Talk:Depopulation of Muang Phuan

Merging/redirecting

Per the AfD, I'd still suggest that this article be redirected merged to Muang Phuan#History, given that everything it covers is practically there already, and that only a tiny bit is actually about the "rebellion", which sources don't agree happened. (Though the coverage in that article is a bit confused, and describes the events twice in the same paragraph, as if they were different.) --Paul_012 (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• I would be against a merge, particularly if the target is confused as you claim. You need to unconfuse it first. The claim that "everything it covers is practically there already" is demonstrably untrue, particularly on the numbers involved. I'm not sure what you mean by describing the same events twice. It's hard to tell given that the entire article is thoroughly uncited and habitually does not give dates for the discussed incidents. That all makes the complaints about the deficiencies of the citing here a bit of a joke.
  What do you mean by "sources don't agree happened". Are there sources that claim this never happened? Or are you just saying not all sources cover it? They certainly don't in your preferred target which doesn't have any. SpinningSpark 12:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I shouldn't have said redirect, as integrating the better sourcing into the target should of course be carried out as part of a merger. As I mentioned in the AfD, sources based on Thai records describe the event as an episode in the war between Siam and Vietnam, where the ruler of Phuan chose to side with the Siamese when its army moved in to capture the town. The primary source for this is the Thai Royal Chronicles,[1] but I'm having trouble identifying English-language secondary sources that go into detail on this. As mentioned in the AfD, it is most likely covered by Smuckarn & Breazeale (1988) A Culture in Search of Survival: The Phuan of Thailand and Lao, though online access is lacking. (My local university library holds a copy, but I'm not quite invested enough in the topic to put in the work right now.)
    On the other hand, the mass resettlement of the population is widely recognised as an act of Siam's strategic policy seeking to depopulate the region, and this is widely reflected in searchable sources (though again, most cite back to Smuckarn & Breazeale).[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] In contrast, consider Simms & Simms's description (copying the quote from the AfD):

    In 1834, the people of Xieng Khouang were driven to revolt, but the rebellion was put down with such brutality that whole areas of the kingdom were depopulated. The Siamese promised asylum on the Right Bank of the Mekong, but when some 6,000 people crossed the river they learnt that they were to be deported to areas around Bangkok. 3,000 tried to return, but when they did so, they found in their old homelands only a desert patrolled by Vietnamese soldiers. Most of those who tried to return perished.

    Their characterisation of the depopulation does not appear to reflect the consensus, and thus further scrutiny on their entire claim of a rebellion is warranted, not the least since the book is a general history work aimed at a general rather than academic audience. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    • So now you are proposing to merge an article that you claim is based on WP:FRINGE sources into an article you claim is mainstream, resulting in that article also only having the fringe sources listed (since it currently has none of its own). That does not make any sense as a rationale either. I'm not going to accept that Simms & Simms is a fringe, or unreliable source unless authoritive sources saying so are produced. They are both qualified scholars in relevant fields and their book is reliably published, and it appears to have been thoroughly researched judging by what they say in the preface. SpinningSpark 10:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying the Simmses' book is a fringe source, just questioning this one specific paragraph (on which the existence of this article depends on). Otherwise reliably published works can and do include mistakes, which is something Wikipedia editors need to consider since WP:context matters. Anyway, from the entirety of your comments, I take it you're not against a merge per se, only the direct merger of the current content in both articles. Is my understanding correct? --Paul_012 (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

        I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm not opposed to a merge being as I have now said I am opposed multiple times, both here and in the AFD. First of all, your expansion here has done nothing to address the complete lack of sources in the proposed target. More importantly, there is no good reason to merge what is plainly an important event into a more general article. It's not as if we need to make the space. Whether or not this was a rebellion or a depopulation is neither here nor there to its notability. SpinningSpark 16:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

      • I've now expanded and contextualized the description of the main event in question, which I hope at least partially addresses your concerns. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

