Talk:Angkor Wat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Angkor Wat is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 26, 2005.
Article Milestones Date Process Result July 26, 2005 Peer review Reviewed July 30, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click on [show] for further details
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Angkor Wat, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions Tibetan Proposed naming conventions FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale.

Angkor Wat is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Angkor Wat was (or will be) featured on the Architecture Portal as Selected article during week 3 of 2007. For more information or to participate, visit WikiProject:Architecture

Contents 1 Older comments 2 is this consider a hindu temple or buddhist temple? 3 Featured article 4 Cuts 5 Question 6 How tall? 7 Angkor, Cambodia 8 Oriented/Orientated 9 Mouhot quote 10 Unusually.... 11 Audio Guide 12 Disambiguation? 13 Gallery 14 Oriented - again 15 Hacked page 16 External photos

[edit] Older comments

Anyone got a photo of Angkor Wat handy? Graft

Will visit soon and make a lot of photos Michael

I cut the bit about the Thai name for the temple- it seems completely irrelevant to an English article about a Khmer temple. Also, I took out the statement that it's "considered one of the Seven Wonders of the Modern World"; because it's piffle. (Not that I mean to be rude :) ). Markalexander100 09:31, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Thai name actually has a lot of history, because this part of the country is heavily contested between the Thais and Cambodians. There was a flareup last year about a (mistaken) comment about Thai and Khmer control of the Angkor area. So I'm putting back in unless you can bring up another point about this. Also, it is being considered as some of the Seven Wonders of the Modern World, so I'm going to put back in but with softer language. Fuzheado 09:48, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We could certainly do with a section on the Thai/Khmer history of the site (maybe in the main Angkor article rather than here?), but I don't see that mentioning the Thai name for AW here addresses the point. On the seven wonders... considered by whom? Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms It's not even what I would call modern. Markalexander100 09:54, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not modern. And if you look at the previous edit I made, I never said modern. But if you look at the Seven Wonders of the World page, it is listed there with the Pyramids of Egypt and Taj Mahal. A paragraph that talks more about the Thai controversy would be good, but until then, we should at least keep the Thai mention in there. Fuzheado 10:23, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Modern" was the original statement, before my first edit. I did a Google search for "Angkor seven wonders", and all that I could find were personal homepages saying "I went somewhere really kool". I think we can do better that that in an encyclopedia. :)

I still don't see the relevance of the Thai name- I presume it's called wat because it's the Khmer word for temple, not because it also happens to be the That word. It's also the Lao word, but so what (or wat)? Tell you what- I'll do something on the Khmer/Thai thing first thing tomorrow morning. Markalexander100 10:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think something about the traditional (and recent) controversy over Angkor Wat between the Cambodians and Thai would be relevant. Since you're Thailand-based, you would be a better candidate than I would. However, I do remember being in Bangkok at the time the whole brouhaha came about, and it was quite a heated issue. It was also a big media issue because the press was responsible for much of the misquoting of Suvanant Kongying.

As for the Wonders issue, it seems to be one bigger than this article. There's the Wonders of the Ancient, Medieval, and Modern world. Some just have a variable length list of "Wonders" some stick with seven. But there's no doubt Angkor is referred to by many, not just personal web sites, of being a "Wonder of the World." [1] Fuzheado 10:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, "one of the wonders of the world" I can live with; it's spurious lists that upset me. :) I've written Thailand_and_Angkor. Markalexander100 03:16, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm new to editing wikipedia, and there's something I don't understand. At the end of the 2nd paragraph in the Angkor Wat entry, somebody put "A man of stone guards the entrancy thingy". This may well be true, however isn't very good english, so I thought it should be changed / removed. However on the edit page the line doesn't show up. What gives? Mike S. Hmm, I clicked on edit, clicked on save without changing anything, and the line went away... weird.

[edit] is this consider a hindu temple or buddhist temple?

?

Both, first hindu to honour vishnu, now adopted by buddhists due to its cultural significance. 60.226.73.18 11:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The pictures on the walls depict various myths of Hinduism. Janviermichelle 09:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It (along with the rest of the religious monuments at Angkor) was built as a Hindu temple most of the religious stories portrayed on the reliefs are those of Hindu mythology, especially the creation stories Oliyoung 00:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Angkor Thom, and many of the smaller temples built at the same time, were actually built as Buddhist temples. The problem is that many associate Angkor Wat's history, with the whole complexes history. Which is why the Angkor page needs to be fixed. Meateatingvegan 21:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article

