Talk:Baiyue/Archive 1

Archive 1

Relationship to Vietnam?

Are the "Nan Yue" people mentioned here the Vietnamese? "Nan Yue" becomes "Nam Viet" in Vietnamese. Vietnamese people claim this is the old name for Vietnam. It would be good if someone familiar with Vietnamese and Chinese history could explain how Vietnam fits into all this. The Vietnamese are no doubt one of the many ethnicities the chinese called Yue. Carl Kenner 13:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Vietnamese were but one of the countless Yue peoples spread over a huge geographic region stretching from Vietnam to Shanghai. Nanyue was an ancient kingdom founded by a former Chinese general named Zhao Tuo. The kingdom included much of southern China, including Guangxi, Guangdong, and perhaps parts of Yunnan. Later on, Zhao Tuo would expand his kingdom to include much of modern nothern Vietnam. So strictly speaking, Nam Viet isn't an old name for Vietnam as it included many non-Vietnamese territories and peoples.

The modern name of Vietnam does come from this sometime in the 18th century. Originally called Dai Viet, the leader of Vietnam asked the Chinese emperor Qianlong for permission to name his state Nam Viet ("southern Yue"). Qianlong instead changed the name ordering to Vietnam ("viets/Yue" of the south).--Yuje 14:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion about the Luoyue below. DHN 23:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If you meant Lac Viet and Au Viet as only two of countless Viet (equivalent of Yue) peoples, then you are correct. The modern Vietnamese are a fusion of many Viet peoples (mainly Au and Lac) that existed prior to the Han dynasty that seized Nam Viet. How many of the Yue still exist independently today, and how many of those actually classify themselves as Yue? Manofedit2 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The capital of Nanyue was in Guangzhou, so we can think of it as a proto-Cantonese state that also ruled over Vietnam. The name Nam Việt has been used to mean Vietnam since the time of Lý Nam Đế in the sixth century. In the 10th century, Đinh Tiên Hoàng proclaimed himself emperor of "Đại Cồ Việt", and was thus able to one up his opponent as merely "king of Nam Việt." The next ruler shortened the name to "Đại Việt." So Nam Việt is the older form and Đại Việt a variation. When vernacular script developed in the 14th century, the adjective was moved after the noun for Vietnamese word order and Nam Việt became Việt Nam. Kauffner (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yue (peoples) instead of Yue (people)

Perhaps this page should be moved to "Yue (peoples)" since the Yue were not a single group of people but were a collection of culturally heterogenous peoples who lived in various parts of southern China over a long period of time. --Yu Ninjie 00:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV needed

A lot of information was added by 194.206.179.4, but it's hardly neutral. I don't want to mass-revert everything, but it certainly needs to be NPOVized. --Yuje 01:57, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I almost never say this, but most of this article is raw jingoism. - Gilgamesh 08:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Canton / Guangzhou is the Han capital?! Seriously, someone is completely delusional here... I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the contributions of the aforementioned user. Do you think we should revert and start over, checking each fact and reintroducing bit by bit? -- ran (talk) 16:49, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've appealed for comments on Wikipedia talk:China-related topics notice board. -- ran (talk) 17:14, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Comments on the recent edits

In ancient times, what is known as China today consisted of many small states and principalities. The states at the border of the Continent are referred to as YUET (Cantonese) or YUE (Mandarin). Etymologically, this ideograph is a relative term which merely means "at the extreme" or "exceeding". Geographical designations which include this term would thus mean that the location was exceeding the existent geopolitical boundary that has been consolidated, or at the extreme of the known geopolitical boundary. "Yue-nan" (Mandarin), "Yuet-nam" (Cantonese), "Yiet-nam" (Minnan) i.e. "Vietnam" (Vietnamese) thus means "that which lies beyond / that which exceeds the South".

Needs to be cleaned up, but is relevent to the subject and can be added to the article.

To the land-locked Northern tribes (beifangren) who have never seen beyond the flat cold plains and lonely nomadic deserts, the warmer climes of the states in the South became increasingly seen as the exotic, the sensual, the sophisticated, the mysterious. It is in this way that they collectively referred to their neighboring tribes in the South - the YUE peoples or the Southerners (nanfangren).

Other articles include information on Chinese regional stereotypes, but I'm not sure how true these are (I suspect not).

The modern Yue Chinese however, are considered by many to be the purest genetic correlation to the Ancient Chinese because while in the North, Manchu invasions have brought about shifts in genetic mapping, through intermarriage, in the South, after the fall of the Song Chinese Dynasty, genetic mapping has been isolated from Manchus and Mongolians from the North because of the geographical obstacle posed by the Yangtze River. In many ways, Southern China was an isolated political entity for thousand of years until the invasion by the Europeans who came first as well-meaning missionaries but then later to pillage and rape. Until today, Chinese from South China do not refer themselves as Chinese - etymologically referring to the Ch'ing (Qing) dynasty ruling by the Manchus from the North. Southern Chinese refer themselves as the people of the Tang Dynasty or sometimes rarely as Hans. These two terms refer to ancient Chinese dynasties and many Southern Chinese continue to identify themselves by these empires.

These differences explain the different paradigms, cultural identities, and methods of industrialisation in China today, as evidenced by the development of Hong Kong into a global capital in the South and Beijing into a world-class capital.

This really doesn't have any relevence to the article, and isn't true, to boot. That Chinese married ancient Yue people would be counter to the claims of genetic purity. The rest is completely irrelevant to a discussion on Yue peoples.

Throughout the Han Dynasty period, due to their superior agricultural techniques, sophisticated social organization and advanced food storage and preservation techniques, such as drying, bottling and chemical preservation of fish, eggs, meats, the territorial expansions led by the Yue Chinese helped to expand the Ancient Empire even further, expanding the Ancient Chinese Empire to the limits of the Indochinese Peninsular, including that of the Nan-Yue in the far south (modern-day Vietnam means "far south" in ideographs), who lived mainly in the area of Guangdong, Guangxi, and Vietnam; and that of the Min-Yue who lay to the northeast, centred on the Min River in modern Fujian. The modern day Chinese population in Taiwan and Singapore comprise mainly of Chinese from this area, known as Minnan.

The next series of edits are also inaccurate. Guangdong wasn't the capital of the Qin or Han dynasties. Not sure about the claim of food technologies. That ancient Yue were Chinese or that they helped expand the Chinese empire is incorrect. The mention of the relations between Nanyue, Vietnam, Min-Yue is useful, however. The next couple of paragraphs are either irrelevent or bunk.

One of the modern day usage of this word, without direct link to the ancient usage, is to designate the Cantonese-speaking population , its civilisation, culture, identity and language. More often than not, it is now merely used to denote the linguistic grouping out of the various Chinese vernacular variants i.e. YUE is the Cantonese vernacular.

This happens to be true. Cantonese is called the Yue langauge, Cantonese opera is named Yue opera, Cantonese food is Yue food, and the abbreviation for Guangdong is Yue.

However, the Han Imperial Court uner Qin Shi Huang was also a brutal, vicious and ruthless Dynasty, sacrificing millions of Han Chinese lives in constructing the Great Wall of China. In addition, in expanding Southwards, when in contact with local peoples south of the Yue on the Continent, they often wrested control of territory from nomadic tribes or subjugated them by military might. The regime also became corrupt, heavily taxing the Yue population and oppressing its poor peasants. When a serious rebellion broke out in 40 AD by the Trung Sisters in modern-day Vietnam, a force of some 10,000 imperial troops was dispatched under General Ma Yuan. Between 100 and 184 no less than seven outbreaks of violence took place, often calling for strong defensive action by the Imperial Court. Such oppression was more common on the Chinese Continent whenever the Emperor became corrupt and raised higher taxes.

I'm afraid the first sentence contains a factual error. The Han by virtue of being Post Qin, cannot be under Qin Shi Huang, if "uner" is a typo for "under". I also believe you must include which Han dynasty you mean, as it was interceeded by the Xin dynasty or interregnum. Dylanwhs 20:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This might be relevent as part of the history of the Yue region. However it needs to be cleaned up and incorporated into the text better. I frankly can't find anything else in edits worth redeeming. My opinion would be to revert, and then incorporate selected additions to the text. --Yuje 09:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. -- ran (talk) 19:36, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

The second sentence of the third paragraph under "Sinification and displacement" was either an incorrect observation or was a bias view of that single immigrant to belittle the Baiyue civilization. Historical documents recorded indicated that the Yue had crossbows, bows, arrows, swords, horses and citadels to defeat their land during the invasion of the Qin Army. The Qin had a much harder time conquering the Yue than they did the Han. It took the Qin many attempts, when finally, Qin was forced to conjure up many schemes along with their military powers in order to subdue the Yue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.133.132 (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Luoyue

Could someone tell me who the 駱越 (Luoyue) people are according to Chinese sources? Vietnamese sources hold that the Vietnamese people are the descendants of the Lạc Việt (駱越) and Âu Việt (瓯越) (hence An Duong Vuong's kingdom Âu Lạc), and people such as the Trung Sisters were from the Lạc clan. DHN 23:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Lac Viet, or Luo yue are the people of the red river delta region of Northern Vietnam. The Trung sisters were from the Lac Viet and Lac was the first recorded name of the Vietnamese people.Sea888 (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hundred Yue

In his The Birth of Vietnam ISBN 0520074173 Keith Weller Taylor explains the name Hundred Yue as follows (p.14/15, names are in Wade-Giles):

• In 333 B.C., Ch'u conquered Yüeh. Eighteen years later, the northern state of Ch'in conquered Shu. While a portion of the Shu ruling class eventually took refuge in Ch'ue, the Yüeh ruling class scattered southward along the coast, where it established many small kingdoms and principalities that became known to the Chinese as the Hundred Yüeh.
• Four of these realms are known to history. The Chinese called the largest of them Nan Yüeh, 'Southern Yüeh'; it was centered on the mouth of the Hsi River in the vicinity of modern Canton. Second in size was Min Yüeh in Fu-chien. Eastern Ou, also called Yüeh of the Eastern Sea, was located in southern Che-chiang at modern Wen-chou (Yung-chia). Western Ou lay in the upper basin of the Hsi River in modern Kuang-hsi.

