Talk:Angkor Wat/Archive 1

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)

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)

Oriented/Orientated
I've always felt the verb "orientate" is wrong, and should be "orient" - as per. 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,  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, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. HenryFlower 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). HenryFlower 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)

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)

To: Editor named Spiesr
Hello,

I would like to ask why it is that you removed the external links for CyArk on various Wikipedia pages, including Deadwood, Salvador De Bahia, Angkor Wat, and more. Cyark is a nonprofit hi-definition heritage network employing 3D laser scanning at UNESCO sites worldwide for educational purposes, and has partnerships with prominent University and national institutions worldwide including UC Berkeley in California, University of Ferrara in Italy, ITABC, American Museum of Natural History, etc. (please see http://archive.cyark.org/partners.php for a complete list). It is a legitimate, noncommercial, archival site with a tremendous amount of information that could benefit those seeking further information on endangered sites. As a UC Berkeley graduate and a CyArk intern, I have taken it upon myself to provide wikipedia links because I believe the organization's mission is appropriate to an encyclopedic setting, and not simply an advertisement - there is nothing to sell, and the images are under creative commons licenses.

I would very much like an explanation for your cursory edits, particularly as you left links such as this one: http://www.marcioguide.com/ (under the heading "Salvador Bahia") which is an advertising page for a taxi operator. Did you even look at the CyArk site? I feel that hasty actions such as yours in this matter continue to endanger the legitimacy of Wikipedia as a site that is taken seriously by the academic community. Thanks, I look forward to your explanation. Please note that this (and similar) responses were written by me as an individual on my own computer on my own time, and do not reflect official policy of CyArk or its affiliates.

--John Mink, Cyark intern —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.44.107 (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

The never ending 7 wonders debate and related spam
I've just remove some self serving spam from a new paragraph that has been added today - see diff here. However, I'm not a fan of the entire new paragraph. The account that added the text has been almost a single purpose account dedicated to adding links to a Khmer music blog to various Cambodian articles,, , , , ,. Considering AGF and all that, I've been trying to explain that spamming blog links is not ok on their talk page User talk:Khmermusic - but apparently to no avail.

With all the obvious beauty, fame and historical significance that Angkor already has - do we need a paragraph on some commercial stunt that will be forgotten in 10 years? Your comments please for my proposal to revert the rest of the paragraph. Cheers, Paxse 13:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Revert with extreme prejudice. HenryFlower 09:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems you beat me to it :)Paxse 18:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

New Find
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6945574.stm << Perhaps someone could write this into the article? Popher 20:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Did that. Ana 4:01, 09 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.226.63.189 (talk)

Picture crowding
The article is not looking so good due to crowding of pictures in small space, leaving a void space in the text in one instance. Remove some pictures. 14 pics is too much.--Redtigerxyz 12:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This article was obviously created on a screen that was not very wide in proportion to its height. The proportions are particularly poor on a wide screen as the opening pics push the text out of place, detaching it from its heading. I will fiddle with it to make it work on different screens, and try to place some of the pics so they relate better to the adjacent text. Amandajm (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've recently been overseas, and each computer I used was not up to the standard I'm used to here in Australia. On a number of articles I viewed there, the larger sizes of pics (where pixel size is specified) exagerrated picture sizes and in many cases they took up half the width of screens. I'm am now more convinced that we should stick to the WP:MOS guidelines about not specifying pixel sizes. Wikipedia should not only be set up to include people with high-res, high-spec machines that we are used to in the west. Shame, though that I didn't think to take a few screen shots to illustrate this.
 * Perhaps we can then consider at least shrinking, if not removing altogether, the pixel count. --Merbabu (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem with ref
I have been trying to tidy up the weblinks for the FA review and have encountered a problem. This link is repeatedly attributed to Eleanor Mannikka—problem is, the page doesn't refer to her nor does the mainpage of the website. It's attributed John C. Huntington and/or Susan L. Huntington, and hosted by Ohio State. Anyone know what's up? Marskell (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lost City?
The title for an MSN video says that this is a lost city.--71.108.50.172 (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Krishna featured items
Please note the following reliefs that feature Krishna in the temple.

SOUTH WEST CORNER PAVILION: 1.north branch, east wall. - Krishna, accompanied by Balarama, raising mount Govardhana 2.above the west dooṝ - The child Krishna dragging the large stone mortar to which he had been tied by his adoptive mother, Yasoda, felling two arjuna trees in passing. 3.above the south door- The murder of Vipralamba and the extinction of a fire by Krishna. WEST GALLERY, SOUTHERN PART The battle of Kuruksetra between the Kauravas (advancing from the left) and the Pandavas (from the right), depicting four divisions of the Mahabharata, one of the major Hindu epics to the right is Arjuna, whose four armed driver is none other than Krishna

This article was included in the project WP:KRISHNA that coordinates relevant articles to the subject. Please discuss it at the project talk page WT:KRISHNA. Wikidās-ॐ 07:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
If this is a World heritage site, then why doesn't it use Template:Infobox World Heritage Site? I'd prefer that over just the picture. Reywas92 Talk 15:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Angkor Wat is only a part of the WHS Angkor. Same thing goes with the Great Pyramid of Giza that is only a part of he whs Giza pyramid complex. --Santac (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy regarding Etymology
[Angkor is a vernacular form of the word nokor which comes from the Sanskrit word nagara (capital),]

the above info presented on the intro is factually inaccurate. it has been now proven that nagara is actually a Dravidian loanword in Sanskrit. therefor i believe that the article should be changed to reflect that.

i have not edited this article and would like to get the opinions of others in the talk space before doing so —Preceding unsigned comment added by Velir (talk • contribs) 07:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly if you can provide an credible, verifiable academic source for the etymology of "nagara", then we can discuss changing. However, the info as currently presented, is not inaccurate. The Khmer word "angkor" is a corruption of the Khmer word "nokor" which was indeed borrowed/adapted into Khmer from the Sanskrit "nagara", as the sentence you quoted states.  The sentence makes no claim as to how the word made its way into Sanskrit, and in fact, I believe that would be irrelevant to this particular article.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 19:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Angkor Wat privetely owned
I was wondering if it might be worth mentioning that Angkor Wat actually is owned or controlled by a private company who reveives all profit by the tourists, which I find really disturbing since Cambodia is a poor country and the ppl there need all the money they can get.