This is quite a good article. I think with an expanded history section and inline citations, it could be a featured article. Tuf-Kat 05:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Citations should be easy enough- I've got everything I used to hand. I found a great old French pic for the History section, and I'm working on a plan of the temple which should see the light of day fairly soon. Mark¹ 08:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cuts

The second level enclosure would originally have been flooded, to represent the ocean around Mount Meru; the very steep stairways representing the difficulty of ascending to the kingdom of the gods. I haven't found a source for either of these (although they do look plausible), so I've removed them for now. Mark¹ 30 June 2005 08:30 (UTC)

Both these statements are from my Lonely Planet guide to Cambodia, 4th Edition, 2002, ISBN 1-74059-111-9, pp 195 & 199. They imply that their main source is David Chandler's History of Cambodia (2000, ISBN 0813335116). --Heron 19:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks- I've put them back in. Mark¹ 02:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a photo showing this area in a way the above would make sense, but this article already has many images. Would yet another be the straw...L-Bit 10:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Can someone fix the sentence "Other work involves the repair or prevention of collapsed sections of the structure" in the CURRENT section? I'm not sure whether this means to imply some sections have collapsed and are being repaired, or if they are being repaired to prevent them collapsing. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:48, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

Done. --Heron 19:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How tall?

Anyone know how tall it is to the central tower?

65 metres- it's mentioned in the Central structure section. Mark¹ 02:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Angkor, Cambodia

Far be it for me to be so bold as to edit the opening paragraph of a featured article, but I think (and admittedly I can't find a reference right here) that Angkor Wat is located in Angkor Archaeological Park (or some such nonsense) near Siem Reap town, Siem Reap province, in northwestern Cambodia. Again, I'll have to look it up in my references at the house, but I don't think that there is actually a place named "Angkor, Cambodia." Actually, just googled it (should have thought have that in the first place) the UNESCO site refers to "Angkor Archaeological Park" in its success stories page. Angkor at UNESCO --Easter Monkey 04:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, just now looked through some of the other temple pages, they all say they are in (or is it at?) Angkor, Cambodia. Anyway, that was something that struck me as odd as soon as I clicked on the article on the main page. --Easter Monkey 04:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Angkor is definitely a place, albeit a somewhat vaguely defined one. It's the area around various former capitals of the Khmer empire where various temples are found. Angkor Archaeological Park is better defined, but not synonymous (e.g. it doesn't include Beng Mealea, which is further east than the main group). Siem Reap town and province are defined, but aren't as informative - what's important about the location of the temples is that they are at Angkor, not that they come under the authority of a particular government body. Mark¹ 04:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Figures that someone had thought that through already...--Easter Monkey 05:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oriented/Orientated

I've always felt the verb "orientate" is wrong, and should be "orient" - as per [2]. I changed it accordinglly in the article, but Markalexander100 has reverted (giving no real explanation). Anyone else have an opinion? --Finbarr Saunders 08:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I also feel the same way, somehow it just doesn't sound right. Whenever anyone says "orientate" I always cringe, thinking that there's an extra syllable, a useless "ate" in there when "orient" will do just fine. Dictionary.com and the wiktionary both have entries, although your link (and the link from that page) both give convincing enough arguments to me for the improperness of "orientate" (although I really didn't need any convincing...) Though I must say that I'm not prepared to get into an edit war over something small like this...I'm sure they've been started over less... :P --Easter Monkey 09:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just realised what that "BrE" in Markalexander100's edit summary is: it's short for British English. Actually, I'm a Brit myself and it still grates on my ear (but maybe that's because I did too much English grammar and Latin at school). :) --Finbarr Saunders 10:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for being so cryptic. ;) FWIW, [3] supports my position. "Orient" sounds to me like lazily equating the verb and the noun. I'm a little possessive about "my" articles, but I won't change it in other people's. Mark¹ 04:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's a chunk from my tak page - referring here to Angkor Thom and Preah Khan

Hi, a friendly heads-up: orientated is the usual British English spelling, so I use it in my articles. I appreciate the thought, though. ;) Mark¹ 04:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

With both these words the shorter (orient, oblige) is more widely used, and acceptable on both sides of the Atlantic. The extra syllable makes one (orientate) grate on American ears, the other (obligate) on British. It seems sensible to use the shorter version, but <meh>, if anyone wants to change my edits back, I'm not likely to be bothered. Rich Farmbrough 12:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that google counts also support the shorter word, even when restricted to UK sites. Rich Farmbrough 12:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mouhot quote