For this Keith Weller Taylor refers to: Jao Tsung-i, 'Wu Yüeh wen-hua' in: The Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, 41, part 4 (1969) pp. 609-36.

So I was wondering:

1. Should there be made a difference in the article between Yue (as a collective name for southern peoples in general) and Hundred Yue refering to states on Yue territory but founded by members of the ruling class of the state of Yue extinguished by Chu?
2. Does Lo Hsiang-lin refer to Yue as a collective name of a people or does he refer to the Hundred Yue and so connecting the ruling family of the warring state Yue to the ancient Xia dynasty? Yue is a general name given by the Chinese to the people living in southern China. To me it seems unlikely those people connect themselves with an ancient Chinese dynasty. However it seems likely the ruling elite of the state of Yue did (and so its successor states did also).
   Guss2 17:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Both the Yue and the Chu were "kingdoms" under the "Son of Heaven" of the Zhou dynasty. They were very much symbolically connected with the Zhou dynasty. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Yuè" meaning "southern peoples" is a shortened form of Bǎiyuè. "Bǎiyuè" is just a name, probably chosen for phonetic reasons and not related the state of Yuè. The meanings of the characters in modern Chinese is not a basis to make sweeping generalizations about ancient history. Is Germany the moral country, France the lawful country, and America the beautiful country? That's how their Chinese names translate. Kauffner (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Language

The article doesn't mention anything on the languages of the Yue. Did they speak Chinese languages or even another branch of Sino-tibetan or something entirely different?

Well, a little research show that they originally spoke Sino-tibetan, Kradai, Mon-Khmer and possibly Austronesian. You can check Joshua project for a list of ethnic minorities in China. Many people who were originally there left thousand of years ago, including most of the Mon-Khmer, Tai, Tibetan-Burmans and all of the Austronesian, so it is complicate to tell what languages they originally spoke. At times like this, they rely on linguistic studies from old chinese and the oracle bones script.

Classicrats 08:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

IPA of what?

The opening line has an IPA " IPA: [Ðvjεt]; ". What language does this refer to? I'm removing it in the interim. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Transliterations of 'Yue'

Could we actually have a section about how the various transliterations of 'Yue' came about please. We also need some clear answers as to whether 'Viet' (as applied in English) is still a synonym of 'Yue'. Recently, someone at the talk page for Vietnamese people claimed that only Vietnamese people can be called 'Viet', a claim that appears to contradict the usage of the word in English language academia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.145.4 (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

About the external links

The first link 'ANCIENT YUE SPOKEN LANGUAGE AND RICE CULTURE' is extremely offensive; it purports downright Sino-centric views. I urge all editors to seriously examine why it is there in the first place and to remove the link if appropriate. 122.105.146.168 (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the link was removed, I might not know the full details of the problem here, but the only historical sources for these types of articles are written in (Classical) Chinese (so they are most likely written from a Chinese point of view), so therefore problems regarding Sinocentrism are irrelevant unless you can invent a time machine, go to that period and write your own 'unbiased, accurate' history. You have to balance the accuracy of the article between a Sinocentric source or the lack of a source at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.23.72 (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if that may be, removing the link is in my opinion an act of censorship (see WP:CENSOR. It's better to point out the problem of sinocentrism with this website as an example than to omit it, because readers would not know there are "offensive" content out there, and when they fall upon it, how are they to make a distinction if the only way we handle these situations is by hiding it under the rug? Yellowtailshark (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the disputed link would in fact be a textbook example of Sinocentric views. However, I believe that it would be more appropriate to use the web page in question to illustrate the problems of Sinocentrism in an article that actually addresses that concept. A corollary of this is that links to such a website should not be placed in an article such as "Yue (peoples)" (which is really meant to describe, among related matters, who the Yue (or Viet) peoples really were). Therefore, I have removed the offending link once again.

Actually you don't need in a separate article but to include it as a section within this article. WP:NPOV suggests that we describe the conflict in information. The link is an essay published from a university. Even if there is bias, who is to say it is or is not "credible"? And it is likely there are far more sources that will tell of the Yue/Viet history similarly. I'm not going to go into a revert war with you over a link, but I have to advise that if you have a problem with certain sources, you should find other reliable sources to counteract the bias and describe the conflict within the article, for example, "Most Chinese sources say... but Western sources say..." Yellowtailshark (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there was no need to revert the recent edits regarding the fate of the Yue/Viet peoples. The contents of the section in question is clearly meant to be about both Vietnamese and non-Vietnamese peoples. 122.105.144.183 (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It says many of the ethnic groups have their own nation-states today. The region in question only has at most 3 or 4 countries. It just seemed a bit odd to say. Yellowtailshark (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's still available in the history of the page. It linked to http://http-server.carleton.ca/~bgordon/Rice/papers/youxl99c.htm which is dead now. Archive.org still has it and it is an English translation of a paper written by You Xiuling from the Zhejiang University of Agriculture. It's very cursory comparative linguistics and, even WP:AGF, OP above is as inaccurate in their accusations as you'd expect from the way they expressed them. The most charitable reading would be that they somehow misunderstood the author talking about Zhuang toponyms and misunderstood it as supporting Han Chinese claims on neighbors in Southeast Asia. That isn't stated, implied, or in any sense reasonably inferred from the actual text, although Prof. You might have earned a bad reputation somehow for other remarks elsewhere (?).

It should be restored, but probably to the Zhuang language article rather than here since the Zhuang ≠ most of the instances of Baiyue in the ancient sources or modern literature. — LlywelynII 08:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

External links revisited

The link 'Introduction to Yuet Culture' does not seem to work. If no one says otherwise, then the link will be removed. David873 (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The link in question has been removed as it has never worked for the last several weeks. David873 (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wu and Hmong mien

Dude stop reinserting Hmong mien as Wu. They are two completely different groups. I know that cos i am a Wu person. Whether i am related to Hmong mien is a different story, but in China i would not be classified as Hmong mien. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboyjin (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Lac Viet should direct to Vietnamese people

Can someone correct this? Luoyue(which is pinyin for Lac Viet) should also direct to Vietnamese people.Sea888 (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yue == viet?

Pointless fluff discussion, unrelated to improving the article

I have seen that there are so less people who knows about opinions regarding the linguistic, genetic, and cultural relationship to the Yue（越）/Baiyue（百越） and Vietnamese.

I will tell something about Baiyue（百越） to our pi-nong gradually but pls forgive me if my respond is too involved or abstruse, because to learn daic history people will need to learn chinese history to better understand daic populations, and I am not good at English, it is a hard work for me. I can speak so many languages and dialects(6 idioms of Southern Zhuang and 2 idioms of Northern Zhuang, Mandarin, Gui-liu-hua which is a mandarin diaclect in Guangxi, Cantonese and Japanese and a little English) but English is worst to me because I learned it in Chinese middle school and high school only, and I stoped learning English after entering University and changed to learn Japanese as major. I give up using English more than 10 years and started to use it again from several days ago after joining this forum, how can I explain so difficult history questions to you in English, pi-nong? But I will try my best, 55555.

Linguistic researches in recent years has shown that, with general agreement among the field, that Vietnamese (or Kinh) belongs to the Mon-Khmer branch. It is also a common agreement that the "Yue" or “Bai-Yue” belongs to Tai-Kai languages. Bai（百）is hundred, Bai-Yue does not mean hundred Yue Tribes but means Very large Number of Yue Tribes. They are so many braches but their languages culture are all related and similar, they all belong to one language family---Yue.

Why so many western scholars and viet scholars say Vietnamese was from Baiyue or Yue? It was because Vietnamese were under the reign of the Yue people in northern Vietman especially Red River Delta at that time. Also when the ancient Han people from the north reached the Ling-Nan（岭南） region(Guangxi, Guangdong , Hainan and northern Viet at that time) it was impossible for them to have the knowledge what is a Tai langauge and what is a Mon-Khmer language. So it is very possible that they recorded a few words from a Mon-Khmer language in the reign of Yue people and regarded it as the language of Yue people themselves in mistake. Some scholars recommended those record and made many fairy tales that Vietnamese were from Yue. But in fact Baiyue people are all of Tai-Kaidai Languages and were distributed over all areas of south to Yangtze River(From present Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Jiangx, Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi provinces to Red River Delta of Northern Vietnam). The ancestors of Viet(Kinh) never lived in the area near Yangtze River but they lived in the south part of Yue Region at that time.

In the official record of the Qing Dynasty, there was one mentioning that the King of Annan asked for the title of "Nan Yue King"（南越国王） from the Central Empire. While the official reply from the Central Empire is that "You are not the people of the Yue people, but the people at the south of the Yue people, so it is unsuitable to grant you the name "Nan Yue". Instead "Yue Nan" will be more suitable". So Yue-Nan(Vietnam) became the official name of the country of Kinh from that day. The Chinese have not always been calling the Kinh people Viet. As the frontier of the Sinitic culture pushed farther south and assimilated Daic populations , the word yue was applied to the territory we now consider Vietnam. NamViet is expressed by the two same ideographs used for 南越（Nan-Yue or Nam-Viet）, but in reverse order. When translated Vietnam means "SOUTH TO YUE."