I don't know much about the facts, except what i can find for example here: http://khmernz.blogspot.com/2008/01/income-from-angkor-wat-is-more-than-60.html

But this is a blog and I don't know how accurate it is. Also I don't have any experience at writing articles on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.95.216.206 (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not very reliable. It's a fairly well known anti-government rabble rousing blog, similar to the more entertaining KI media. Angkor remains owned by the state. The concession to manage the park (though not the monuments themselves) was awarded to the Sokha group in an typically non-transparent fashion some years ago. Previously, a French company had the concession briefly and before that the government Apsara authority operated it (very poorly). Ticket revenues are shared and (unusually) the details have been made public several times, due to opposition pressure in the National Assembly and significant media attention. The government gets an annual share (in tax), the Apsara authority gets a larger share to maintain and restore the monuments, the rest goes to the Sokha group. So at least part of your ticket price goes toward looking after the temples. There's much more to the story, but this is Wikipedia, not Wikinews, so I'll leave it there. hope that helps a little. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture size, placement, etc...
Regarding my *explained* changes to the article, they were blanket reverted without explanation. So now I have re-reverted, and explained at length... kind regards --Merbabu 02:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per the MOS, there is no apparent reason to set picture size. Picture size should be set by individual users in their preferences (top right of your screen). Every screen displays pics differently. Just because 280px looks good on your screen doesn't mean it will suit others. The best way is to leave them unspecfied.
 * The 'upright' parameter works well to solve the problem of over proportioned portrait pics. Ie, by standardising horizontal one make all portrait pics inappropriately bigger. The 'upright' parameter solves this.
 * Two pics at the top is too many. I suspect it this is aesthetically motivated, but to be honest it looks crowded and is not effective. Just keep one iconic photo that is instantly striking. The aerial shot is not that and clouds the effect.
 * The reverter cites FA. yet |this FAC was ages ago, and hardly rigourous. FA standards have come a long way since then.
 * I'm not sure of the intent of citing FA, but i suspect the implication is I can't touch it. Not so, the is much room for improvement and such revert run counter to the even more crucial principal of being bold. I took the time to adjust the pictures and provided explanation - such blatant reverts do not encourage people to continue to improve. It could also open up the reverter to accusations of WP:OWN - Further, I have been involved with FA - see Indonesia - and proper image sizing (ie, no pixel count) was required.
 * The picture on the section about the central site is incorrect and appears to have been Photoshopped! The two highly-colored buildings at the extreme left and right of the image are not Angkor Wat at all, but instead are buildings in Wat Pho in Bangkok, Thailand. This image should be replaced with one that just shows the relevant part of Angkor Wat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.44.24 (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

New edits and comments
I just added some new edits mainly about construction techniques and looked over the article. Comments from Eleanor Mannikka that indicate a "new era of peace under king Suryavarman II" seem misguided. There were 19 years of war out of about 37 and his reign was followed by decline and war with the Chams. It is true that the kings were worshiped as gods and they probably promised peace but it doesn't appear to be what they delivered. The comments about distancing herself from Graham Hancock seem out of place too since he isn't mentioned except to say she is distancing herself from him. If there are no objection I may remove or rewrite this perhaps with the same sources I have just added.

The comment about the Bayon sacrificing quality for quantity also is not what I have read elsewhere. The Bayon isn't as big as Angkor Wat and the quality seems to be equal just a different style. King Jayavarman VII may have done other construction projects including the outer walls of Angkor Thom but the majority of the temples within weren't built in his time.

While I was at it I looked for references to Archaeoastronomy the only thing I found was a claim that astronomy was studied there in "The Seventy Wonders" and another claim for a different temple in the Time life lost civilization book. If Eleanor Mannikka and Graham Hancock are the only references to Archaeoastronomy available I'm not sure it qualifies but if there is something else it would be good to add it. If it qualifies for for the List of archaeoastronomical sites by country or the List of megalithic sites I've been putting return links on the See also section. If there is no objection I'll put one for them. If they don't qualify they probably shouldn't be on the lists or in the catagory. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the following reference since there was nothing in the article about it except to say that She was distanceing herself from it and the page doesn't seem to have any relevent content. http://www.grahamhancock.com/horizon/horizon_script_2.htm Atlantis Reborn I didn't address the claim that King Jayavarman VII sacrificed quality for quantity since he may have been involved in other buiding projects but I'm skeptical of it. If I come across anything that adresses this at a later date I may get back to it. Regards Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a comment about the care needed to transport megaliths on the river and added the megalith list to the see also section but not the araeoastronomy list since I'm not sure whether that is a ligitimate claim. I think something about the workforce required could be helpful. I think there is ample evidence to imply a well organized system of training aprentice sculptures etc. that probably come from throughout the empire. If they were trained from a young age and they focused solely on the task at hand they would have been more adept than Alex Evans who had other training in other fields. I think something like this is supported with current sources but it would be better if academics more directly addressed it so I'm not going to rush to put this in unless I find a better source. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Intro
Angkor Wat (or Angkor Vat) (Khmer: អង្គរវត្ត), is a temple complex at Angkor, Cambodia, built for the king Suryavarman II in the early 12th century as his state temple and capital city.

This line should be followed by: It was part of the historic city of Ankor, which was responsible for filling the surrounding basin and provided supplies and protection for the temple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.165.179 (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

'''The amount of Angkor Wat stone is equivalent to the pyramid of KHUFU(GIZA) NOT Khafre! Kufu is bigger than Khafre It says it on the HISTORY CHANNEL DIGGING FOR THE TRUTH!''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.128.57.30 (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

'''Also, studies shows that if you were wo add up all of the stones in just the Angkor historical park and compare to the stones used in building the Egyptian pyramids it is actually more stones used in Angkor than all of the pyramids of Egypt! Thats only the temples in Angkor and were not even talking about temples outside of Angkor like Beng melea, preah vihear etc..IT SAYS IT IN NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC: LOST CITY OF ANGKOR and also on WALKING THE ROYAL ROAD: THE ANCIENT KINGOM OF ANGKOR'''

Untitled
Wasn't this recently redated pushing the time scale back significantly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.221.52 (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Creating the Infobox World Heritage Site
How can we create the Infobox World Heritage Site for Angkor Wat and other Angkor temples? It is also a UNESCO World Heritage. We can follow something like Giza Necropolis. -- Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano 13:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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. HenryFlower 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). HenryFlower 09:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Pisnulok or Vishnulok translates to the abode of Vishnu where ``lok really means ``his own heaven. I am unclear as to the word ``Preah or ``Vrah. There seems to be some confusion in romanizing it. I think this translation should be part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.209.39 (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Book by Eleanor Mannika / corrected: Eleanor MANNIKKA
Hello all,

I hope some who are working on this article may be sufficiently familiar with this topic to be able to answer this question.

Yesterday I listened to a very interesting lecture by one John Synday "OBE", a British architect and Programs Director Asia and Pacific, The Global Heritage Fund (vide www.johnsanday.com and ), on restauration of a lesser known temple in Cambodia (in a lecture hall in continental Europe).

Towards the end of the questions-and-discussions session, he mentioned a "fascinating" book, and asked again in private he dictated to me the author name, by which I could find out the bibliographical details today:

Mannika, Eleanor: / corrected Mannikka, Eleanor:

Angkor Wat: Time, Space and Kingship.

University of Hawaii Press, Honululu, first published in 1996, latest edition 2001, ISBN 0-8248-1720-6 and ISBN 9780824817206.

Description e.g. on www.asiafinebooks.com.

It seems to be a detailed work on a theory she has developed on the A.W. temple complex being a mirror of astronomocal observations and the religious and kingship ideology in turn also tied to those. Said to be a very "dense" reading.

Mr Sanday mentioned also, upon my question, that it was a "non-mainstream" point of view, as she did not come from "inside academia", but - if I remember this correctly (we were unfortunately in great haste to talk about this) - that it became accepted as time went by.

