeva Trạc" that I thought that the boundaries was the only issue, but having searched some terms myself I also fail to find it. I will go ahead and tag the map as unreliable at the Wikimedia Commons now. --Donald Trung (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • On a side note, the boundaries of the Lạc Việt looks too much like those of modern Northern Vietnam, including areas which wouldn't be conquered until the Nguyễn Dynasty period. Nam Việt was also a Chinese invention (as in invented by a Chinese general) and only briefly existed at the same time as the Âu Việt and the Lạc Việt, this means that this map has to be during the 190's BCE, but during this period most of the Bạch (100) Việt were already conquered by the Chinese. This map just completely doesn't add up. — Donald Trung (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The original map is probably from this article, which is a translated version of this article by Lê Minh Khải, otherwise known as Liam Kelley. However the original article did not have the map and the earliest version of it that I could find comes from an authorless pro-democracy anti-communist blog article from 2011. Quite odd considering the two viewpoints seem to be polar opposites. The map by Daeva Trac seems to be an amalgamation of that map and the other names they found in the Cantonese and Gan Wiki pages but I'm not sure how they arrived at the locations for them since I can't find any info on a couple of the names. For 盔越 (Khôi Việt), it's located right beside Dianyue probably because they are both in the same column on the Wiki page. Qiushufang (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Qiushufang for understanding my perspective, and as I said in the comments below, I get your point now (sorry for thinking you are just angry at me).— Daeva Trạc (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

There is an argument among Vietnameses about whether or not Nanyue should be considered the part of the Vietnamese (as an ethnicity) history or just a foreign history that connected to Vietnam (as a nation), though most points somewhat agree that Zhao Tuo, a Chinese, named his country after a Yue tribe to gain support. I just based on that.— Daeva Trạc (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I just used Wikipedia as a summary for all the sources though. However, after reading both @Donald Trung and @Qiushufang’s comments, I have somewhat gotten the point. You wanted all the names to be written in the sources to prove the credibility of them. I guess that the point? But for the Hồng Bàng article, I still don’t get why Im wrong? The map was drawn based on the description on the book.— Daeva Trạc (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion

More on Chu, Yue, and the 'Baiyue' here

• Li Xueqin (1991), "Chu Bronzes and Chu Culture", New Perspectives on Chu Culture during the Eastern Zhou Period (PDF), Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 1–22.

including both literary and archaeological info. — LlywelynII 08:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Short and mallet-bun hair

It is well-known that the Chinese sources formulaically describe Yue peoples to have short hair and tatooed bodies, usually with terms like ‘cut hair’ ‘unbound hair’, or ‘uncovered hair’ because it was the culture at the time in China to not cut hair and wear it under a cap after adulthood. Less well known are the many Chinese sources that also describe them wearing a ‘mallet-bun’, which seems completely incompatible with short hair. Actually, the reverse side of the famous ‘Yue man’ statue, which is the photo representing this Wikipedia article, features this very bun in combination with the short hair and bangs at the front. I never knew this until I read about it. I would love to have this detail added to the article. Any thoughts? You can find a more detailed study in ‘Ancient China and the Yue’ by Erica Brindley. 2605:B100:712:2EF7:E043:D469:6E8A:C00 (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You can easily find a side view of the statue that shows the bun on Google by the way 104.246.161.131 (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

We need a written source that corroborates this. Remsense诉 22:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You can find it in Erica F. Brindley’s “Ancient China and the Yue: Perceptions and Identities on the Southern Frontier, c.400 BCE–50 CE.

Page 152 has a section covering what the author labels: Mallet-shaped bun (chuijie 椎髻/魋結) under the broader chapter of ‘Physical Markers of Yue Identity’. She herself cites both primary and secondary sources. Also the fact that the statue mentioned previously does indeed have a bun is striking - whether or not it was actually made by a ‘Yue’, it does seem to represent one. 104.246.161.131 (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll take a look now. Remsense诉 05:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I admit this particular fact might be too niche for a general Wikipedia article, but perhaps a brief mention or footnote might be appropriate - or a picture of the rear side of the statue? And if anyone knows any other English sources on mallet-buns, I would eagerly read it. 69.11.119.31 (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)