"One of these temples—a rival to that of Solomon, and erected by some ancient Michael Angelo—might take an honourable place beside our most beautiful buildings. It is grander than anything left to us by Greece or Rome, and presents a sad contrast to the state of barbarism in which the nation is now plunged." - This doesn't have quotation marks, although it really should as it is unashamedly POV (although to illustrate the point I reckon it's fair-play" - but I don'tknow who said it... User: Wee_Jimmy 10:28, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

It comes after "However, the temple was popularised in the west only in the mid-19th century on the publication of Henri Mouhot's travel notes. The French explorer wrote of it:", so I think it's reasonably clear that the quote is from Mouhot. I don't know if we have a policy on quotation marks around block quotes, though I tend to leave them out as unnecessary. Mark¹ 04:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, a quotation worth quoting after a century has a definate place. It gives perspective along the timeline to a point of history, i.e. not now. Such opinions become historical points unto themselves. (How else would I ever have heard of Mouhot?). It needs to stand aside from current ways and means of writing knowledge, hence, all for the quote, but please use quotation marks.L-Bit 10:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unusually....

The sentence sounds strange to me the way Markalexander100 wants it. But, unusually among editors (it would seem) I understand the intended meaning, and sure, the grammar is technically correct, etc., I've nonetheless edited it for readability while still preserving the "unusualness" of it. --Easter Monkey 03:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Audio Guide

The Angkor Wat link I suggested is a freely available mp3 file based on the very same Wikipedia article. I thought it would be useful for readers to be able to download an audio copy to their iPod or MP3player when they go to visit Angkor Wat. Here is the link for your consideration. --Tatoeba 21:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the guide is plagiarised from Wikipedia is hardly a recommendation. Henry^Flower 09:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, you see things in a negative way. This link provided a free audio version of a great Wikipedia article. Also it is not plagiarised, it is copied. I would appreciate if you could elaborate more on what is not correct in my linking. --Tatoeba 15:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

See plagiarism (and, for bonus points, copyright infringement). Henry^Flower 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I will look into that. Thank you for your help. --Tatoeba 23:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I submit it now? --Tatoeba 23:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation?

Should we add a disambiguation link at the top, for people coming to this article, when they were looking for the entire angkor complex? Often I have found people say Angkor Wat without realizing it is one of many temples in the immediate area. Also, if any more pictures are needed for this article, or any of the other Angkor ones, let me know, I have tons.--Gregorof 01:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Support Although, I have to say, there's a lot of "stuff" at the top of the page alreadyL-Bit 07:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

I think there are enough images to add a gallery to this site but I MUST admit that I don't know how L-Bit 07:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oriented - again

Just a footnote to the 'oriented' discussion above. The term derives from classical antiquity when temples were 'oriented' were mainly oriented in one direction - east (as the name implies). Thus technically and etymologically a building can not be 'oriented' west. I understand that in common usage, oriented can imply any directin, but since this article has such a nice scholarly tone, I thought it would be more accurate to try to avoid westernized concepts he (especially ones deriving from a different religious 'orientation" (excuse the pun). 'The building faces west' or 'due west' or something to that effect would do it for me. Just a thought...Brosi 14:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Etymology is not the same as meaning. ;) Any chance of a reference for Vrah Vuschulok, by the way? Google has nothing. Henry^Flower 14:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know,but I am still an old fashion believer in 'nomen ets omen'-- but no particular quibble here.. As to Vrah Vischnulok. NOTE: that it got somehow misspelled as 'Vrah Vuschulok.' (the i became a u) That may be the problem. I got that info from an archaeologist in Angor that I met last year who was working there. I didnlt ask him though about sources though and I didn't get his name. If there are no sources as the article suggest, I believe it, (seeing that the article seems well researched). But I also thought I read about it somewhere. will try to recall.Brosi 23:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've found it under the less Germanic spelling of 'Vrah Vishnulok' in the Wiley History of Architecture (which I haven't read, but it's in the table of contents). Henry^Flower 09:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hacked page

This page seems to be suffering from a hack. Upon viewing the editable text there is nothing wrong, but a quick find for the word 'poop' on the main page and you'll see what I mean.

I have been unable to figure out how to fix this.

Anyone got any ideas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.239.35.180 (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Old vandalism, now reverted. Try clearing your browser cache: Ctrl+F5 in Windows Internet Explorer, sorry. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External photos

Hi, I think that the link to the photo website should be left in the article. It is kind of hard to find a decent site that has more than the usual 10 main perspectives of the temple. On this website there are more photos of details and they were all taken quite recently.

The deleted link was: http://www.socher.org/gallery2/v/Cambodia2006/SiemReapandAngkorArea/1AngkorWat/

If there are no objections I'll put it back on.

Best, Georg