Now, being not acquainted with American publishers (I live in continental Europe) and knowing very little about South East Asian cultural history, I cannot judge the value of this book. To my surprise a catalogue search today revealed that it seems to be not held by either the Library of Congress of the USA nor by any larger or academic library in Brtitain or Continental Europe.

Searches on the Internet and on "Google Scholar" search machine give just a few hits. She does not seem to have any internet site of her own, nor to be attached to any larger organization or institution.

If what she writes is sound and well researched and argued, I do not understand all this silence. If it is all nonsense, I wonder why a "University Press" would publish it (are they not risking to soil their reputation?) and why the said Gentleman (apparently with vast experience on the field, albeit no formal training in the Humanities) was so enthusiastic about it.

Also she is not mentioned in the Literature section of the Angkor Wat articles on either English or German Wikipedia.

Could someone who is knowledgeable enough or enclined to research this issue a little bit shed some light on this? (But please no guessing or any other W.P. nonsense, this is a serious question and a serious interest, and I expect serious answers that do not waste anyone's time.)

- It is not only for my personal interest, of course, but if valuable it would improve the article considerably, I assume.

Regards to all experts and earnest contributers,

-- Sophophiloteros (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Correction: I was told the name with slightly incorrect spelling, searched for that version and found some bits of information, but today found the name in correct spelling:


 * So it is Eleanor Mannikka with twice a double consonant (Finnish origin, I assume)! - Surprisingly even booksellers write her name incorrectly, but when you click on "enlarge" to see the photograph of the book itself, you can solve the mystery (vide http://www.asiafinebooks.com).


 * So the book is held at a number of large libraries, including the LibCong and others.


 * Even W.P. has a stub of an article on her: Eleanor Mannikka.


 * Still the question remains: is it a work worth reading, and if so, why was it not included in the literature section here?


 * Regards, -- Sophophiloteros (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks Finnish to me as well.
 * According to the article though, that is her married name, replacing "Moron". (No wonder.)
 * Hopefully, that detail is not a spot of editorialization in disguise.
 * Varlaam (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

New Sources Online for Angkor Articles
I have put online for free the transliterations and French translations of many of the Angkor area inscriptions. The sources are EFEO publications, mostly. There's also many photos by me of the inscriptions, all of which are public domain. Work it into the article, it's good proof it wasn't made by aliens or Atlanteans. They say so in the inscriptions. (The inscriptions are from all over Angkor, not just Angkor Vat.

Search Scribd for "Sumerian Coprus" then go to my collection-file "Angkor Area Inscriptions in Sanskrit and Old Khmer". I have also put online Coedes' Inscriptions du Cambodge in pdf form. Go to PhotoBucket and search for the account "bildern747", it's in the Angkor file.

Dwarfkingdom (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Images from Redwind Productions
I have obtained permission from the copyright holder of the images at http://www.kashensjourney.com/photo_gallery.htm to upload them under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Part of the documentary To Whom It May Concern: Ka Shen's Journey was filmed at Angkor Wat. The images are http://www.kashensjourney.com/Site/gallery/galleries/album2/images/image7.jpg, http://www.kashensjourney.com/Site/gallery/galleries/album2/images/image7.jpg, http://www.kashensjourney.com/Site/gallery/galleries/album2/images/image9.jpg, http://www.kashensjourney.com/Site/gallery/galleries/album2/images/image10.jpg, and http://www.kashensjourney.com/Site/gallery/galleries/album2/images/image11.jpg.

I've looked at commons:Category:Angkor Wat, which is very well populated with very good images. I understand that the images in this article are superior to these ones, but if the primary author of the article, Henry, believes the images will be good additions to the Commons category, I will upload them there. I haven't watchlisted this page, so please contact me on my talk page if you reply. Cunard (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I had a look at the photos, and they may be interesting as an artist's work, but they're of no encyclopedic value regarding Angkor Wat. uspn (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing mentioned about is rediscovery by Westerners
Nothing said about the re-discoverey of Angkor Wat to the West in 1860, nor about the 1931 exhibition in Paris. From the PDF here http://www.springerlink.com/content/rwup1g0gmfjqpvda/ "The temple ruins of Angkor Watt, a Siamese possession attached by the French to Cambodia, became one of the most popular attractions for French artists and tourists alike. A mammoth replica of Angkor Watt was the centerpiece of the 1931 Colonial Exhibition in Paris, an event that drew several million visitors." The 1860 resdiscovery by a French botanist was responsible for the overgrown site being cleared. The article gives no sense that the temple had been lost in the jungle. The temple was apparantly a sensation in Western culture after its discovery, and the 1931 exhibition. I am trying to avoid the trap of the Colonialism mind-set - the temple was known to locals (or perhaps not as it was very overgrown in the jungle) and did not just pop into existance only when a Westener saw it. 78.146.18.93 (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Somebody should read up on this. I spent about 6 months living there and studying, and it's possible it had been forgotten (by the capitol of Cambodia), but also possible otherwise. Angkor Wat is huge. It's possible monks lived near it and used it from J7's time onwards. What happened is that they moved the capital and so the population of the Angkor area dwindled to neighboring farmers (which it remains today, plus the small tourism industry the village supports). Again, there were probably monks attached to at least Angkor Vat, but otherwise the farmers would have known of it and the pyramids - the jungles of Angkor are criss-crossed with very narrow walking paths, which the farmers today use to gather fire-wood. These walking paths have probably been there as long as the farmers have. The farmers probably abandoned the ruins because they couldn't be farmed, then used them as a wood source. The stone ruins at least would have become dangerous once no one was around with enough money to keep them up, let alone all the wood ruins which are now long, long gone, depicted in the ruins. From what I've seen, though, the West really did discover all these places - before it shows up, no one can read the inscriptions, and often locals and rulers have off-based ideas about who built them and why. Science is part of the Western culture, other peoples approach the past and foreigners in different ways. Also, other cultures would not feel ashamed to trumpet how they discovered or conquered this or that, whereas in the West, most are ashamed of the "colonial heritage", partially because we've retracted from the world and so aren't aware of the realities out there.

Dwarfkingdom (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There are notations about Angkor Wat in 1570 by Frat Gabriel de San Antonio, a spanish monk. See Roberto Ferrando "Relaciones de la Camboya y el Japón" 1604

--84.126.10.233 (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Angkor Wat was not Suryavarman II's capital city
I refer to the line "...built by King Suryavarman II in the early 12th century as his state temple and capital city." in the first paragraph of the article.

In fact, Angkor Wat was not a city, although it replicates a layout of a city with a canal surrounding it. It was built by King Suryavarman II for his funeral. It was a common practice in those days when each king was believed to be an incarnation of a god (god's avatar)and will return to the residence of the gods in Mount Meru when he dies, so his funeral will take place in a thewalai (devalaya in Pali)-- a place of god (direct translation), or a place for religious ceremonies (interpretation from its function)-- dedicated only to him for the return journey. Suryavarman II was believed to be an avatar of a Hindu god called Vishnu. It was one of every god-king's duties in the Khmer empire to start building one funeral place for himself at the beginning of his succession to the throne and the construction work will be continuous until he dies, leaving all the thewalai of such kind unfinished and is one supporting fact that Angkor Wat was built as one of those. This also explains why "There were no ordinary dwellings or houses or other signs of settlement including cooking utensils, weapons, or items of clothing usually found at ancient sites."

