Talk:Khmer royal cuisine

Concubines
"'Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content.' (Wikipedia is not censored)"

"Concubines" being "not a good word to use" in itself is not a sufficient reason for its removal. And the argument of European historians supposedly not using the word "for their own royal history" is not only demonstrably false (and not just by the first book I found in my quick 10 second search) but also irrelevant, so you doubling down by pointing to the use of "royal bedfellows" in the book's summary is just as irrelevant unless you're actually suggesting it as a more accurate descriptor. "[F]emale members of the inner court" is already my paraphrasing of "Women—(...) members of the inner court", so what you're doing is still no "close paraphrasing", but rather selectively deleting one of the emphasis that the author made purely because of your personal dislike for the word. I invite you to stop wasting our time by trying to censor this article and join us in expanding it with informative and reliably sourced information instead! Turaids (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't see this discussion before you deleted the word "concubines" for the third time and the only reason I'm not reverting it again (yet) is to adhere to the three-revert rule. Which specific "Wiki guidelines" have you provided to justify your edit and where? All you've done is vent your grievances about the supposed double standard of European historians and play a game of "gotcha". You don't seem to be denying the existence of concubines, so if this really was only about wording you'd have already proposed a more acceptable synonym by now, including the tongue-in-cheek "royal bedfellows", which I don't think is as respectful as you think it is. Wikipedia is here to be informative, not to "maintain royal integrity", Khmer, European or any other royalty. –Turaids (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no censorship when applied to texts not within quotation marks WP:QUOTES. This is considered WP:PARAPHRASE which allows the writer to summarize in their own words. If no other editors oppose my choice of using "female members of the inner royal court" which follows WP:STICKTOSOURCE because concubines are women of the royal court, then it stands. Considering the context, this is an inconsequential word and your reversions are placing undue weight on an article only about cuisine. Cerie1914 (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cerie1914, I agree with @Turaids on this matter and object to your changes. While I agree that women should be represented in a positive light, WP is not the place to right great wrongs;. You are misunderstanding WP:NOTCENSORED. Netherzone (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Netherzone, Hello, welcome to the discussion. Since you are not a regular contributor to this article and not part of the community of editors contributing to indigenous Khmer culture and using @Turaids' reasons for objections to guide your understanding of why I deleted the word, let's discuss policies instead. Editors, please see the fact that the article uses WP:PARAPHRASE and can "summarize in their own words" for an article about food and food categories. The article is not about food history and is not a direct quote. The mention of people has no bearing on the subject and can be summed up in a few words. The application of WP:NOTCENSORED relates to "images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic" and there is no relevancy to an article about a food category. Please explain why the rules of WP:PARAPHRASE are not applicable here when it was clearly used in the article. Cerie1914 (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the word, "concubine" that was deleted three times, it is clearly stated - and verifiable - in the citation. The article is about food and food culture  and the citation is about food and food culture, therefore its use is relevant to the topic. As a collaborative encyclopedia project we go by what the sources say, not by one's own personal opinions. Netherzone (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The sentence under question is worded rather awkwardly. How about changing to:  Thoughts? Schazjmd  (talk)  18:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestion @Schazjmd, however I think the more detailed description is more informative to encyclopedia readers since it elaborates on the fact that various women who held diverse roles within the palace all worked on the preparations of deserts and snacks. It shows that these culinary achievements were conducted by women in a range of stations. I find this historically fascinating, interesting and worthy of inclusion. Here are some additional suggestions:
 * a.) In the 1800s, Khmer palaces had separate kitchens for preparing desserts and snack foods; wives, concubines and female members of the inner court worked on these preparations.
 * b.) In the 1800s, Khmer palaces had separate kitchens for preparing desserts and snack foods. These preparations were achieved by wives, concubines and female members of the inner court.
 * c.) In the 1800s, Khmer palaces had separate kitchens for preparing deserts and snack foods. Women of the inner court including wives and concubines helped in the preparation of these foods.
 * Netherzone (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would assume that van Esterik intentionally specified wives and concubines seperately from female members of the inner court to emphasize their important role in preparing desserts and snack foods, so I agree with . It could be nice to hear some thoughts on Netherzone's suggestions from  who prompted this whole discussion, unless they're not interested in improving this sentence anymore. –Turaids (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Has No Firm Rules"
Please be mindful of The 5th Pillar of WP which states: "'Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." Unfortunately, this discussion has turned into an enforcement of "rules" rather than of fostering the main principles and spirit of Wikipedia. Cerie1914 (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The main principles and spirit of Wikipedia is sharing open knowledge, not pleasing anyone's king or queen. Deleting a factually correct, relevant and reliably sourced piece of information from an article doesn't improve Wikipedia, and the 5th pillar doesn't mean that everyone can interpret the rules however they wish and do whatever they want. –Turaids (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also Wikipedia acknowledges WP:CSB. Your "sharing of open knowledge" doesn't allow you to continue to use heavily biased references to continue to perpetuate stereotypes of women in the POC community. I kindly asked you to reach a common ground on your talk page, but it's clear you won't budge. You are still continuing with your false assumptions about me which is WP:NPA. Cerie1914 (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Funny enough, the author of the book is a woman. And no one's stopping you from writing about the concubinage in European royal courts (of which there are many academic books), if the supposedly lacking coverage of it is still your problem, because now you're just all over the place. –Turaids (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Views on existence and distinctiveness of Khmer royal cuisine
Hi it would have been better to bring it to a discussion first before deleting it (and leaving the corresponding reference hanging in the air). What you say you wrote was actually added by a completely different editor (Louistrinh), so I will just leave it at that undeclared use of multiple accounts is generally discouraged on Wikipedia, but I was the one to previously remove the comparison with Japan because it wasn't mentioned in the source attributed to that statement. As for the supposed redundancy, the two sources you're pointing to not only refer to different editions of the book, but also make two different statements: If the first reference doesn't accurately represent what the actual passage in the book says it should be removed (I don't have the book to check myself, unfortunately) and if you think I didn't paraphrase the second statement accurately you're welcome to help me improve it, instead of simply deleting it. –Turaids (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "The difference between "royal" and "popular" cuisines in Cambodia never came to be as marked as in Laotian or Thai traditions."
 * "there never has existed here a corpus of 'Royal Cuisine' with its specific codes, ingredients and decorum"