The Chinese have not always call Vietnamese as Viet. For a long time, Chinese people used "Jiaozhi" or “Jiao”. Zhuang people still call Vietnamese Geu(Giau), same as Lao, Thai, etc. All Daic populations call Vietnamese GIAO. It's Kinh that is stealing Daic history and claiming the wrong ancestors. The evidence is so clear. It was only since Vietnam was chosen as the country name that some people started to use Viet. Therefore, the name Viet is from the country name Kinh chose, it has nothing to do with ethnic origin. What's more, Viet is the Chinese pronounciation of Yue in Tang Dynasty, Yue population will not call them self as Viet, but Daic of the Han Dynasty pronounciation.

Today Vietnamese still think their ancestor was from the Yue state built from 1913 BC to 334 BC in present Zhejiang Province, or other Baiyue tribes near Yangtze River because they still do not understand the logic of linguistics,anthropology and Genetics. In SEAsia it is quite well-known that Vietnam doesn't have REAL scientific historical linguistic research. You can ask everyone in the annual SE Asia Linguistic Conference. They all know that, although not many of them willing to mention it due to a sense of politness. Vietnam has done many fieldwork researches, which most of them are very good jobs. But it is rather rare to hear Vietnamese linguists to work on historical linguistics which involves a lot of theoritical training.

Every Chinese linguist knows that Southern Chinese dialects have a Daic Substratum, why we do not see the same with Kinh? And every Chinese Linguist says Yue=Daic, its not even a question. In ancient China, the Chinese recorded the languages of Yang Yue, Min Yue, Yu Yue, Nan Yue. All of those languages are Daic. It would be ridiculous to say Yue is not Daic. Daic populations are numbering 25-30 million in southern China, why no Kinh besides the recent about 20 thousand Jing(京族Kinh) people migrants in only one county called Dongxing(东兴) in southern Guangxi border on Vietnam? Can we implying that all Kinh were assimilated but so many Daic still keep their language and culture? The Kinh people were never across North to Vietnam, those stories are myths and folktales.

"越人歌YUE-REN-GE(song of the Yue)" written in a very famous Chinese ancient book“Shuo-Yuan. Feng-Shi-Pian” 《说苑•奉使篇》which telling the story in 528 BC, it was singed by a Yue boatman from Yue state but at the border of Chu State, it is ancient Daic language and can be understood by all Daic scholars till today. Excavation from Liangzhu, and the many other neolithic cultures of China have proven they are also Daic.

The Bai-Yue are Daic people and no one can take that from Daic. That is our ancestors, that is from where we are from and birthed. Our relatives Zhuang, Bouyei, Dong(Kam), Shui(Sui), Mulao, Maonan and Li(Hlai) are still in present Lingnan Region(Guangxi, Guangdong, Hainan) where they have been over thousands of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.99.82 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia readers, consult authoritative literature sources on the topics; Samples given below.

[1] www.charm.ru/library/vh.htm

[2] The Historical "Yueh", An article by William Meacham for the World Archaeological Encyclopedia, 1995.

[3] content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=hb2580043w&doc.view=frames&chunk.id=ch02&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch02&brand=calisphere

Extract from [2]:

The southeastern coastal inhabitants were known to the Chinese as the Yueh barbarians. The name was extended southward as the Chinese expanded their empire. These Yueh people were noted for their skills in navigation and their savagery in battle; the population of the early state of Yueh (5th-4th centuries B.C.) centered in the Lower Yangzi practiced wet rice cultivation and were engaged in trade along the coast. Modern ethnographic and linguistic researches point to an Austroasiatic linguistic affiliation for these peoples. The Vietnamese retain the name "Yueh" and the Cantonese are also still called "Yuet" and derive in part from the aboriginal population. (Still being called "Yuet" even though the latter mentioned have long become part of modern days' Chinese identity; Yueh Viet Yuet are Latinized variations of the same Han-Chinese character.)

The Yueh, in later texts referred to as the "Hundred Yueh", were certainly a diverse population, and may have included different language families and markedly different customs. The Tai-speaking Chuang of Guangsi province today have oral traditions of earlier occupation of coastal areas, and may have been included in the Yueh. Similarly, the Kedai-speaking Li tribes of Hainan Island are almost certainly descended from the Yueh.

A process of gradual though erratic cultural assimilation of the Yueh began after the Ch'in - early Han conquest, and by the end Han had brought a large number of the Yueh people into the sphere of Chinese culture. Han historical texts provide ample evidence of the acceptance of Yueh chiefs and high ranking individuals into the Han administrative system, even into the army itself.

Extract from [3]:

Chinese emigration to Vietnam has been a constant part of the history of the region. Whenever China experienced political upheavals, economic problems, or natural disasters, a new wave of Chinese left China for Vietnam. For political, economic, and historical reasons, most of the Chinese have tended to emigrate southward.

The earliest Chinese emigration to Vietnam was due to colonization in as early as Han Dynasty or the III century B.C. In the III century B.C. a kingdom known as Nan-Yueh (Nam-Viet) was extended from the region of Canton far into the Indochinese penisula. This kingdom was conquered by Chinese (Purcell, 1965).

The second period of Chinese immigration into Vietnam was marked by the arrival of the partisans of the Sung dynasty in the eleventh century. By the eleventh century, under the Sung Dynasty (920—1279), merchants were developing a fast-growing trade, particularly with the coast of Vietnam (Hunter, 1966).

The third period of large-scale immigration into Vietnam was dictated by a similar set of circumstances in Ming Dynasty. In 1680, Chinese officers and several thousand men, supporters of the overthrown Ming Dynasty which had now been replaced by the Ch'ing (Manchu) Dynasty, arrived in Vietnam and settled in the southern part of Vietnam (Purcell, 1965).

Uwe 123.243.142.170 (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

1.) "SOUTH TO YUE"? No, Vietnam/YuehNan means Escaping Southward. The Viets kept migrating southward in history.

2.) The Mon-Khmer hypothesis is only a hypothesis, and is a faulty case: Cf. www.vny2k.com/vny2k/SiniticVietnamese5.htm#Sino-Tibetan

Uwe 123.243.142.170 (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

These are interesting opinions, however it should be noted that the writing of history promotes interests and is inevitably imbued with inherent biases. I don't think we can ever reveal what the original Yues lingual were. I would expect that given the North slowly expanded and similated their culture with the Yue, that Southern Chinese today are very much Daic..and the Kinh have had influences from South East Asia. However similarities does remain. Given the contested matter, please adopt a NPOV.124.181.151.87 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV - Extract from Erica Brindley's paper “Barbarians or Not? Ethnicity and Changing the Conceptions of the Ancient Yue (Viet) Peoples, ca. 400–50 bc”, page 14: In addition to the proliferation of kingdoms that carried on the name Yue, the traditions of “Yue” continued to be relevant for kingdoms that were formed and ruled by Gou Jian’s descendants. One such kingdom was the kingdom of Donghai 東 海, otherwise known as the kingdom of Eastern Ou 東 甌 (Dong Ou).55 The term “Ou 甌,” named after the Ou River in southern Zhejiang, seems to have retained strong associations with the defunct kingdom of Yue. As Keith Taylor points out, many small principalities that sprang up around the two kingdoms of Yue, Min Yue, and Southern Yue, “apparently chose to associate themselves with the venerable traditions of the Ou in order to increase their prestige with the more powerful kingdoms.”56 Eastern Ou 東甌 and Western Ou 西 甌 were two such kingdoms, and it is precisely this term, Ou, that is picked up and used thousands of miles to the west of its origins to refer to the ancient Vietnamese kingdom of Au Lac 甌 駱.57 Thus, not only is the term Yue relevant to the creation of Vietnamese identity, terms that are closely linked to Yue traditions, such as Ou, also play a role in the history of Vietnam’s ruling class and political traditions. Uwe 123.243.142.170 (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Quoted from the main text above: "...Why so many western scholars and viet scholars say Vietnamese was from Baiyue or Yue? It was because Vietnamese were under the reign of the Yue people..." Nothing could be further from the truth! The author of that statement showed himself to be unaware of the various perceptions of Yue in history. Furthermore "...It's Kinh that is stealing Daic history and claiming the wrong ancestors...", he stated! Wikipedia readers be the judge of that statement! For a discussion of Yue conceptions, Cf. Erica Brindley's paper, page 29 ff.: "The category of Yue in early China has a deeply confusing and entangled history. ...the term is transmitted, reified, and reused in a variety of ways. ...without considering the specific contexts in which it is used, one cannot assume to understand its historical meaning." The paper examined viewpoints toward Yue found in Warring States and early-Han sources, from political, cultural and environmental aspects, as seen by ancient Chinese writers of their times. The views varied from the Yue being perceived to be a potential threat that needed to be overcome (Warring States), to the Yue peoples being seen as "...members of alien cultures who may or may not have been on equal footing with those (Chinese writers that were) writing about them...", and to being looked down on as barbarians or savages in the far-south, far away from the center of Chinese civilization, Yue being considered the subjects for Chinese conquest then. During the course of history, as the Chinese expanded their empire, some Yue peoples left China and migrated south; Some stayed. Those Yue that stayed back in China have long become Chinese, yet they are still called Yue today. The historical distinction between authentic Han-Chinese and Yue has persisted into the present days. At no stage, at least in ancient history anyway, were the Yue considered part of Han-Chinese identity, politically, culturally and environmentally/geograpically, in fact. The author of the main text above (posted from 24.199.99.82 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)) is making false statements and claims, and is thereby committing an act of Verleumdung of the first order, by implying things to the contrary of actual facts of history. Uwe 123.243.142.170 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are used for discussing methods of improving articles, not a place to discuss meaningless fluff, argue, use as a soapboax, WP:FORUM, or to post your tenth grade essays. Adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines when discussing this article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Although this section has been here for nine years, but it's worthy of a response. IP 24.199.99.82 is completely spot on about the irrelevance of the Vietnamese to the Yue. Nine years ago, there wasn't much evidence supporting such viewpoint, but with the continuous progresses in linguistics, genetics, archeology, folkloristics, history, etc. it has been clear that the Vietnamese have nothing to do with the Yue. At least, this is applicable to the ruling class of this country. An another question that some people may ask is that: since the north Vietnam including the Red River delta was inhabited by Tai-Kadai speakers in the first millennium backwards, why did the Chinese rulers of this country end up speaking an Austro-Asiaitic language? It is obvious that the Chinese ruling class of this country did not come from the Red River delta, but they came from other Chinese settlements located further south in the deltas of the Ca and the Ma rivers, corresponding to the modern-day northern central Vietnam. Chinese settlements scattered along the coastal deltas from the Red River delta down to the present-day northern central Vietnam. The faction of Chinese that came to power in this country was likely from the northern central part. But in this particular area, there were also Tai-Kadai speakers inhabited, i.e. the northern Tai, Saek, Nyo, Yi, and the Hlai, why didn't these Chinese switch to their language(s) ? It could be that the Tai-Kadai lived in this particular area were the main enemies of these Chinese settlers. Gustmeister (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you're basing that entirely on Chamberlain, whose views on this point do not represent the scholarly consensus. Kanguole 21:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:No, I don't. The unusual existence of a bunch of Northern Tai languages in the present-day Central Vietnam has been known to researchers for a long time. There just needs to be some logical explanation for their existence. Chamberlain is one of several linguists who study these languages closely, so it's understandable that he comes up with such explanation, at the first time in 1998 and later in 2016 with much more details. In 2012, Pittayawat Pittayaporn also presented a vague idea about the origin of one of these unusual northern Tai languages, i.e. Saek [1]. Regarding the Hlai (Li), it was Michael Churchman who first compiled historical documents written about their existence and distribution along the coast of the modern Guangdong and Vietnam. Gustmeister (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm referring specifically to the claim that the Austroasiatic ancestor of Vietnamese was not spoken in the north Vietnamese plain when the Han empire conquered the area in the 2nd century BC, and indeed not until the 8th century AD. Chamberlain's is very much a minority view on that point. Kanguole 10:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:What is historical linguistic evidence for Austroasiatic being spoken in the Red River delta around the 2nd century BC ? Could you give me some sources related to that claim? It would be interesting to read such studies. Gustmeister (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The primary linguistic evidence is the huge impact of Chinese on the Vietnamese language, including a layer of loanwords dating from the Han period and early radical restructuring of its sound system. This is the standard view, which you'll find in any work on the history of Vietic, and also works on the history of Chinese that make use of these ancient traces in Vietnamese. For a summary, see sections 0.2 and 0.3 of Phan's thesis. Kanguole 11:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:Containing a layer of loanwords dating from the Han period (very limited in number) does not equate to the presence of Vietic speakers in the Red River delta. It's been clear that the early Sino-Annamite language was formed in the mouths of Ca and Ma rivers and was introduced to the Red River delta in the 10th century by Chinese warlords attacking from the south.