This similar practice can also be seen today in the Thai's royal funeral ceremonies, where a temporary construction replicating Mount Meru is built in front of the Grand Palace and outside of the Royal temple to hold the cremation ceremony for each one of them exclusively.

The fact that Angkor Wat is facing West, which was unlikely for a temple, and together with inscriptions on its walls, also confirm that it was dedicated to the funeral service of Suryavarman II. In Southeast Asian cultures, the West is the direction of death as the Sun sets in that direction. In Suryavarman II's time, Angkor Wat was known as 'Preah Pisnulok' (the word 'Preah' is a prefix of holy figures or places, and 'Pisnulok' means God Vishnu's land), and was later called Angkor Wat when its function had been changed to serve as a Buddhist temple.

Angkor Wat situated in a city officially called Yashodharapura, or nick-named 'Angkor Luang' (The Grand City), established by King Yashovarman I. The centre of this Angkor Luang city was the prasat (castle or palace) on the Phanom Bakheng Hill. Later, when Angkor Thom (-translated as 'the Big City'), or Sriyashodharapura, was created nearby, the old Angkor Luang were neglected and only some trace of the old city walls remains to be seen today. Therefore, Angkor Thom was a city, whereas Angkor Wat was not.

I am not a historian myself. Being a Thai person, I know the information above from various books and other sources as I was growing up. There are a lot of academic writings and researches that support this, but they are not written in English and are not available online. Passerby2012 (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * All the information was there, it was just organized badly, I have tried to fix it. Oddly enough, the page on Angkor itself has a better description of the temple's history than does this page.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the fix. Having read through it again, I just saw that in the second paragraph of the 'History' section of the article, the statement that the temple was built as the king's capital city still remains, which may cause confusion.

I don't know about Suryavarman II's'state temple'. Although I have never read anywhere that Angkor Wat has been appointed by him or any other kings as such, I also do not have evidence that it was not functioning so in his time. Therefore I did not touch upon that claim, even though I am also quite skeptical. To my knowledge, it was not a tradition that a king in the Khmer empire had to have or appointed any thewalai (devalaya) as a 'state temple', but they have a tradition of building many thewalai. I think the idea of 'state temple' has its root in monotheisms and Buddhism, which is quite different from the standpoint of polytheisms such as Hinduism. There is evidence that Suryavorman II held a Kalpanā (Monastic Endowment) ceremony upon establishing the temple, but this is not to be confused with making it a 'state temple'.

Therefore, I think to say that Suryavarman II built Angkor Wat as his 'personal temple mausoleum', as does in the wikipedia's article on Angkor, is the most appropriate way to put it, as this fact seems to be universally accepted supported by many traces in the architecture itself.

Having gone back to read some of the materials I could find, it seems to me that Angkor refers to an era (A.D.802-1220), which includes many rises and falls of kings and capital cities. These cities were established one next to another and when plotted together could be identified as a region, although a certain boundary of this group of township cannot be clearly identified. Yashodharapura, or Angkor Luang where Angkor Wat is a part of, and Sriyasodharapura,or Angkor Thom, as well as other towns existed during this Angkor Era. Angkor Luang can be translated as 'The great city' or 'the capital city', but the word 'angkor' itself means a township or a city. Both Angkor Luang and Angkor Thom were once the capital city in the Angkor Region in different times under different reigns of kings. Passerby2012 (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

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)


 * Angkor Wat situated in an ancient city officially called Yashodharapura, or nick-named 'Angkor Luang' (The Grand City), established by King Yashovarman I. The centre of this Angkor Luang city was the prasat (castle or palace) on the Phanom Bakheng Hill. Later, when Angkor Thom (-translated as 'the Big City'), or Sriyashodharapura, was created nearby, the old Angkor Luang were neglected and only some trace of the old city walls remains to be seen today. Passerby2012 (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Having gone back to read some of the materials I could find, it seems to me that Angkor refers to an era (A.D.802-1220), which includes many rises and falls of kings and capital cities. These cities were established one next to another and when plotted together could be identified as a region, although a certain boundary of this group of township cannot be clearly identified. Yashodharapura, or Angkor Luang where Angkor Wat is a part of, and Sriyasodharapura,or Angkor Thom, as well as other towns existed during this Angkor Era. Both Angkor Luang and Angkor Thom were once the capital city in the Angkor Region in different times under different reigns of kings. Search 'Angkorian Period' or Angkorian Era and you should find more information on where it was. Passerby2012 (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Decay
So I was interested in the images of Angkor Wat and the black residue that seems to be all over the structure and the general appearance that the whole thing is slowly melting. I came to this article to see if I could find out more about that and found nothing. I have heard this is due to acid rain and other polutents damaging the soft sandstone, but the important thing is, is it decaying? and shouldn't that be mentioned? There is nothing of this written in the article. Isn't it important because of the images most people see of the temple give this impression? Akuvar (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are there any sources for what you state? It seems plausible, but without sources this is just speculation and doesn't merit inclusion in WP. A quick search reveals that the book The Effects of Air Pollution on Cultural Heritage has some relevant info (discusses black biofilm), but seems to mention Angkor Wat tangentially (pg 136).  Mind  matrix  18:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