 * Hi! @Turaids
 * First of all, I can’t see why all the first part of your text is all about, there’s no need to take things personal.
 * As for the strict content of the book because I will pass on your personal statements, following a reading of the book, it’s conveyed that the difference between royal and popular cuisine is not as marked because of the lack of specific codes, meaning that khmer royal cuisine is a more luxurious version of popular cuisine.
 * Now, indeed I am welcome to improve it but so you are to explain in the talk page with decorum. Pierrevang3 (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's nothing personal, but hasty, one-sided removal of content doesn't really foster collaborativeness either, especially when what was deleted was added by an editor that has already worked on the article extensively. If both editions of the book contain a passage about the lack of codification of Khmer royal cuisine then the removed statement should be added back in a potentially rewritten form, while the sentence and reference to Angkor Database should be removed instead, because then it not only makes different comparisons (to Thailand and Laos versus Japan and Thailand), but also makes a much more generalized statement. –Turaids (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well then you are very free to collaborate by taking it to the talk session without conducting an inquiry on something totally unrelated to the article. I removed the edit but talk is always open.
 * As for the article, I don’t think it is necessary to remove the reference to Angkor Database but the removed statement can indeed be added back but by linking the two statements together instead of opposing them as they are not contradictory:
 * Khmer royal cuisine is not as codified (ref 1), indeed the difference between average and royal cuisine is not as pronounced (ref Angkor data base).
 * The deleted statement should indeed be subject to a rewriting in some form as stating that some question that Khmer royal cuisine ever existed seems a bit far from what the reference actually says (It says that Khmer royal cuisine was not codified like in Japan…).
 * But then again it’s my personal opinion and if you deem it wrong, please put your edit back. Pierrevang3 (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I may need your help with linking them together then, because I still see them as contradictory. "The Culinary Art Of Cambodia" starts with "Some authors have suggested this culinary repertoire was (...) presenting some sort of Khmer Royal Cuisine." and then prefaces with "[w]hile some special treats (...) such as tortoise meat were in true served at the Cambodian Royal court in the days of yore", which very much makes the text that follows sound like a denial.


 * And then there's the contradiction with the rest of the article, which is why I presented it as an opinion of "some", because if no special collection or body of knowledge (i.e. a corpus) ever existed, then there couldn't have been "more elaborate cooking techniques", use of "luxurious ingredients, such as cognac or a glass of champagne", "traditionally strict format of royal cuisine", "[k]roeung for royal dishes", "[a]n even more extravagant version" of nataing with "lobster as the main ingredient", "granted royal Khmer recipes" and so on. All of this very much sounds like "a corpus of 'Royal Cuisine' with its specific codes, ingredients and decorum" to me. –Turaids (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand the first point like this:
 * Some thought that the book of the princess represented the canons and rules of Khmer royal cuisine but in fact it does not. Even though fancy meals were served in the Royal Palace (Tortoise is an expensive treat in Cambodia and more broadly in Asia), there were never rules conducting the royal cuisine so the book of princess can’t be one.
 * For the second point, I don’t think the more elaborate techniques and luxurious ingredients can be seen as a corpus of royal cuisine in the sense that this falls miles away from examples of "corpuses" of royal cuisine in other countries. I can’t speak for Japanese royal cuisine, but in Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese royal cuisine, the meals for the Kings were thoroughly thought and followed a strict set of rules. Not only did they had to be tasty but they had to make him healthy, more inclined to giving birth to a son and so on… Meals were conceived according to medicinal believes, there were ingredients used such as bear pawn, deer tendon, and monkey brain to optimize the health of the King. This is not the case here with royal Khmer cuisine, which re-employs (apart for some iconic dishes) common Khmer food but with the best ingredients as possible (which seem rather natural for a King or even for the aristocracy). The fact that there were no royal cookbook until the one of the princess makes me think that indeed there were no strict set of rules conducting Khmer royal cuisine apart the need to fit the royal family members’ palates. Pierrevang3 (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t mean though that Khmer royal cuisine never existed; the taste of the royal family (like Norodom Sihanouk not liking Prahok) has helped shaping a distinct cuisine over the centuries, and this despite not following canons formalized in a corpus. Pierrevang3 (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)