I've heard of the work [2] before but have never read it as Chamberlain has warned about the Vietnamese linguists' tendency to omit and eliminate Tai linguistic influence on Vietic during the early ages. He writes clearly that "This omission calls into question the main argument that Mường borrowed directly from Middle Chinese. Rather Mường most probably borrowed from Tai languages rather than from Middle Chinese as more than fifty percent of the forms he cites have Tai cognates (just at first glance)." [3] (p. 37). More importantly, before the introduction of the field of linguistics to Vietnam by French colonists which changed the Vietnamese scholars' view about the Vietic speakers called "Muong", the Vietnamese (Chinese ruling class) considered the "Muong" as barbarian with their autonym "mɔl" becoming a derogatory term in Vietnamese "mọi". That shows that the Vietic speakers whose language(s) contributed to the formation of Vietnamese language were not at the same status in social hierarchy as the Chinese settlers, if not very low. Gustmeister (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

That Vietnamese was first introduced to the Red River delta in the 10th century is not clear at all. Again, you are placing too much reliance on Chamberlain, whose theory is very much a minority view. If you're relying on his warnings to avoid reading anything that might give a different view, we're not going to get anywhere. Kanguole 13:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:Chamberlain studies both Vietic and Tai languages, to me, it is necessary to reference his works. My purpose for all these responses is not reaching a common view as yours. Gustmeister (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

By relying on Chamberlain only, and excluding other views, you are missing the scholarly consensus that is required for Wikipedia articles. Even if you read only Chamberlain, he makes it clear that his views on Vietnamese history are not mainstream. Kanguole 15:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:Phan's view is the only view that's excluded. I haven't even started to edit anything related to the presence of Vietic speakers in the Red River delta. Chamberlain has never discussed whether his views on Vietnamese history are not mainstream or not, and nobody has ever commented about his view on the early history of Vietnam. Gustmeister (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

That is not Phan's personal view – the introduction to a thesis is necessarily a summary of the current state of scholarship. Chamberlain is clear that he is revising the standard history presented by Taylor. If you've read Michel Ferlus's work, you'll find the same view there, and also in works on historical Chinese phonology by such people as Pulleyblank and Baxter and Sagart. I know of no scholar who shares Chamberlain's view on this point. Kanguole 23:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:His thesis, by omitting Tai linguistic influence on the formation of Vietnamese language, is already enough to show its insufficiency and not a summary of the state of scholarship, and thus is unworthy of reading. Michel Ferlus did claim that the Donsonian culture is related to Vietic, but I would take his claim cautiously. Baxter and Sagart's works on Old Chinese phonology do not state explicitly that the borrowing of Old Chinese in Vietnamese happened in the Red River delta. Its occurrence could be independent of the speakers' geography, i.e. either in north Central Vietnam or in the Red River delta. Gustmeister (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Edwin Pulleyblank's proposal on the early distribution of Austro-Asiatic stretching from Vietnam up to Shandong is extremely problematic, just like that of Norman and Mei. And his view was put forward many years ago, which, at this moment, has become out-of-date. Gustmeister (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

All the work on the earliest layer of Chinese vocabulary in Vietnamese assumes a close association over a long period, beginning in the 2nd century BC when the Han conquered the Red River delta, and thus assumes the ancestor of Vietnamese was spoken there, not on the periphery. What Chamberlain calls his "more plausible hypothesis" seems not to have been taken up by anyone else, and should not be presented in Wikipedia's neutral voice. Kanguole 18:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:In order to keep the "Wikipedia's neutral voice", all related views should be added, that is: A proposes that..., but B suggests that.... Gustmeister (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:You can't be sure where was the periphery. Baxter and Sagart's work on Old Chinese phonology (2014) shows the presence of OC loans in a bunch of Vietic languages distributing in the northern central Vietnam, i.e. Rục, Maleng Brô, Sách, Pong. That proves that the early Chinese migrants did establish settlements in the present-day northern central Vietnam in very early times.

That is not the same level of interaction that is generally assumed for Viet-Muong. Indeed Baxter and Sagart are citing forms in other Vietic languages because they preserve sounds that were lost in Viet-Muong under Chinese influence. Kanguole 11:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:That indicates the early interaction between the predecessors of Vietic speakers Rục, Maleng Brô, Sách, Pong and Chinese settlers and the presence of Chinese settlements in northern central Vietnam. As I've written before, the borrowing from Old Chinese into Vietnamese is not dependent on the geography of its speakers. The borrowing is assumed to occur in northern central Vietnam, unless somebody could prove convincingly that this happened in the Red River delta. Gustmeister (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The kind of interaction proposed for Viet-Muoung is a great deal deeper than a few loanwords. Kanguole 20:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to judge whether it is deep or shallow. If somebody could prove the aforementioned issue, then no further word to discuss about it. Otherwise, the presence of Vietic beyond the northern central Vietnam is just only a tentative proposal. Gustmeister (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Were they an Austronesian people?

Böri (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they were Sinic, and later assimilated into the Han. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You got any reference on that? Intuitively I thought they were, before sinicization, more like zhuang people or dong people.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of move

Yue peoples → Baiyue —. Baiyue gets 1,460 hits on Google books. "Baiyue" is also an unrelated Chinese word that means "full moon", but I would say that well over 90 percent of these hits are relevant. "Yue peoples" gets only 183 hits. "Yue people" gets another 574 hits, but over 40 of these hits refer to the Cantonese group of dialects, and a lot of the others are to things like "Min Yue people" and "Nan Yue people," and so forth. The phrase "Yue people" could be interpreted as people who are Yue in any of the 14 senses given on the disambiguation page. So "Yue peoples" is basically a Wikipedia neologism, an arbitrary way to disambiguate among the many uses of "Yue". "Baiyue" was the original form of the word and Yue represents a shortened form, but the current article title seems to confuse readers into thinking that it was the other way around. Kauffner (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

But it's clear that "Baiyue" is a derived form, with "Bai" meaning "hundred" in the figurative sense, i.e. "many", and "Yue" being the basic term. That's how the sources writing about the history of the period present it (and Hashimoto is not; his is a passing remark in the introduction to a book about modern Cantonese), and non-Chinese writers often write it as two words "Bai Yue". The term "Hundred Yue" is also common. Kanguole 23:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A specialist book on linguistics is certainly a better source for a linguistic claim than a paper on archaeology. I can't find this paper on the Web, so I don't actually know what claims it might be advancing. Hashimoto has a lot of material about ancient languages. His analysis of the modern language is done in the context of an effort to determine what the ancient version of the language was like.