== I believe I was the one that added the part about it being called Preah Pisnulok during the 16th century. That was a few years ago. And I've never figured out all of the various other names for it. Was the name Yasodharapura also applied to it too? What was Angkor Thom called? Are there any inscriptions at Angkor Wat that refers to the temple name? What other names were used in the post-Angkor period besides Preah Pisnulok? If you mention "Nokor Wat", many of the older Cambodians recognize this as a synonym for Angkor Wat. There should be an etymology section in my opinion. --Dara (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * An etymology section would be nice if we knew anything!  We don't know the original name, because we don't have the foundation stele; Yasodharapura and Angkor Thom are both centred quite a bit further north, so I'm fairly sure their names would not have been applied to it (noting in passing that Angkor Thom was referred to  as Yasodharapura too, as stated in the AT article (I think I added that bit)).   Nokor and Angkor are the same word, so as far as I know Angkor Wat and Phreah Pisnulok are the only names it has. HenryFlower 09:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Angkor Wat's Original Name? == In Chinese Text, dating back to some 800 years before , it was known as Fou Nan , and appears to be an important trading hub ; Thus the canals for merchant shipping , but as we can see what happens when the Ruling class take the liberty of endulging themselves , as of then as it is of now days ; The deterioration of the social fabric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.48.66 (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Angkor Wat was certainly not called Funan. Funan was (roughly) a state, not a temple or city; it was concentrated further towards the Mekong delta; and it collapsed 600 years before AW was built. HenryFlower 00:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Funan is never one of the names of Angkor Wat.-- Passerby2012 (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The relief on the western section of the southern gallery has a brief inscription engraved next to the image of Suryavarman II which reads "Paramavishnuloka", and the temple were called in its early days as "Prasat Paramavishnuloka", "Preah Pisnulok", "Vrah Vishnulok" (Preah and Vrah are the same word as Phra in my language (Thai) that is a prefix of a holy place or person), "Preah Mohanokor Indrabrat Preah Vishnuloka" (16th century inscription), and "Indrabratnokor Sreisodhara Vishuloka" (17th century inscription). The name was simplified to "Angkor Wat" later on when the place was used as a Buddhist temple. It was located in Yasodharapura, one of the capital cities in the Angkor Era. So, Yasodharapura was not one of its names. Angkor Thom was another capital city established after Yasodharapura in the same era, but Angkor Wat was located outside of this new city, although it was nearby.--Passerby2012 (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"City" or "High Place"?
I remember hearing somewhere that the word "Angkor" means "High Place". I saw on the page for the branch of the Khmer Rouge, The Angkar, that the word means "High Organization". Is there some connection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.217.48 (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In my language (Thai), which inherited a great deal of word roots from Khmer, Pali and Sanskrit, 'ankor' is 'nakhon', which means 'city' and is believed to have the same root from the word 'nokor' (Pali) or 'naga' (Sanskrit) as stated in the article. However, I doubt it if the word 'wat' is from 'vatthu' as acclaimed in the article. Vatthu is a Pali word that means 'a thing or property of something'. In Thai, 'wat' generally means Buddhist temple and is believed to have come from the Buddhist Pali word 'vatva' which means a place to discuss Dhamma, or 'vatta', which means duty of monks, i.e. meditation. Passerby2012 (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed you are correct about the etymology of "wat". I broke out my dusty old Khmer dictionary and my Pali dictionaries just to provide a reference for the changes (that I just made to the article).


 * Well, Pali is very flexible in nature and the interpretation can vary a lot according to context and prefixes and suffixes. I am not an expert in this ancient language. I'm only familiar with their uses in the Thai language. I don't know about their uses in Khmer or other contexts. Thank you for your efforts in clarifying this. -- Passerby2012 (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Upon further reflection, "wat" could indeed be derived from Pali vattu as used in vatthu-ārāma meaning property of a temple (ārāma also has cognates in Thai, อาราม, and Khmer, អារាម), which actually makes more sense, but my Khmer dictionary gives vatta as the etymology. By the way, Wikipedia is a project that anyone can edit, I encourage you to be WP:BOLD and contribute!--William Thweatt TalkContribs 04:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Leading is confusing
Hello. I'm a bit confused by the leading (as I'm trying to translate the article into Catalan). First it says: Then it says
 * Angkor Wat is the largest Hindu temple complex and the largest religious monument in the world. -> it's a complex
 * As the best-preserved temple at the site,... -> it's a temple
 * The temple is at the top of the high classical style ... -> it's a temple

So... is Angkor Wat a single temple or a temple complex? it isn't clear enough. Thanks for clarifying.--Arnaugir (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Angkor Wat. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100423123631/http://www.devata.org:80/2010/02/angkor-wat-devata-inventory/ to http://www.devata.org/2010/02/angkor-wat-devata-inventory/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516174411/http://www.wmf.org/sites/default/files/wmf_publication/Considerations_for_the_Conservation_and_Preservation_of_the_Historic_City_of_Angkor_Report_I.pdf to http://www.wmf.org/sites/default/files/wmf_publication/Considerations_for_the_Conservation_and_Preservation_of_the_Historic_City_of_Angkor_Report_I.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.autoriteapsara.org/en/apsara/about_apsara/publication/yashodhara/yashodhara_6.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100423123631/http://www.devata.org:80/2010/02/angkor-wat-devata-inventory/ to http://www.devata.org/2010/02/angkor-wat-devata-inventory/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angkor Wat. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050205015542/http://ospiti.thunder.it/gacp/ to http://ospiti.thunder.it/gacp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angkor Wat. 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:
 * Added tag to http://ias.umn.edu/2013/11/07/thurs-angkor-cambodia/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020132919/http://www.voiceofangkor.com/ to http://www.voiceofangkor.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
Is &#123;&#123;Infobox Hindu temple&#125;&#125; the most appropriate infobox for Ankor Wat? As we know, it was later converted to Buddhism, and today its primary significance is as a cultural heritage monument rather than an active religious site. I think &#123;&#123;Infobox ancient site&#125;&#125; would suit the article better. (This also applies to the other Angkorian temples, but since Angkor Wat is the best known one and a Featured Article, I'm asking here first.) --Paul_012 (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've switched the infobox template. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Largest religious monument in the world?
The first sentence claims that Angkor Wat is "the largest religious monument in the world". The given source for this claim is this article. The article says in the headline that it is "the world’s largest Hindu temple complex" and in the text it says that the site "claims to be the world’s largest Hindu shrine". It looks like the author is not so sure about the exact claim he wants to make (largest "Hindu shrine" or largest "Hindu temple complex"). Certainly does the article not claim that this is "the largest religious monument in the world". I propose to delete the claim as long as we have no source for that. --183.89.91.162 (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to correct, be BOLD.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 16:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Question about ’reversion’ of edit
My prior edit adding significant background information about Zhou Daguan’s 1296-1297 was ’reverted’, with the ostansible reason of ’wiki does not quote itself ’. I am curious as to why this is the case. Does Wikipedia consider Wikipedia to be an unreliable source? I had listed the original text as a source, does Wikipedia consider primary source to be unreliable? Rk725 (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS, in particular the section about user-generated content. Mind  matrix  14:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hindu or Buddhist?
There has been an ongoing revert edits back and forth on whether Angkor Wat was/is a Hindu or Buddhist temple. Sure today some parts of it are used as Buddhist temple. Nevertheless, its original design was a Hindu temple modelled after mount Meru, dedicated for Hindu god Vishnu. I proposed to mention it as both Hindu-Buddhist.  Gunkarta  talk 10:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * There isn't any controversy that Angkor Wat is now a Buddhist temple. When you say that there has been a lot of "reverts back and forth", well yeah...by anonymous vandalising IP. We don't change the article just to appease vandals. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In case you did not realise, here in wikipedia we are welcome to be bold, questioning the so-called status quo or longstanding edit version, and revisit some issues. In some instance a question or doubt might arise, an editor can questioning and ask for other editors/contributors opinion and open a discussion in this talk page. Of course in good faith, friendly and civilised manner. In historical and archaeological aspects, no doubt that Angkor Wat was conceived, planned and built in Hinduism concept; even the main deity was Vishnu, and the Samudramanthan bas-reliefs was a Hindu concept. Insistence on deleting and undermining the Hindu aspect in the lead is quite misleading historically and archaeologically, thus nonfactual. Sure, today it is a Buddhist temple, probably converted since 13th century or earlier. Conversion of a temple, should be addressed properly. For example as a comparison, in the article Hagia Sophia; in the lead stated about what that building actually was/is, quite completely: originally built as Orthodox cathedral, conversed to mosque, then now a museum. I understand your position, yet I would love to invite other editors/contributors that concerned about this article to think back about this issue.  Gunkarta  talk 12:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)



Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're acting like I am the one who originally wrote that it is a Buddhist temple. I wasn't. All i did was protect the page by reverting blatant acts of unsourced vandalism/POV from anonymous IPs.
 * This edit and this edit by you were done with no accompanying rationale or citation. Whilst you are free to challenge whatever long standing consensus that you please, such controversial edits (just repeating what anonymous IPs had failed to do many times) should have been accompanied by a citation or some kind of rationale. Otherwise it just appears to be vandalism.
 * I have no issue with your latest edit, as there is nothing factually incorrect about it. I also see no reason to make that edit, as Angkor Wat has functioned as a buddhist temple for hundreds of years, and functions as a buddhist temple in the present day, and therefore *is* a buddhist temple, and therefore can be described as such. But I won't revert your latest edit because there's nothing incorrect about it. I see no reason to make that edit, but I see no reason to revert it either.

