Talk:Ban Phou Pheung Noi

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 2 October 2021 by reviewer Theroadislong (talk · contribs).

Southeast Asia: Laos Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Laos (assessed as Low-importance).

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

from etymology section[edit]

"noi (ນ້ອຍ, ນ້ອຍ, ນ້ອຍ) is Lao vocabulary word and means as following in English: small, less, little, tiny.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that noi means small but I am currently not finding verification. I am unsure why the second sentence is relevant. If these questions are addressed, I have no objection to the text returning to the article. Elinruby (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oops noii is defined just before this. So that sentence fragment probably should stay deleted as repetitive, unless there is some significance I am not seeing to saying that it's a vocabulary word. I still am not sure why we need to know the word for monster, but if this is made clear, it can go back in if this seems like a good idea Elinruby (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

found it in the history section but it is translated there as "Martian" or "alien".Elinruby (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About "Matian", in Hmong is Nyav-noj-neegand means monster, martian, alien in English." Hmong and Lao are different from one another. The Hmong language is not rich in vocabularies or words that can be used to cover "martian, monster, and alien". For the term "Nyav-noj-neeg" in Hmong hill tribe language, this means someone monster who does not look like anyone. What was in this flying object? "martians or monsters"?NruasPaoYPP (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PLease check again what Noi means aboove. Noi is a lao vocabulary. It's explaing above. Tahnks.NruasPaoYPP (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a topic question[edit]

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)[reply]

after some time spent at Hmong people I thought I would note here that multiple people in recent Hmong history do seem to be Yang. But I think somebody else should sort out the WP:DUE here. Somebody who knows more than I do about this. Elinruby (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About "ChongBlia Yang", I want to say there are too many editors coming to modify and delete words, paragraphs and also grammars. When the term "ChongBlia Yang" appeared in the "History" section, it was not only written "ChongBlia Yang", but written as following "the descendants of ChongBlia Yang". The meaning of the two terms are totally different from each other. Thanks.NruasPaoYPP (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

deleted text[edit]

"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)[reply]

Needs much more work[edit]

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)[reply]

Copy editor notes

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)[reply]

[1] "Southeast Asia".

[2] "Hmong people in Vietnam".

[3] "The Hmong Hill Tribe in Thailand".

[4] "The Mysterious Origin of the Miao".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]