Talk:Royal Ballet of Cambodia: Difference between revisions

By /

Line 108: Line 108:

:::Thanks. [[User:MoonsMoon|MoonsMoon]] ([[User talk:MoonsMoon|talk]]) 00:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks. [[User:MoonsMoon|MoonsMoon]] ([[User talk:MoonsMoon|talk]]) 00:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

::::Respectfully, the article is on my watchlist, which is why I “showed up”, and I assure you that my comment is not personal whatsoever. I’m sorry if you feel disappointed MoonsMoon, but you don’t have consensus for all the changes that you made. Please realize that most WP editors are very busy in real life with jobs, family, travel, etc. and 99% of us here are volunteers so we edit in our free time (it’s not like social media where responses come in rapid fire) which is probably why you did not receive a response immediately. I’ll do some work on the section to give it more balance and shorten or paraphrase the quotes and work on the editorializing tone. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 01:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

::::Respectfully, the article is on my watchlist, which is why I “showed up”, and I assure you that my comment is not personal whatsoever. I’m sorry if you feel disappointed MoonsMoon, but you don’t have consensus for all the changes that you made. Please realize that most WP editors are very busy in real life with jobs, family, travel, etc. and 99% of us here are volunteers so we edit in our free time (it’s not like social media where responses come in rapid fire) which is probably why you did not receive a response immediately. I’ll do some work on the section to give it more balance and shorten or paraphrase the quotes and work on the editorializing tone. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 01:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

:::::I overlooked part of what you initially said and edited my post once I realized. You had already posted.

::::: I don’t feel “disappointed,” I’m just realizing how arbitrarily these rules are enforced seemingly based on agenda. [[User:MoonsMoon|MoonsMoon]] ([[User talk:MoonsMoon|talk]]) 01:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

If anyone can provide more sources, that would be great. This article is okay I think. While I don’t doubt the statements made here, they cannot all be verified yet. So we need to find more sources to verify them. —Hecktor 10:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source or two as well as some direct quotes from other sites. Trilinguist 18:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This website has a very good amount of pictures. However, I felt that whoever inserted that link may have done that to bring attention to the book (that hasn’t been even released yet). And the website’s main purpose is to sell a book, so I am removing it. I did, however, added a link to the Earth in Flower article under ‘See Also.’ —Dara (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dear Dara, You are doing a wonderful job revising the Khmer Classical Dance page, however you do a huge disservice to Cambodia, Cambodian scholarship, and Cambodian dance in your attempt to block access to Earth in Flower and its related information. Note that I did personally assist in editing and publishing the book. I have replied to you on the talk page of that article and am doing so again here. Let me address the points you raise above directly:

“to bring attention to the book (that hasn’t been even released yet)”
In fact, it is to bring attention to knowledge about Cambodian dance that is again available after much of has been unavailable since 1975. The book will be released in May, however we made important academic information from the book available to scholars as soon as possible (table of contents, index, every photo and diagram in the book, the full bibliography).

“the website’s main purpose is to sell a book”
The website offers the book along with a number of free resources – more resources than many of the other websites you include (many of which are also trying to raise money to survive). By the way, if you think printing an obscure academic title on Cambodian dance is done for profit…well, we need to talk!

We could only afford to print 880 copies of the book. Most are slated for to college and university libraries and many will be donated. Proceeds, if any, will go to perpetuate Cambodian dance through scholarships and subsidizing costume costs. The sale of the book does not alter access to the free info.

“website’s main purpose is to sell a book, so I am removing it.”
The website that you arbitrarily removed contains the MOST comprehensive, well organized FREE collection of Cambodian dance photos on the Internet. The free bibliography, table of contents and index have no academic equal for Cambodian dance research on OR off the Internet. Finally, the link page offers some of the best online resources promoting Cambodian dance and culture. Anyone interested in Cambodian dance will gain a lot from this free resource, without buying anything.

Added note on references from Earth in Flower – Please do download a free copy of the table of contents, index and especially the bibliography. I submit that you will find this information vital in establishing historical verification and sources for this Wiki topic. Every major book or study of Cambodian dance since 1975 cites Earth in Flower for a reason: it is the most comprehensive study of Cambodian dance ever undertaken. The fact that this knowledge has been virtually unavailable to the world is what drove me to publish it. The scholarship is solid and it provides an essential contribution to Cambodia’s history.

I respect your concern to keep Wikipedia non-commercial, however I believe you need to take a much closer looks at the facts in this situation. I am interested in your thoughts and would like to hear opinions from other dance students and scholars about your decision to attempt to eliminate this source of information.

Kent Davis DatASIA (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a sentence contributed by an anonymous editor. He/she wrote it in a way that disparages the status of this art as a UNESCO intangible heritage blah blah. Seems like this stuff is unnecessary so I edited to remove the “hybrid heritage construction” which if you ask me can apply to about any culture (seems like this person feels negative towards Cambodian dance and questioning it’s “authenticity”). If you don’t agree please tell us your input.