Just stick to the fact shalll we, instead of reading into the things too much. My edit inserting Hindu-Buddhist term was based on common fact well-cited all over the articles. It is easy for me to borrow all those refs inside the article and slap them right in the front of the lead. Nevertheless, I did not did that. After looking back and examining the article's history, stable version that most of the time in the past, in the first sentence only mention "Angkor Wat is a temple complex in Cambodia..." The next sentence sufficiently explain the fact of what Angkor Wat was/is: "Originally constructed as a Hindu temple dedicated to the god Vishnu for the Khmer Empire, it was gradually transformed into a Buddhist temple... etc." The problem arise when the later-added of "Buddhist" or "Hindu" claim was added in the first sentence. I watch and learn that there was an ongoing edit battles in the past. First some edits disproportionally promoting the Hindu and Indian aspects of this temple, even went as far claiming that this temples was Tamil's, which is false and disregarding Cambodian history. These POV-pushing by possibly Indian Tamil ultranationalist anonymous editors that claims Angkor as Tamil's was/is quite tiresome. I've reverted back their disruptive edits several times. Then came the reaction that also disproportionally promoting the Buddhist conversion and Buddhist position of this temple, erasing the Hindu aspects of Angkor Wat disregarding its history and archaeological facts, which is equally false. I just trying to put the WP:Fact and WP:Neutral back into this article, prior of this back and forth edit war between the Hindu and Buddhist positions. I will retrieve and restore the most stable and neutral version of this article prior of all of this mess.  Gunkarta  talk 05:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, but just because something was a Hindu temple hundreds of years ago, it doesn't mean you describe it as a Hindu temple in the present day...that obviously required a citation by you. There are countless churches that used be pagan churches before being converted in christian churches: we don't describe those as "pagan-christian" churches. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is going in circles, your pagan-church analogue argument can not deny the WP:FACT that Angkor Wat was constructed as a Hindu temple in the first place. It is an archaeological and historical fact.  Gunkarta  talk 11:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've never denied that, how can you possibly accuse me of such...You're literally imagining things now. Do you understand the difference between present and past tense? Just because something was a Hindu temple in the past, does not mean it should be described as a Hindu temple in the present day. You obviously should have offered a citation to make that edit, especially since the page history demonstrates that it was a controversial edit to make. Note your own example of Hagia Sofia, it describes it as a museum in the present day (present tense) and says it used to be a mosque and church (past tense). Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Animated reconstruction
You may want to incorporate

It has English subs, and could be dubbed into English. Jim Killock (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

'It was once a Hindu temple (many centuries ago), but today it is a major buddhist pilgrimage site. Even the statue of Visnu is Converted to statue of Buddha by replacing its head by the head of Buddha. Many carvings were also replaced by Buddhist sculpture. Today It is serving as a Buddhist Temple.'JaMongKut (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

What should the introductory sentence classify Angor Wat as?
, There has been a continuous dispute and edit warring regarding the categorisation of Angor Wat in the first sentence of the article. If you are part of this dispute please discuss this issue here following Wikipedia protocols WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. The current edit war is not acceptable and there could be consequences WP:WAR. Having checked some of the reliable sources there is variety of classifications - Hindu or Buddhist or mixed. The reliable sources I have found are BBC - calls it a 'religious structure' and a 'Hindu-Buddhist temple' https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20170309-the-mystery-of-angkor-wat ; National Geographic (has numerous articles) but calls it a 'Hindu Temple' https://www.nationalgeographic.org/photo/angkor-wat-cambodia-990/ ; UNESCO calls it an 'archaeological site' with numerous temples http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/668 ; The official website just calls it a temple with Hindu and Buddhist history http://angkor.com.kh/temple/angkor-wat/ ; Encyclopedia Brittanica calles it a 'temple complex' https://www.britannica.com/topic/Angkor-Wat ; and History.com calls it a 'Buddhist temple' but later discusses its Hindu origins https://www.history.com/topics/landmarks/angkor-wat Having previously looked at some these I decided to change the first sentence to 'temple complex' only because it is clear that sources are not absolutely clear and the history of the site, supported by reliable sources, clearly states it was built as a Hindu temple and later became a Buddhist one. It would therefore seem fair for an encylopaedia not to pre-emtively classify the site (helping the lay reader) but to simply call it a temple complex or archaeological site in the first sentence. The religious history can then be outlined in following sentences. The final wording is open to discussion and consensus supported by reliable sources WP:RS. Please do not change the current text until consensus has been achieved. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