Baiyue (one word) is used by Britannica.[4] On Google books, Baiyue -"Bai Yue" gets 1,030 hits while "Bai Yue" -Baiyue gets only 542. "Bai Yue" represents the older practice of spacing between every syllable just because a word was transliterated from Chinese. This issue exists with every transliterated word, but we have Nanyue instead of "Nan Yue", Minyue instead of "Min Yue", Fujian instead of "Fu Jian", and so forth.

If you think bai should be translated as "a hundred," why not yue as "more"? You can play this game with any Chinese character. And the obvious next question is, a hundred what? A hundred Yue would imply that there was a very small number of them. You see all kinds of explanations, and so it's reasonable to conclude that no one really knows. As Freud never said, sometimes a name is just a name. The literal translation should appear somewhere, but it should not be implied that this is the meaning or origin of the name.Kauffner (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not me saying it should be translated as "hundred"; it's all the sources, including the Hashimoto book you referenced, and they also leave Yue as just a name. Similarly, another group were called the Bai-Pu (百濮). (It's not a hundred individuals, it's a hundred, i.e. many, peoples).

The chapter should be available through Google books via the ISBN link. It deals directly with the period, which Hashimoto does not. For linguists dealing with the period, the classic reference is Tsu-lin Mei and Jerry Norman (1976), "The Austroasiatics in Ancient South China: Some Lexical Evidence", Monumenta Serica 32: 274–301. Kanguole 10:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Without the bai, pu is meaningless. So you can't have a hundred pu. The idea that the ancient Chinese sources were ethnographers celebrating the diversity of a 100 Yue peoples doesn't square with what is known about Chinese attitudes toward the Yue. Surviving descriptions judge the Yue in the harshest tones as little better than animals and there was no Chinese Tacitus who felt it necessary to chronicle their varying cultural practices. The Chinese version of this page is quite well referenced. It appears that the current opinion among Chinese scholars is that bai is a lost geographic reference. Late in the Zhou dynasty, the Yue of the Yangtze valley became known the Yang Yue. So those further south then needed a parallel name and thus the word "Baiyue" emerged. Later, there were River Yue, Mountain Yue, and so forth, so the literati at that time were in the habit of creating a new name by adding a geographic prefix. Kauffner (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Remarking on lots of barbarian tribes is hardly ethnographers celebrating diversity. What sources do you propose to use for the lost geographic reference idea? A Google Books search for "hundred yue" turns up plenty for that reading. Kanguole 18:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The lead

A few thoughts:

• The alternative name "Hundred Yue" should be included in the first sentence, as many English language sources use it.
• The notion that the basic term is an unanalysable "Bǎiyuè", from which "Yuè" is derived as an abbreviation, does not fit with the account of the history of the term given by our sources, which all say that "Yuè" was used for the peoples of the Yangtze in the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, and "Bǎiyuè" meaning "Hundred Yue" appears as a collective term for the various Yue groups after the state of Yue was overrun and its aristocracy dispersed. Similarly we have the author of the Han Shu writing "Yuè" (粤) and a Jin dynasty commentator glossing the name as "Bǎiyuè" (百越).
• The wording "a loose term denoting semi-Sinicized or non-Sinicized peoples inhabiting southern China in ancient times" is a more neutral and informative definition than focussing on the Chinese "barbarian" view, and fits better with the sources. That the Chinese viewed them as barbarians should be mentioned, but it should not be the definition. Ideally the article would contain a discussion of the Chinese view, which could be summarized in the lead.
• The bit about the lost tribes of Israel seems fanciful and out of place in the lead. There is no mystery about what happened to them: some became Chinese, some took to the hills and some went south.
• The bit about nationalism is a bit vague. Again it might be better to have something in the article for the lead to summarize, but it would need to be solidly sourced. Kanguole 14:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with every point you mentioned here. "a loose term" is what Baiyue should be. Fix and trim if you want. --LLTimes (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

When the ancient Chinese wrote "Bǎiyuè", they meant "a bunch of barbarians south of us". "Semi-sinicized" is a euphemism. The Lü Annals mentions a "Yuè tribe" (古越族),[5] which is the earliest citation. The Yángyuè kingdom does not appear in the literature until the late warring states period; It is not mentioned in the Spring and Autumn Period as mistakenly claimed by Meacham. Wú Qǐ of Chǔ conquered the Yángyuè in 368 BC. At this time, the word "Yuè" was understood to refer to Yuèguó, so it could not have been an established usage for barbarian tribes. I should add that the name of this state is not on based on earlier use of the character 越, Lord Yue, the oracle bones, or anything like that. It is based on the (non-Sinitic) name they used to refer to themselves, which is given in Chinese only as "Yúyuè". Centuries after Yuèguó disappeared, "Bǎiyuè" was shortened to "Yuè", so after that the names matched in a way that was never true when this state existed. (Reminds me a bit of Hun and Hungary, two words with unrelated histories that end up matching.)

That the modern peoples of southern China are descended from the Bǎiyuè may be just common sense among Western scholars, but the idea is hugely controversial in China.

As far as analysing the word Bǎiyuè goes, Endymion Wilkinson, who would seem to be quite an authority on these matters, has this to say in Chinese History: a Manual, pp. 224-225: "The numbers 10, 100, 1,000 and 10,000 are frequently used to indicate orders of magnitude, not exact numbers. In this usage they are called xushu (hyperbolic numbers) and are similar to numbers in English in the plural ('dozens', 'tens of thousands' or 'hundreds'). Thus the Wangli changcheng is not 10,000 li, there are not 1,000 Buddha in the Qianfodong just as there are not 10,000 in Wanfosi.....When used in a compound expression, the number need not be translated as in 'the Yue' or 'all the Yue' for 'Baiyue,' not 'the hundred Yue;' 'general merchandise' for baihuo, not 100 goods;" Actually, I would go even further than this, because baihuo no doubt orginated as "hundreds of goods", but no one interprets Bǎiyuè as "hundreds of Yuè." Kauffner (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

So Wilkinson is saying that Bǎiyuè consists of a figurative number applied to a basic term Yuè, which should be rendered in English as "(all) the Yue". That sounds like an argument for the former title Yue (peoples). Several of our sources do just refer to "the Yue", though some use the more literal "Hundred Yue" or "Bai Yue".

What is your source for an accidental collision of Yúyuè with Bǎiyuè? The term Bǎiyuè is not attested until the century after the Yue state was overrun. We have several sources saying that Yuè was a broad term for non-Chinese peoples of the south, referring to peoples further and further south as the Chinese expanded. For example, Meacham speaks of Yángyuè as denoting a group on the middle Yangtze at the end of the Western Zhou, and a (possibly different) group south of Chu late in the Warring States period. Do you have a source that contradicts him? Kanguole 15:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

So you want "(peoples)" back in the article title. I didn't see that one coming. "Bǎiyuè" is the word used by Sīmǎ Qiān, who is the primary source here. As far as my sources go, the Yue-Hashimoto stuff suggests that you are not impressed by any source that doesn't say what you want it to say. The use of "Bǎiyuè" in the Lü annals predates the use the "Yuè" in the Shǔ Hàn by about 350 years. Sīmǎ Qiān describes the people Wú Qǐ conquered 368 BC as "Bǎiyuè", so I don't see a basis for thinking that usage of this word originated with the collapse of the Yuè state. The early usage of Bǎiyuè refers to the Guangdong/Lingnan region, according to Brindley, so perhaps there is a connection to Mt. Báiyún. Kauffner (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, so we choose titles following English sources, rather than Sima Qian. "Baiyue" isn't really appropriate, because most of the sources dealing directly with the topic use something else, but I'm not sure what it should be.

Examples of authors writing in the 3rd and 2nd century BC don't contradict the statement that this term isn't attested until well after the fall of Yue in 337 BC.

Presumably Mt. Baiyun is your own speculation. Do you have any sources suggesting that Bǎiyuè is a geographical name, or that it is not related to the name of the state? There are many saying it means "hundred (in the figurative sense) Yue" and connecting the term with the Yue state, including introduction of the Hashimoto book "Phonology of Cantonese" that you mention. Kanguole 00:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh, dissing Sīmǎ Qiān now, are we.....You do realize that he is also the source of the Yuè state dispersal story, and therefore the theory that the word "Bǎiyuè" originated at that time? Báiyún Mountain was once called "First Mountain of Nányuè" (南越第一山), so it does seem that there was a connection between the name of this mountain and the Yuè. Bǎiyuè is variously interpreted as a hundred Yuè, a 100 tribes of Yuè, a lot of tribes, a multitude of people, hundreds of nobles emigrating from the Yuè State, hundreds of family names, etc. Obviously, no more than one of these interpretations can be correct. Kauffner (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Our sources are consistent in interpreting the "Bǎi" part as 100 in a figurative sense, and the "Yuè" part as the same word as the name of the former state, and no sources have been produced that dispute this interpretation or propose a different one. Kanguole 21:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A vast generalization here, Chinese historians never wondered "The Baiyue have been compared to the lost tribes of Israel, with a great deal of speculation among Chinese historians concerning who they were and what happened to them". It's well known in China that these people were either assimilated or survived as Zhuang people, Li people, and etc. I dont know what The Nationalist statement on the introduction is for. --LLTimes (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Every source I've looked at says something different about this issue and the obvious conclusion is that no one really knows. Yue-Hashimoto's statement is not just introductory warm up material; It has a footnote, although I can't read the footnote in the online version. A author might use the phrase "Hundred Yue" because it is a traditional translation, or just to let the reader know that bǎi means "a hundred". (Although, as I explained above, the translation is incorrect in this context.) It doesn't follow from this that they endorse any particular etymological view. And what about the war between Chǔ and the Bǎiyuè? The Chǔ must have called the people they were fighting something. The plain word "Yuè" would have referred to exclusively to the Yuè State at this time. Kauffner (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The footnote (fn 5 on page 59) lists peoples included in the Bai-Yue and their locations: Min-Yue, Ou-Yue, Yang-Yue (on the Han River), Xi-Ou, Nan-Yue, Le-Yue and Yu-Yue (i.e. the state), and says the Ou-Yue and possibly Min-Yue came from the Yu-Yue and the Nan-Yue were a branch of the Yang-Yue. There's nothing about the term. (And it is labelled as introductory background material to his main subject, modern Cantonese phonology.)

