Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambodia Angkor Revolution Empire

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. We do not have anywhere near sufficient sourcing to maintain this article in mainspace. I am not draftifying because it appears the author cannot even verify the sourcing, about which there is FRINGE concerns, which means TNT is more appropriate Star Mississippi 00:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia Angkor Revolution [edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article as written is an undecipherable mess, but from what I gather from the creator's comments, it's supposed to be about a claimed revolution in the late Angkor period of Cambodian history, albeit one that's only deduced from tangential mentions in historical sources. There are several problems here: (1) The article is very poorly and confusingly written, and doesn't identify the topic it's supposedly covering at all. (2) I can't identify any reliable sources that attest to this claimed "revolution". Those cited in the article seem to only be for specific tangential facts. As far as I can tell, this appears to be WP:original research. The first issue could maybe be fixed (though I think it's bad enough here to fall into WP:TNT territory), but the OR issue is the more serious problem that would call for deletion, unless I'm proven wrong. Paul_012 (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Asia, Cambodia, and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it mentioned clearly about the revolution of the Cambodian people against the rulers in that time. From the reference source of the Chronicle of Ayutthaya and the record of Zhou Daguan is definitely clear on this point and clear evidence to support it. Especially, the Chronicle of Cambodia itself state about this event too. All of the evidence supports the fact that there is the Revolution in Angkor in this period Platinumshadow153 (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide WP:secondary sources that attest to this revolution? Primary historical sources from centuries ago are subject to interpretation, so we need to go by what historians have written. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the one you mentioned is Coedès, George (1996). The Indianized states of Southeast Asia on ISBN 978-0-8248-0368-1. Which is interpretation that not even included the Trasak Paem

However, the one I mentioned is the Chronicle of Ayutthaya that is real historic evidence from Siamese side is one of the primary source. Unfortunately, it is written in Thai mostly. Also even the Chronicle of Cambodia mentioned this revolution too. I understand that many historian who read this Cambodian historic book tell that many events in this Chronicle is more like myth and legend that is the reason I didn't put details on Holy spear or White elephant selection, but only put on only the name of Cambodian King which is most relatable to both Siamese and Cambodian side. This is the secondary source.

,but the global accepted source is Zhou, Daguan (2007). A Record of Cambodia there is a version of English Translated by Peter Harris In University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-9749511244 that said about the revolution clearly which is the main primary source here since it is not interpretion, but the record of real event.

How about you any evidence against the event? Platinumshadow153 (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give specific references, please? Which volume of the Ayutthaya Chronicle? Has it been digitised on vajirayana.org, and if so, can you provide a link? Can you give page numbers for the book sources? --Paul_012 (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could search in British Museum database for the information for the real document. Unfortunately, the picture could not search by words well. The links of other authors may not be redirect to the real evidence

Digitised Manuscripts (bl.uk) Platinumshadow153 (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many people also read the conclusion from Thai author in this book there are some article on this book related to the topic."ภักดีคำ, ศานติ (2011). "เขมรรบไทย". มติชน. p. 37, 272" Platinumshadow153 (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Santi Pakdekham book might be pointing in the right direction, but I'll have to make note to check it next time I visit the library. Meanwhile, even if the topic is verified the article will still need to be entirely rewritten, so draftifying might be an option to consider. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would support draftifying per the above. Might have encyclopedic value, but cannot be confirmed for the moment and in any case is somewhat unintelligible. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like original content retconned as sourced content with the name dropping of Zhou Daguan and the Siamese and Cambodian Chronicles without providing any actual sourced evidence. Zhou Daguan's accounts of Cambodia did not even take place during the time period of Trasak Paem's so called 'revolution' as Zhou returned to China in 1297, so I am not sure why he is mentioned. Claims that Trasak Paem is the progenitor of the Norodom dynasty is false, as that was King Norodom (Ang Voddey). As far as I'm concerned, Trasak Paem is a king from legend more than one of history. MosheeYoshee (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion. MosheeYoshee (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why I support deletion - the Burmese Chronicles detail a very similar story of a Burmese cucumber king usurping the throne and predates Trosak Paem. It has been theorized that this Burmese story made its way into the Cambodian Chronicles and that is how the legend of Trosak Paem came to be. Cambodian consensus is that Trosak Paem is a figure of legend. The content on 'Cambodia Angkor Revolution Empire' is not historically accurate and is original research. MosheeYoshee (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be very helpful to have additional analysis on whether there is enough material available to make this a viable subject, and indeed if it there is a substantial consensus among sources that it even happened.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trosak Paem is often used in Thai nationalist discourse to incorrectly identify the descendants of the Angkorian empire as not being Khmer, but instead as 'Khom'. They do not believe that the Khmer people are the people of Angkor, and instead see current Khmer people as being descendants of Trosak Paem, a mythical figure who is not from the historical Varman Dynasty. This effort to establish Trosak Paem as a real person who had a 'revolution' is nothing more than an attempt to invalidate Khmer people as not being the descendants of Angkor. See also Anti-Khmer sentiment. MosheeYoshee (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As mentioned above, the author has provided no evidence of reliable sourcing, only a vague allusion to mostly historical primary sources that would seem to fall under WP:OR or WP:FRINGE. The only book source put forward has not been verified to contain coverage of the supposed topic at all. If potential closers are reluctant to choose between deletion and draftifying per my above comments, let me clarify that I would prefer deletion. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
โกหก 2001:44C8:4222:4141:3DCB:8A66:36AB:E8F (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If references haven't shown up during a month on AFD, my inference is they aren't going to. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.