'All the sites which you are referring, no one is claiming about it as a Hindu Temple in Present Days, instead every site gives a glance to Its Buddhist Conversion.Also, the conversion was also Historical in it's Nature. You can also refer to foolowing webpage where it is clearly stating its Buddhist Identity  ( https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hinduism/The-spread-of-Hinduism-in-Southeast-Asia-and-the-Pacific#ref1071657, 2nd Paragraph). the National Geographic also neither denies it's conversion. Also the statue of the Main Deity to which it was dedicated Also been replaced by Buddha Statue. Various Buddhist Art replaced the earlier Hindu Art  ( Ref: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Angkor-Wat and numerous other sites) It's a Major Pilgrimage and religiously important sites for Buddhist today. May be Many Hindus come to visit the temple but they come as tourist, not pilgrims. Indeed It have Hindu Past (which is not much more than a century), But It is serving as the Budhhist Temple today and we should categorise it based on it's present day affiliation, (with also showing It's past, I'm not challenging It's importance too, which already had been done in next sentence and history section.)  Just as we cannot say to the person, who has converted his religion  (just for example let it be from abcism to xyzism), as abcist or as abc-xyzist but we can only say him/her as xyzist. Hence It should be described as Buddhist temple in this article. Any Positive or Negative replie are welcomed.JaMongKut (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Above there are too many sections discussing the same issue. Many users have also responded that it should be Buddhist temple as per present. But no one has done it. Should I do it If no one have the Problem ? Because discussion is just going on and is not coming to end. Please reply as soon as possible.JaMongKut (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your response. I and no-one else is disputing there is a Hindu / Buddhist history of Angkor Wat supported by reliable sources. As far as I am concerned this dispute is about the first sentence and how Angkor Wat is described. A neutral 'temple complex' is preferable for the reasons I have stated above. Later sentences already clarify the history and the present day status so I can't see the problem. You have already been blocked for edit warring because of your editing on another article so do not change the current page without consensus between editors. You can, of course, follow the procedures for dispute resolution WP:3O or WP:RFC. In addition do not 'bold' a complete paragraph of text on talk pages. Similar to using caps extensively it looks like you are shouting your opinion. Another point is it is helpful on talk pages to use one extra colon than has been used by the previous editor to indent the reply. This helps readability (this could of course be the reason for your bolding your response). Other editors may want to contribute so I am pinging . Robynthehode (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 'How can the introductory sentence of the Religious Site without mentioning it's religious affiliation be possible? Also the Buddhist/Hindu And Temple are not Two different terms but Buddhist Temple/Hindu Temple is a single term, as English Language doen't feature a word for both Buddhist as well as for Hindu Temples like there are words like Churches for Christians and Mosques for Muslims. Hence, It need to be called as Buddhist Temple or Hindu Temple and not just the Temple. I think your Idea of keeping it as just a temple just to satisfy the both parties is not right. It should be either Hindu Temple or Buddhist Temple. most preferably the later one, as per various above discussions on this page. Calling the temple with the religion name to which it was affiliated many centuries ago is not right.You can just read various discussion above. Here we cannot satisfy evru claim. there can be many clims that can be made which are not true and not based on reliable source. are you going to satisfy every claim just like that? Instead we should solve the issue to what is right. Yeah I respect other editors too, that's why I'm not editing right now. I am also waiting for the responses. I will Again wait for a week or two. If no Negative response with a valid reason is received, then I might change. Negative Response with proper reason are welcomed to stop me from editing this. Even if after that, for anyone having problem, I will just mention a note in edit summary that they can just discuss in this section of talk page before editing and they may also can edit if there's no negative response to their view.JaMongKut (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * An introductory sentence is just that and for an encyclopaedia it is quite acceptable based on the balance of reliable sources to only call Angkor Wat a temple complex. You need to read WP:RS, WP:TRUTH, WP:CONSENSUS. You will be contrary to Wikipedia policy if you change the introductory sentence without consensus. You have already had two opposing editors so please do not change the wording otherwise you may, because you are not following Wikipedia protocols, be blocked from editing (again). My reasons for the simpler 'temple complex' stand. It is very clearly shown in subesequent sentences the status of Angkor Wat has now - Buddhist. In addition I have already asked you NOT to 'bold' your text and gave you the benefit of the doubt re your reason for doing this but you seem to not be able to understand or deliberately like 'shouting' your opinion. Please stop this and only use a colon to indent your replies. Robynthehode (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 'I've read the policies, in WP:CONSENSUS it is clearly written that consensus here in wikipedia does not directly mean unanimity neither it is the result of vote, so I humbly request you to not give the no. of opposing editors. Also, the consensus should be between two claims which are made using reliable sources( I've given from my side), but I've never been provided with such sources even if I've asked  many times to . I'll not do edit if any reliable source will be provided confirming it's Hindu Identity in present or just denying its Buddhist conversion and Buddhist identity in present. Again, Consensus should be between two claims supported by reliable source.Read WP:TRUTH, WP:CONSENSUS.JaMongKut (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are partly correct about consensus. But in the process of discussion the number of editors on each side of the debate IS a factor in considering the conclusion of the debate. Anyway my point about the editors opposing your view is not that that concludes the debate but that there is a debate at all. I have listed reliable sources above and only one (History.com) calls it a Buddhist temple specifically. In addition I will say once more (because you seem to fail to read previous posts carefully) I (and other editors I believe) are not disputing the historical religious affiliations of Angkor Wat nor that it is currently Buddhist. Reliable sources already provided do not dispute this. No the point is that the majority of reliable sources call it a 'temple complex' or some variant thereof leaving the religious affiliation to later in the information provided. This is what the lede in this Wikipedia article does. Consensus may not be about unanimity nor the result of a vote but it is about reasoned discussion, reliable sources and, dare I say it, compromise. My change to 'temple complex' seems like a reasonable compromise considering the religious affiliation issue is dealt with in the subsequent sentences in the lede. Again do not change the current status before this discussion is concluded and consensus has been achieved otherwise you will be reported to admins for edit warring (as you have been blocked for this previously for your editing at a different article I presume you have read WP:WAR). Futher I am giving you one last chance to stop 'BOLDING' your post's text. It is uncivil as it looks like you're shouting your opinion and want it to be more prominent than other editor's opinions in this discussion WP:TALK WP:SHOUT WP:CIVIL. Bolding should be used only for one word or phrasing emphasis. You may also like to read about tendentious editing because your approach is close to it WP:TEND. Thank you. Robynthehode (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 February 2021
Please remove the phrase "as Buddhism is an offspring of Hinduism" as it is a controversial information. Also there's no need to mention the same, as it was not the reason for the conversion of the temple, as mentioned in the sentence. JaMongKut (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Buddhism is not an "off-spring" of Hinduism; at the time of the Buddha, there was no Hinduism yet. See Hindu synthesis. These sources (history.com, explorient.com/blog) diff are not WP:RS. And indeed, to state that Angkor Wat changex from a Hindu into a Buddhist temple because "Buddhism is an offspring of Hinduism" is ridiculous WP:OR and pov-pushing. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Name
This was really lousy pov-pushing: non-WP:RS, especially for a featured article, and not a summary of the article, as required by WP:RS. Why is this still a featured article, if there is so much pov-pushing? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  16:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * '  Could you please provide the statement in your source as I'm not able to verify it? The source I've provided is an official website, which of course can be called as reliable source. The name Wat in many SE Asian languages refers to Buddhist Monastery or vihear.( Wat is not the exact word for the temple as wat do not refer to common word for place of worship.) even the buddhist temples are not called by that name. The word chedi is used for the buddhist temples. The word angkor is for city from nagar in Sanskrit/Pali. Hence, the collectively it can be called as The Buddhist Monastery in the city or of the city. Please give your opinion.JaMongKut (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * See the etymology-section and Wat. And stop using bold! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 'Yeah please you can also verify my statements, are they contradicting with mine? No! I'm also saying the same thing in the above message. Also we are not here to do research, instead using reliable source, we can make the change. which I'd been doing, Please follow wikipedia's BRD policy by not reverting the change only because you don't want to change even after giving proper reason and cited sourceJaMongKut (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * ' Please respond in order to resolve the dispute.Or please reply if you agree now to make changes.JaMongKut (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Wat" does not specifically refer to a Buddhist temple, but to temple. Please stop pov-pushing. And stop bolding your edits! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia policy, we cannot edit by such discussion which seems like doing original research here. Even if someone might be true, but wikipedia will not accept it without reliable sources. As I've used the official website, it can be the reliable source (in fact, can be most reliable). This is not POV pushing, but a try to improve the article and provide a perfect translation. A perfect translation can be the collective meaning of the phrase, it is not generally the literal meaninng of every word seperated. And as I've asked you earlier, could you please provide me the exact line in your source in order to verify it? I think it have the meaning of the two words differntly, instead the meaning of whole phrase, which I thonk don't seem perfect as stated in above some lines in this message.JaMongKut (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please respond in order to resolve the dispute.Or please reply if you agree now to make changes.JaMongKut (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The "official website" is not a scholarly source, e.g., not WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What you really want?? Firstly you give an excuse of POV pushing, and now Official websites are not reliable source!!! Also, no such mention in guideline is given. I think you have some confusion between official source and primary source. Primary sources are not reliable, but official sources can be infact most reliable. Also I've several times asks you for the verifiability of your source. Only after that, we can come to conclusion, right?JaMongKut (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please respond in order to resolve the dispute.JaMongKut (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It's quite simple: you're pushing your Buddhist point of view. "Wat" may refer to both Buddhist and Hindu temples; "Angkor Wat" does not specifically mean "Buddhist temple," but 'temple of Angkor'. Cheers. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think, you have some misunderstanding. I've provided you the source of official website, just a try to improve the article, with most correct information. There is no POV pushing. I don't wanna carry on blaming each other, but I think you are the one who are doing it. Firstly, you are just givig different different reasons, just changing it, and when asked for clarification of your reason, you are repeating the same sentence, without giving clarification of it. Also I've many times asked you to please provide the verifiability of your source as mentioned in above messages, but not given.