The fact that George Groslier, the French-colonial director of the Phnom Penh Musée Sarraut (today the National Museum), had ‘re-invented’ large parts of the ballet through his studies of the bas-reliefs of Angkor Wat, is part of an indeed hybrid heritage construction called ‘Royal Khmer Ballet’ which ranks today as ‘pure and authentic’ heritage on the highly essentialist UNESCO Intangible Heritage List.

I personally, don’t care for this UNESCO chatter but I am sure many nationalists do as well as nationalists from other nations (e.g. Thailand). There is no “authenticity” to many refined cultures, they all had to borrow something from somewhere else including Thai dance borrowing elements from other cultures. I agree that there is Thai influence (actually Siamese not modern Thai nation) and that the French (who had direction of the troupe for a period) should be recognized as having affected the art in a way. Though I am not sure to what extent. UNESCO is not an inherent element to cultural heritage and criticism on UNESCO should be written in a different section or article. —Dara (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The originally of Cambodian royal ballet dance is from ancient Khmer, it’s not become from Thailand. The Thai is the thief of Khmer since Angkorian 13 centuey and they stole the Khmer’s land and culture. So the first Royal ballet is not originally from the Thai. 

Pheara Khorn (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Royal ballet of Cambodia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, “External links modified” talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these “External links modified” talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Royal ballet of Cambodia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, “External links modified” talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these “External links modified” talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Siamese had carried off the Khmer court dancers when Ayutthaya sacked Angkor. MoonsMoon (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link (pasted below) for citation #12 under Post Angkorian Era doesn’t work, but I’m not sure if it’s just something on my end.

http://www.damrong-journal.su.ac.th/?page=view_article&article_id=347 MoonsMoon (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to address something under ‘Post-Angkorian era:’

“(Bangkok provided dancers to Ang Duong’s court) due to declining numbers of ballet dancers in Cambodia.”

I respect and appreciate Serhat Ünaldi’s work in his publication ‘Reconstructing Angkor.’ But reevaluations by contemporary scholars have concluded the claim of “declining numbers of ballet dancers in Cambodia” during that time is likely a misunderstanding or exaggeration at best, and a colonial-age fabrication at worst. Off hand I believe Paul Cravath, Michael Vickery, and Prumsodun Ok have addressed this.

Would it be alright if I added this content with sources in the appropriate spot? MoonsMoon (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I’m adding content. If there’s an issue I’m happy to discuss, just couldn’t see enough recent activity here to ping anybody. MoonsMoon (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MoonsMoon, thank you for your interest in this article and contributions to it. Because we are volunteers here (with jobs, families, etc.), it’s not always possible to get an immediate answer to a talk page or user page inquiry. I read through the edits you made, and there are some issues to consider. At this time, it’s a lot of material about one person’s opinion, Prudsodun Ok, which presents what reads as a minority opinion, not as something more widely discussed among scholars. You mention two other people, can you add citations to things they have published that would support the claims? Also, I think the quotes are too long (that’s a lot of copyrighted content, which we should try to keep to a minimum if possible.) See: WP:OQ and consider cutting back the quotes to the essential statement being made, or paraphrase. Lastly the section as it is now written, is in argument form, rather than a more encyclopedic form; meaning an argument is being made to support your opinion, but as an encyclopedia we need to write in a completely neutral tone. I’m happy to help clean this section up if you provide sources for Cravath and Vickery. Netherzone (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There’s currently no access, that I know of, to Cravath’s book ‘Earth In Flower’ online. There are only references to it. I can provide another quote on Ang Duong’s efforts to smear his predecessor, I just didn’t want this to turn into having numerous quotes all making the same point, like in the Thai dance article.
I didn’t set the tone for the article. I just went with it.
Now I will ask why it’s okay for the Thai Dance article to have multiple loooong quotes and nobody says anything. But the moment I make a single edit, somebody shows up after ignoring multiple messages on the Talk Page I made just to tell me I can’t?
Thanks. MoonsMoon (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, the article is on my watchlist, which is why I “showed up”, and I assure you that my comment is not personal whatsoever. I’m sorry if you feel disappointed MoonsMoon, but you don’t have consensus for all the changes that you made. Please realize that most WP editors are very busy in real life with jobs, family, travel, etc. and 99% of us here are volunteers so we edit in our free time (it’s not like social media where responses come in rapid fire) which is probably why you did not receive a response immediately. I’ll do some work on the section to give it more balance and shorten or paraphrase the quotes and work on the editorializing tone. Netherzone (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I overlooked part of what you initially said and edited my post once I realized. You had already posted.
I don’t feel “disappointed,” I’m just realizing how arbitrarily these rules are enforced seemingly based on agenda. MoonsMoon (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version