Talk:Angkor Wat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleAngkor Wat is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 26, 2005, and on May 19, 2021.
Article milestones
July 26, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
July 30, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
April 28, 2008Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Maximum Block Weight[edit]

The article states a maximum weight for sandstone blocks of 1.5 tonnes, this would mean a volume of around 20 cubic feet per block. I have just visited the site and there are many blocks of stone far in excess of this volume. I measured one pillar in a colonnade at 12 ft by 1.5 ft by 1.5 ft with many more of similar dimensions - thereby giving a volume of around 27 cubic feet. Then on the second level near an exit is an abandoned block of 52 cubic feet. On the third level the entrances are flanked by great pillars which were inaccessible to the public (as it was a special day for Buddhists), they are possibly twice the dimensions of the ones in the colonnade. All of this suggests that the maximum weight of any block is at least 3.5 tonnes. Iain 10:08, 14 February 2017

Featured article[edit]

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

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

Missing citation / dubious claim[edit]

Under construction techniques is the line: Moreover, unlike the Egyptian pyramids which use limestone quarried barely 0.5 km (0.31 mi) away all the time, the entire city of Angkor was built with sandstone quarried 40 km (25 mi) (or more) away.[74]

The claim about where the Egyptian pyramid limestone came from I think is false, see e.g.,The%20Great%20Pyramid%20casing%20stone.

Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009[edit]

This article was reviewed as part of the Wikipedia: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.

  • 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 ""
  • 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.

Desertarun (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dubious etymology[edit]

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

Sanskrit: 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 Sanskrit: 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)Reply[reply]