Yeah that's the same what I'm saying. Wat may refer to both, but here it is referring to Buddhist Temple. This was just explaination, but this is not useful discussion as we are no one to decide it. This is like original research discussion, but we need source, hence please provide verification for your source. also read my above messages on collective translation of phrase, which is given in my source, and translation of different word diffrently, as I think is in your source. Collective meaning can be different, which seems to be more correct translation, than singular word translating differently.JaMongKut (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Please respond in order to resolve the dispute.JaMongKut (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

im sorry but why angkor wat built by Suryavarman II?
Isn't Angkor wat built by slaves? ''Angkor Wat (City Temple) is the most famous and most visited building in this corner of the world. Built by slaves for Suryavaraman II (who reigned between 1113 and 1152 over an area covering most of Southeast Asia)'' but i can't find reliable sources https://www.google.com/search?q=angkor+wat+built+by+slaves&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALeKk00R0bUfLL7Yic15H6IPlpcNG0t1ew:1616314723382&ei=YwFXYNfAFouZ4-EPosya2Ao&start=0&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwiX_rnH-cDvAhWLzDgGHSKmBqs4FBDy0wMIkAE&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1 https://pastinthepresent.net/2017/03/01/illuminating-angkor-wat-the-cambodia-the-government-wants-the-world-to-know/ https://books.google.co.th/books?id=D3biAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA306&dq=angkor+wat+built+by+slaves&hl=th&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJs6fT-MDvAhXPwjgGHWGwBN0QuwUwAHoECAYQCg#v=onepage&q=angkor%20wat%20built%20by%20slaves&f=false https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/burstein-4.htm

also this guy Neay Trasac Paem Chay or Trosok Paem (don't even have a page), who killed the last Jayavarman IX, is a cham slave or samre. sadly i can't find reliable sources https://historum.com/threads/the-cucumber-king-of-cambodia-truth-or-fiction.99250/ https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neay_Trasac_Paem_Chay https://teakdoor.com/speakers-corner/85633-did-siamese-build-angkor-wat.html (by 1336 Neay Trasac Paem Chay led slaves rebelled killed 100,000 slave owners and so became free.) Lalalulilalia (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

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?   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."  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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.98.81 (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2005 (UTC)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.220.49 (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Legends of construction
While Suryavarman II is historical figure; who dedicated Angkhor Wat to Vishnu, another source relates a legend that states is was built on the orders of Indra for his son Precha Ket Mealea. Paramavishnuloka, Precha Ket Mealea. and Preah Pisnouka are all very sounding similar names, which makes it more confusing to determine if they are different people or the same. It's like how mary magdaline is equated with the sister of lazarus in some traditions but not others, they could be separate though similar people. However that the temple would be dedicated to two clearly different gods is more notable. The source I provided supports including the older construction legend as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 02:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

TFA
Do you think this article is still up to FA standards? After all, it was last reviewed in 2008, and I'm worried it may not meet the standard. Blue Jay (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Blue Jay, if you have specific concerns, you could list them here and then this can be added to the Unreviewed featured articles/2020 process. CMD (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! Blue Jay (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cjhess, Christieguzman, Carinaterrasi, Boggsnatalie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009
This article was reviewed as part of the Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009 drive. The article has numerous problems as listed below, if the article isn't updated then a WP:FAR will be needed. Desertarun (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are statements that need updating. For example "Several countries such as France, Japan, and China are currently involved in various Angkor Wat conservation projects."
 * There are statements which need a reference such as "Virtually all of its surfaces, columns, lintels and even roofs are carved." and "Restoration work was interrupted by the Cambodian Civil War and Khmer Rouge control of the country during the 1970s and 1980s, but relatively little damage was done during this period"
 * There are dead URL's such as "http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/specials/ancient-mysteries/angkor-wat-temples/"
 * There is a leadcite problem
 * There is a citation needed tag in the history section
 * The first paragraph of the central structure section is unreferenced
 * The talk page says the article has a dubious claim, with which I agree.

Dubious etymology
I have removed the following two passages from the top section:

अकुंर वट

The literal translation of the name Ankur Vat in Sanskrit(अकुंर वट) is "Temple of Blossoms" or "Temple of Flower Buds"

The reasons are following: 1) There is no referrence to the pre-supposed claim that the Khmer name would be derived from such Sanskrit name. And having tried to look around, briefly, I do not find any corroboration of such supposition anywhere outside of Wiki, save for unscholarly Indian internet mentions which are likely to be reflection of the deeply ingrained tradition of creating folk etymologies of anything by simply finding the most simmilar Sanskrit word) 2) There is a different Sanskrit etymology given in the article, stating that 'angkor' is a late Khmer development of pronunciation of what in Old Khmer was derived from the Sanskrit word 'nagara'). The two etymologies were thus in direct contradiction with one another (without any mention, let alone comment on that). It is thus better to keep only this 'nagara' etymology, which is referrenced and which does not bear characteristics of folk etymology (as it is counterintuitive, and thus could have been arrived at only through scientific knowledge - historical linguistics or epigraphy) 3) The Sanskrit Wiki page is not aware of the proposed Angkura vata name. 4) The (two different) translations given ('City of Temples' and 'Temple of Blossoms') are not actually literal translations of the proposed Sanskrit name Ankura vata.

I have no time to research some Khmerologist materials as to whether such alternative etymology is plausible, in which case I find it safer to remove those claims. Until anybody finds a historically supported info that indeed Ankura vata was the original name, we should not return the removed passages into the text not to keep spreading disinformation. If anyone feels the urge to include it back, I strongly recommend not to inclede the अकुंर वट in the names intro, but you might put back the mention in the end of the top paragraphs, stating an alternative Sanskrit name occurs around internet, which proposes अकुंर वट (pronounced Ankura vata in Sanskrit, Ankur vat in modern Hindi, where 'ankura' means 'sprout(s)') Yak-indolog (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)