I'm not seeing this confusion you claim: I see scores of sources interpreting "bǎi" as a hundred in a non-literal sense and connecting "yuè" with the state, and not one challenging this interpretation. It's pointless to speculate about what the sources don't say. Kanguole 17:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If you refuse to commit to a definate interpretation and just go with its non-literal and connected to this, that and the other, then I guess you can never be wrong. Kauffner (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, sticking to the sources does limit what we can say. But the vagueness of the term "yuè", being used for different frontier groups over time as the Chinese expanded, is part of the story presented by our sources. Kanguole 13:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle Axes

I have removed this material:

Ethnolinguists have suggested that the pronunciation of Yue may be related to a type of hemp produced in what is now Zhejiang. The character itself is related to the character for "ceremonial ax" (simplified Chinese: 钺; traditional Chinese: 鉞), usually considered a symbol of royal or imperial authority. A number of stone axes have been found in the area of Hangzhou, and there is evidence that the ceremonial ax was a southern invention.

Perhaps this unsourced line of speculation is based on the fact that 越 and 鉞 are both derived from 戉. (越 being a combination of 戉 and 走). But here 戉 is a phonetic, so there is no basis to connected it up to literal axes, much less to royal authority. Also, a 钺 is a metal axe, so I have to wonder how the editor got from there to stone ceremonial axes. Kauffner (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's more than just a phonetic: as far as is known, the two words were always pronounced identically, and 戉 was used to write 越 in the earliest texts, when phonetic compounds were less common. Norman and Mei find this suggestive of a possible connection to Austro-Asiatics (known for shouldered axes) or Austronesians (rectangular axes), but don't take it any further. Nothing about ceremonial axes, though. (I haven't seen any mention of the character 鉞 in the sources either.) Kanguole 23:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If both 戉 and 走 are semantic elements, then 越 would mean "run over an axe" or "run with an axe". If we combine this with the "Hundred Yue" theory, 百越 could mean "hundreds running with axes." Kauffner (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

But 戉 isn't a semantic element: all the sources (including the Shuowen) have 越 as a phono-semantic compound. Kanguole 08:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Tanka

The speculation about the origins of the Tanka, copied from the Tanka people article, is not relevant to this article. While some traditional accounts linked them to the Yue or other non-Han peoples, modern scholars have them no more connected to the Yue than other people in the area.

• The first reference has the vague claim that the Tanka had a similar origin to remnants of an aboriginal tribe related to the Yao. There is no sign of relevance to this article.
• The second is a particularly strange quote of a dictionary entry via a work citing that entry as an example of ethnocentrism. Again no mention of the Yue.
• We have Meacham mentioning traditional sources that refer to the Tanka as "Yao" in a generalized sense of "barbarian", and then a few pages later dismissing such stories as urban myths. Kanguole 00:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a section on DNA testing on the article of Tanka people, which states that they are descended from non han aboriginals. And the Punti Cantonese were clearly differentiated from the Tanka, even Punti Cantonese fishermen regarded themselves as land dwelling Han chinese, separate from the Tanka people. This is all sources on the Tanka people article but you deleted all of it.Amuel Gins (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There are also some Chinese sources on Fuzhou Tanka in the references, one dating to recently to 2009, stating that the Tanka in Fujian are descendants of aboriginals. This sourceby Rubenstein explicitly mentions the Pai Yue and their connection to the Tanka of FujianAmuel Gins (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Murray A. Rubinstein (2007). Murray A. Rubinstein (ed.). Taiwan: a new history (illustrated ed.). M.E. Sharpe. p. 34. ISBN 0765614944. Retrieved 2011 October 29. "which modern poeple are the Pai Yueh"..,...So is it possible that there is a relationship between the Pai Yueh and the Malay race?...Today in riverine estuaries of Fukien and Kwangtung are another Yueh people, the Tanka ("boatpeople"). Might some of them have left the Yueh tribes and set out on the seas? (1936: 117) {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |month= (help)

This is not Rubinstein speaking – he's quoting Lin Hui-hsiang (1936). I don't have access to the full text of the reference at Tanka people#DNA tests and Disease, but the abstract mentions haemoglobin studies, not DNA testing. All this speculation is very thinly based on snippets from dated texts and authors talking about something else. It certainly doesn't belong in an article on the Baiyue. Kanguole 08:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources on Baiyue genetics and ethnic groups

Genetic tests on minority Zhuang Y Chromosomes show them to be of Baiyue descent, while they have some Northern Han y chromosomes due to migration of northern Han to southern China.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17185165

http://www.comonca.org.cn/LH/Doc/A30.PDF

A map of Baiyue ethnic groups in Southern China during the Zhou dynasty's rule over Northern China.

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w71/MGSG/fig1mt72e.gif

http://s173.photobucket.com/user/MGSG/media/fig1mt72e.gif.html

Han genetics

Southern Han largely share the same Y chromosomes with the same mutations as northern Han, while differing in mtdna and autosomal DNA.. Due to southern Han being descended from northern Han migrants who moved to southern China and married native women

http://books.google.com/books?id=I2OMVmp-7mwC&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://udini.proquest.com/view/how-han-are-taiwanese-han-genetic-pqid:1668343911/

http://gradworks.umi.com/33/43/3343568.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15372031

http://159.226.149.45/compgenegroup/paper/wenbo%20Han%20culture%20paper%20(2004).pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7006/full/nature02878.html

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v16/n6/abs/5201998a.html

Do not use the blog as a reference, but use it to find and cross reference other sources.

http://blog.renren.com/share/288113449/11798480444

Teochew, Fujianese, and Hakka Y chromosome compared in Singapore. The three groups largely share the same Y chromosome

http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10635/27767/Summary.pdf?sequence=3

Differences between southern Han Chinese groups like Chaoshan, Hakka, and Cantonese is mainly in the mtdna lineage inherited from the mother, where some southern Han have heavy amounts of southern native mtdna.

http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-XAYX201006005.htm

http://online4kim.net/xe/files/attach/images/7507/170/020/0b9b8d714566edea3954827c018a3c88.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7145/6590358575_7450cf0f53.jpg

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2131/yndahan.jpg

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/5609/2008112521014723.jpg

http://www.ranhaer.com/attachments/forumid_48/1308171634806ad8e74f2ed197.jpeg

http://www.ranhaer.com/index.php

Taiwanese Plains Aborigines, Taiwanese people

有唐山公，無唐山媽

"Have mainland (Tangshan) grandfathers, don't have mainland (tangshan) grandmothers

http://books.google.com/books?id=I2OMVmp-7mwC&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=I2OMVmp-7mwC&pg=PA21#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://udini.proquest.com/view/how-han-are-taiwanese-han-genetic-pqid:1668343911/

http://gradworks.umi.com/33/43/3343568.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=I2OMVmp-7mwC&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false

Autosomal DNA

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/12/genetic-map-of-east-asia/#.U1XEV_k71C8

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/eastasiasmall.jpg

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003862

http://www.plosone.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003862&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003862.t001#

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ro2ijOk8JWc/STq-lWLjfwI/AAAAAAAAAb0/wSNXMS5rG4o/s1600-h/journal.pone.0003862.g001.jpg

http://pmsol3.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/journalpone0003862g0011.jpg

http://pmsol3.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/journalpone0003862g0021.jpg

http://pmsol3.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/journalpone0003862t001.jpg

Historical Migration of Northern Han to Southern China

http://books.google.com/books?id=6qeC_0u3pLIC&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=0DPEol7HO3gC&pg=PA213#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=0DPEol7HO3gC&pg=PA214#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=jqb7L-pKCV8C&pg=PA182&dq=Yellow+registers+white+chin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LDgWU4PhEo3H0AHpnIHICQ&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Yellow%20registers%20white%20chin&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=jqb7L-pKCV8C&pg=PA182#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=JTAcbF8cpQsC&pg=PA40&dq=Yellow+registers+white+chin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LDgWU4PhEo3H0AHpnIHICQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Yellow%20registers%20white%20chin&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=126EsR8rpC8C&pg=PA26#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=KS6sAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA181&dq=Yellow+registers+white+jin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8jcWU-GlF8Wj0QG89oD4DA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Yellow%20registers%20white%20jin&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=0wRikR7hhFQC&pg=PA67&dq=Yellow+registers+white+jin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8jcWU-GlF8Wj0QG89oD4DA&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Yellow%20registers%20white%20jin&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=UNq3ENia884C&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q&f=false

alternate names

Cantonese call themselves men of Tang, or Tang people, since they were descended from northern migrants from Central Plain (China) region who fled south during the Tang dynasty, and central plains people back then were called Tang people.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ERnrQq0bsPYC&pg=PA752#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=O72FhsxwzcAC&pg=PA37&dq=cantonese+middle+chinese+mandarin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4aGAUqnLC8flsATRgIGQBA&ved=0CD4Q6wEwAQ#v=onepage&q=cantonese%20middle%20chinese%20mandarin&f=false

Cantonese dialect is close to Chinese language during the Tang dynasty

http://books.google.com/books?id=8OT_Sbk0yekC&pg=PA99&dq=cantonese+middle+chinese+mandarin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4aGAUqnLC8flsATRgIGQBA&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=cantonese%20middle%20chinese%20mandarin&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Fo087ZxohA4C&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_-dJxMfdhvEC&pg=PA6&dq=cantonese+middle+chinese+mandarin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4aGAUqnLC8flsATRgIGQBA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=cantonese%20middle%20chinese%20mandarin&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Rajmaan's edit

Rajmaan, the section you just cited was a political polemic, not evidentiary materials about actual living peoples. It even says so on the page you cited! It is not relevant. Ogress _smash! 05:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yayoi

I have again reverted the addition of a paragraph about the Yayoi and Japonic from the Language section. There is not a shred of evidence that Japonic languages were spoken in this area. The cited source identifies as an excerpt from a newspaper. We should have a scholarly secondary source for a claim like this, but even this weak source makes no mention of language. It mentions examination of skeletons from Jiangsu in the Han period, by which time that area was sinicized; the Yue were further south. Kanguole 23:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sinification and displacement

@Backendgaming: I have checked all sources cited in the section Sinification and displacement, which was exclusively expanded by the member "Backendgaming" in the year of 2017 and the early 2018. I have found that sources cited for a couple of phrases are repeated. It looks as if there are a lot of sources cited for one single phrase, but two of these cited sources are exactly the same. There are sources which do not specify page cited, such as The Penguin History of Modern Vietnam: A History, The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization. Most of sources cited by Backendgaming are accessible via Google Books, but this member did not put link to the specific Googlebooks pages cited.

Backendgaming focuses too much on the Chinese views of the Yue people. There are parts in the sources that this member cited mentioning about how Yue people fought back Chinese invasions, but these parts are omitted. There are sources among the multiple sources cited for the same single phrase that do not really talk about the topic of the phrase. It seems that this member deliberately tries to degrade Yue people by importing the Chinese views about them. These views are mentioned repeatedly and there are two lengthy paragraphs focusing on them.

I'm going to edit and clean up this part Sinification and displacement, plus adding direct Googlebooks links to the sources cited. Gustmeister (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This member "Backendgaming" has been blocked permanently [6].Gustmeister (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm editing the parts that the member "Backendgaming" exclusively expanded. These are mistakes that I've found (I'm going to write further if I would see more mistakes):

• Source citation number 4 Diller, Anthony (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics. Routledge. p. 11. ISBN 978-0415688475. for the phrase The Baiyue, Hundred Yue or Yue were various indigenous non-Chinese peoples who inhabited what is now Southern China and Northern Vietnam between the first millennium BC and the first millennium AD. is not correct. Anthony Diller is a linguist specialized in Tai linguistics. He has never written any book/paper related to Chinese linguistics. Source number 5 Wang, William (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics. Oxford University Press. p. 173. ISBN 978-0199856336. for the same phrase is exactly the same as the source by Anthony Diller with the author name being changed. Source number 1 Diller, Anthony; Edmondson, Jerry; Luo, Yongxian (2008). The Tai-Kadai Languages. Routledge (published August 20, 2008). p. 9 for the same phrase mentions that the Yue distributed from Shandong to the Yangtze basin and as far west as the present-day Sichuan province [7], not from Southern China and Northern Vietnam. Source number 6 Meacham, William (1996). "Defining the Hundred Yue". Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association. 15: 93–100. mentions that the Yue distributed from Jiangsu to Yunnan (page 93) [8]. Only the source number 7 Barlow, Jeffrey G. (1997). "Culture, ethnic identity, and early weapons systems: the Sino-Vietnamese frontier". In Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven; Jay, Jennifer W. East Asian cultural and historical perspectives: histories and society—culture and literatures. Research Institute for Comparative Literature and Cross-Cultural Studies, University of Alberta. pp. 1–15. mentions about the distribution of the Yue from South China to North Vietnam [9].
• The phrase Chinese writers depicted the Yue as barbarians who had tattoos, lived in primitive conditions, and lacked such technology as bows, arrows, horses and chariots. is not from Chinese writers but from a Chinese immigrants who moved to live in the home area of the Yue, Source: Hutcheon, Robin (1996). China–Yellow. Chinese University Press. p. 4. [10]. Source number 6 Tsung, Linda (2009). Minority Languages, Education and Communities in China. Palgrave Macmillan (published April 15, 2009). p. 37 [11] does not mention anything related to barbarians who had tattoos, lived in primitive conditions, and lacked such technology as bows, arrows, horses and chariots. (Screenshots of the page 37: [12]. Source number 7 Kim, Nam C (2015). The Origins of Ancient Vietnam (Oxford Studies in the Archaeology of Ancient States). Oxford University Press (published November 2, 2015). p. 251. does not mention anything related to barbarians who had tattoos, lived in primitive conditions, and lacked such technology as bows, arrows, horses and chariots. [13] (screenshots of the page 251: ([14]). Source number 8 Peters, Heather (April 1, 1990) [1990]. H. Mair, Victor, ed. "TATTOOED FACES AND STILT HOUSES: WHO WERE THE ANClENT YUE?" (PDF). Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations. East Asian Collection. Sino-Platonic Papers. University of Pennsylvania Press. 17: 4. [sino-platonic.org/complete/spp017_yue.pdf] mentions that the Yue had short hair, tatooed their bodies, clothed themselves with with garments, made from plants fibre; and lived in villages. However, it is from the disapproving opinion of Sima Qian in the 1st century B.C. Shili (screenshot [15]). Source number 9 Taylor, K. W. (2013). A History of the Vietnamese. Cambridge University Press. p. 24. does not mention anything related to barbarians who had tattoos, lived in primitive conditions, and lacked such technology as bows, arrows, horses and chariots. (screenshots of the page 24: [16]) Gustmeister (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Source citation number 10 Carson, Mike T. (2016). Archaeological Landscape Evolution: The Mariana Islands in the Asia-Pacific Region. : Springer (published June 18, 2016). p. 23. for the phrase The Yue tribes were gradually displaced and assimilated into Chinese culture as the Han empire expanded into what is now Southern China and Northern Vietnam during the first half of the first millennium AD solely mentions that "by the time of the Han dynasty expansion and imperial regime at 206 B.C.—A.D. 220, China coastal...". This source does not really focus on the expansion of the Han Chinese into the home region of the Yue its date, but it contains only a minor mention of this event (screenshot of the page: [17]). Sources number 11, 12, 13, 14 Wiens, Herold Jacob (1967). Han Chinese expansion in South China. Shoe String Press. p. 276/, Hutcheon, Robert (1996). China-Yellow. The Chinese University Press. p. 5./, Marks, Robert B. (2011). China: An Environmental History. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 127. /, Tucker, Spencer C. (2001). Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social, and Military History. Oxford University Press. p. 350. mention nothing about the topic of the phrase. Screenshots for source number 12 [18], for the number 13 [19], for the number 14 [20]. Gustmeister (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Source number 28 Huang, Pingwen. "Sinification of the Zhuang People, Culture, And Their Language" (PDF). SEALS. XII: 90–92. for the phrase "Motivated by the region's vast land and valuable exotic products, Emperor Qin Shi Huang secured his boundaries to the north with a fraction of his large army, and sent the majority south to seize the land and profit from it while attempting to subdue the Yue tribes of the southern provinces" mentions nothing about the vast land and valuable exotic products, whereas sources number 24 Hoang, Anh Tuan (2007). Silk for Silver: Dutch-Vietnamese relations, 1637-1700. Brill Academic Publishing. p. 12., number 25 Howard, Michael C. (2012). Transnationalism in Ancient and Medieval Societies: The Role of Cross-Border Trade and Travel. McFarland Publishing. p. 61. , number 26 Holcombe, Charles (2001). The Genesis of East Asia: 221 B.C. - A.D. 907. University of Hawaii Press (published May 1, 2001). p. 147. don't mention anything about Qin Shi Huang securing the northern borders with a fraction of his large army, and sent the majority south to seize the lands of the Yue. Gustmeister (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Source number 29 Huang, Pingwen. "Sinification of the Zhuang People, Culture, And Their Language" (PDF). SEALS. XII: 91–92 [21], and source number 30 Evans, Grant; Hutton, Christopher; Eng, Kuah Khun (2000). Where China Meets Southeast Asia: Social and Cultural Change in the Border Region (1st ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. p. 36 doesn't mention eliminating the indigenous Yue culture and sense of Yue ethnic consciousness to prevent nationalism that could potentially lead to the desire of independent states. The source number 29 by Huang Pingwen only indicates a massive number of Chinese immigrants moving to the are of the modern-day Guangxi. Gustmeister (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Source number 44 "Weinstein, Jodi L. (2013). Empire and Identity in Guizhou: Local Resistance to Qing Expansion. University of Washington Press. p. 32. " [22] for the phrase Each new wave of Han immigrants began to exert additional pressure on the indigenous Yue inhabitants as the Han Chinese in southern China gradually became the predominant ethnic group in local life while displacing the Yue tribes into more mountainous and remote border areas talks about waves of Chinese migration into Guizhou during the Ming dynasty, rather than during the Qin-Han period, whereas source number 45 "Hsu, Cho-yun; Lagerwey, John (2012). Y. S. Cheng, Joseph, ed. China: A Religious State. Columbia University Press (published June 19, 2012). pp. 193–194." doesn't mention about Chinese migration into the Yue home region. Gustmeister (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Source number 57 Wu, Shicun; Hong, Nong (2014). Recent Developments in the South China Sea Dispute: The Prospect of a Joint Development Regime. Routledge (published June 4, 2014). p. 27. for the phrase The development of the Han dynasty's colonialism of the Yue tribes was justified through sinocentrism, that legitimizing aggressive expansion through military conquest and assimilation was a mission in the face to what the Han rulers perceived and illustrated the backward, primitive, uncivilized, barbaric nature of the Yue tribes due to their lack of civilization mentions nothing about the topic of the phrase. (screenshots of the page: [23]). Source number 51 "Taylor, K. W. (2013). A History of the Vietnamese. Cambridge University Press. p. 24. " is cited twiced for the same phrase without mentioning anything about the topic of the phrase. Source number 50 Kiernan, Ben (2017). A History of Vietnam, 211 BC to 2000 AD. Oxford University Press. pp. 86–87. has nothing to do with the phrase. Source number 52 "Xu, Stella (2018). Reconstructing Ancient Korean History: The Formation of Korean-ness in the Shadow of History. Lexington Books. pp. 36–37. " is the same. Source number 54 "Goscha, Christopher (2016). The Penguin History of Modern Vietnam: A History. Allen Lane. " does not specify page number. Source number 55 "Mair, Victor H.; Kelley, Liam C. (2016). Imperial China and Its Southern Neighbours. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (published April 28, 2016). p. 25-33." is the name, and this source is cited again and again for other phrases without mentioning about the topics of those phrases. Source number 56 "Stuart-Fox, Martin (2003). A Short History of China and Southeast Asia: Tribute, Trade and Influence. Allen & Unwin (published November 1, 2003). p. 18." mentions a bit about the topic of the phrase. (screenshot: [24]). Source number 59 "Tsung, Linda (2009). Minority Languages, Education and Communities in China. Palgrave Macmillan (published April 15, 2009). p. 37." does not really mention about the topic of the phrase (screenshots of the page 37: [25]). Source number 58 " Brindley, Erica Fox (2015). Ancient China and the Yue: Perceptions and Identities on the Southern Frontier, c.400 BCE–50 CE. Cambridge University Press. p. 217" does not mention about the topic of the phrase. Gustmeister (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• The two phrases "Various indigenous Yue political identities were completely decimated by 110 BC as the Han dynasty absorbed the remnants of Nanyue into the empire. Powerful Han colonialists such as General Ma Yuan enforced the adoption of Han statutes, laws and customs in the first century AD to civilize and assimilate the conquered Yue tribes." come from "Ancient China and the Yue: Perceptions and Identities on the Southern Frontier, c.400 BCE–50 CE" by Erica Brindley (2015:249), but they do not reflex the points of the original passage in Brindley's book. Here is a screenshot of the page 249 [26]. Gustmeister (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Source "Largo, V. (2002). Vietnam: Current Issues and Historical Background. Nova Science. p. 89. " for the phrase "The Han dynasty sought to exert a permanent influence on Yue administration, law, education, literature, language, and culture through the implementation of Imperial Han Chinese law and Confucian ethics that would eventually displace indigenous customs, thus assimilating the indigenous Yue into civilized Han subjects." mentions nothing about the topic of the phrase (Screenshots of page 89: [27]). Gustmeister (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There are too many mess-ups to clean up. Gustmeister (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. This user "Backendgaming" added too many unrelated and repeated sources to the same phrases. Based on sources added, it's obvious that this user is a Chinese Vietnamese. Gustmeister (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

A Chinese immigrant's opinion about the Yue?

In the book China-Yellow [28], Robin Hutcheon cites an opinion of a Chinese immigrant who moved to live in the Yue home area describing the Yue as follows: "The Yue cut their hair short, tattooed their body, live in bamboo groves with neither towns nor villages, possessing neither bows or arrows, nor horses or chariots."

This is just an subjective observation of an unknown, nameless Chinese immigrant. The words live in bamboo groves with neither towns nor villages, possessing neither bows or arrows clearly do not reflex the real life of the Yue at that time.

Robert Blust (1996:31), in Austronesian Culture History: The Window of Language [29], writes:

"Based on the linguistic evidence, there can be no question that Austronesian speakers in Taiwan around 4000 B.C.

1. cultivated rice and millet,

2. lived in substantial timber houses raised on piles,

3. had domesticated pigs, and dogs (which were important as companions of the hunt), water buffaloes, and perhaps chickens, although the evidence for the latter is indirect,

4. practiced true weaving, probably on a simple back loom,

5. used the bow and arrow,

6. made pottery, and

7. were familiar with some metals, including at least tin."

Though he focuses on the Taiwanese Austronesian around 4,000 B.C.E., but The Austronesians lived along the eastern coast of mainland China likely had the same practice and cultural traits, and so did Tai-Kadai speakers who are said to be a sub-branch of the Austronesians. Moreover, Laurent Sagart (1994, 291-92) [30] shows that the word for bow in Proto-Austronesian *panaq derived from the same root as it is in Chinese, which originates from a Sino-Austronesian source. Saying that the Yue possessed neither bows or arrows is clearly a subjective observation of an unknown and insignificant Chinese immigrant who, just like other Chinese immigrants, tended to look down upon non-Sinitic peoples regardless of whether they were Xiongnu or Yue.

I'd also like to note that the word for chariot in Old Chinese 車 *kʰlja (Zhengzhang Shangfang [31]) derived from proto-Indo-European, via proto-Tocharian *kukle 'wagon', and so did the Old Chinese words for chariot gear, and town building [32]. All in all, the speakers of Old Chinese did not invent chariot, and possibly town building technique. Gustmeister (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You should be aware that Sagart's Sino-Austronesian theory, including Tai-Kadai as a branch of Austronesian, has few other supporters, and has been criticized by Austronesian specialists. Also, although southeast China is the logical source of the Austronesian migration to Taiwan, there is no evidence of Austronesian on the mainland.

The only contemporary sources about the Yue are Chinese, and though these are naturally unfavourable, if modern experts make use of them, we should report what they say. Kanguole 13:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:It seems that DNA evidence supporting Sagart's Sino-Austroneisan hypothesis is on the rise. Assuming that his hypothesis on the relationship of Austronesian and Tai-kadai was incorrect, there is still another proposal arguing for a coordinate relationship between them, which means that either way they are closely related. It seems like, linguistically speaking, the speakers of proto-Austronesian did exist on the mainland with their recorded etymon for dog 獶獀 resembling reconstructed PAN *asu, *u‑asu.

When citing sources about the Chinese view on the Yue, it is preferable to employ sources containing analyses and comments of "modern experts" about such view, such as Barbarians or Not? Ethnicity and Changing Conceptions of the Ancient Yue (Viet) Peoples by Erica Brindley (2003) [33], which analyzes, not only one view but, various views of the Chinese on the Yue. Gustmeister (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Genetic relationships do not imply linguistic relationships, and even though there is another thinly-supported hypothesis (Austro-Tai), this is very much a minority view.

I agree with the point about modern analyses of ancient views, though. Kanguole 16:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kanguole:OK. I don't want to go further into the relationship between genetic and linguistic studies. Gustmeister (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Lots of Chinese living along the eastern coast of modern China have Yue lineage

After reading all sources cited by user "Backendgaming" for cleaning up purpose, it is clear to me that many Chinese living along the eastern coast of China have Yue lineage, especially whose who live in Guangdong province. There is a study on Nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) among the Chinese speaking different southern dialects, source: [34] (also Crawford, Dorothy H.; Rickinson, Alan; Johannessen, Ingolfur (2014). Cancer Virus: The story of Epstein-Barr Virus. Oxford University Press (published March 14, 2014). p. 98.), claiming that speakers of Cantonese show an unusual high rate of NPC. This unusual high rate of NPC is attributed to their historical admixture with the Yue. The Zhuang and the boat people Tanka also exhibit such high rate of NPC. Besides this study, there's another interesting paper titled Principle Component Analysis of Shanghai Suburbanites Headstream 上海本地人源流主成分分析 (2003) [35], which indicates the existence of the Tai-Kadai in the modern-day area of Shanghai. Gustmeister (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Screenshots of "Cancer Virus: The story of Epstein-Barr Virus" pages 97 and 98: [36] (97), [37] (98), [38] (98), and its Googlebooks link [39]. Gustmeister (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Wu and Yue aristocratic elite learned the written Chinese language?

In the Peoples of the lower Yangtze section, there is a sentence writing that Their aristocratic elite (Wu and Yue) learned the written Chinese language and adopted Chinese political institutions and military technology. I'm not sure where is this information derived from?

An another phrase writes that Traditional accounts attribute the cultural change to Taibo, a Zhou prince who had self-exiled to the south. This information may be from Sima Qian's records, which was completed nearly 200 years after the destruction of the state of Yue and more than 300 years after the destruction of the state of Wu. Sima Qian's record about Taibo is not reliable. Gustmeister (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Yue states or groups duplicated Jyutping

for the "Ancient Yue states or groups" section, Yángyuè (揚越) and Dōng'ōu (東甌) are listed with the same Jyutping (joeng4 jyut6); Ōuyuè (甌越) and Dianyuè (滇越) are listed with the same Jyutping (au1 jyut6). The jyutping romanizations for Dōng'ōu (東甌) and Dianyuè (滇越) are likely incorrect, seeing as every other language's romanization has them as different pronunciations. Likely should be (dung1 au1) for Dong'Ou, and (din1 jyut6) for Dianyue, but not editing myself in case there is additional guidelines for edits

67.254.162.76 (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)