        Your basic contention seems to be that the Simms' are probably wrong. But as I see it, a rebellion in the province and Siamese policy of depopulation are not actually mutually incompatible. On first blush, they don't even seem to be connected. So first question, does any source directly contradict the Simms'? Second question, why would the Xiangkhouang population voluntarily go along with depopulation by Siam if they were not being brutally repressed after a rebellion? SpinningSpark 16:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

        I don't think we're making progress toward an agreement here. I'll leave it until I get hold of the Smuckarn & Breazeale book. It is the most detailed scholarly source on Phuan history, and should describe the rebellion if it indeed did happen. If no mention is made, it should be safe to assume that the mention of one happening was erroneous. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Historicity

I've checked the Smuckarn & Breazeale book. This is what they have to say about the events of 1834:

...A massive mobilisation of troops from all Thai and Lao towns began during the last months of 1833, and early in 1834 the Thai-Vietnamese war began in earnest when Thai land and naval forces launched a major assault on Vietnamese positions in eastern Cambodia.

On the upper Mekong three groups of royal-Thai and provincial forces set up headquarters by February 1834. Their objective was to drive the Vietnamese out of the armed camps on the left bank and then to bring the entire remaining populace of old Vientiane and its dependencies under Thai control. Thai and Lao troops from the Luang Phrabang command centre approached the Phuan plateau from the north-west and destroyed the Vietnamese camps in Sui and Chiang Kham. Troops from the Nôngkhai headquarters launched a complementary attack on the Vietnamese camp in Chiang Khwang. Although Phuan leaders in the towns along the attack routes put up no resistance and provided assistance to the Thai and Lao soldiers, the commanders rounded up large numbers of Phuan villagers and took them down to the Mekong for resettlement...

So the events that were construed as rebellion in the Simmses' book only amounts to "put up no resistance and provided assistance to the Thai and Lao soldiers" here. However, I've also found a source that provides a further glimpse as to where that interpretation might have come from.

The Lao-language book Pavatsat ʻanāčhak Phūan, written by Chao K. Nokham, a descendant of the Phuan royal family and president of the Lao Phuan Association in the United States, more or less represents the Lao/Phuan traditional (if also rather nationalistic) view of Phuan history. It describes the events as such (my translation from the book's Thai transliteration):

Therefore in the year 31, Chulasakkarat 1196, corresponding to AD 1834, Chao San sent a messenger to request the Thai King to send an army to drive out the Vietnamese. King Nangklao accordingly named Phraya Ratchasurin to head an army of around 1,000 men to help. On another front, in Luang Phrabang, King Manthathurat of the Lan Xang Kingdom of Luang Phrabang named Chao Upparat Aphai to head an army of around 1,000 men to aid Muang Phuan. But before both armies arrived at Chiang Khwang, Chao San had Phuan soldiers ambush and attack the Vietnamese soldiers at night, with only one or two who survived and escaped back to Vietnam.

Two days later, the Thai army and the Lao army from Luang Phrabang reached Chiang Khwang. The Thai general discussed with Chao San that, given the circumstances, the Vietnamese would probably return to attack Muang Phuan. How would Chao San plan to defend against them? The Thai army could not stay and hold Muang Phuan indefinitely. Once the Thai army returned, the Vietnamese would surely come back to Muang Phuan.

So the Thai general forced Chao San to migrate Phuan families of around 6,000 people to Ban Phan Lam, on the right bank of the Mekong, opposite Ban Kuai in Lao's Khwaeng Borikhan today. But once they reached Nong Khai, instead of going to Ban Pham Lam, the Thai soldiers forced them to head on to Bangkok.

Considering that this traditional narrative holds that Phuan soldiers attacked the Vietnamese themselves, it's understandable that the event could be described as rebellion based on this view. However, this contradicts the Thai records, and doesn't appear to be accepted by scholarly sources. (The book itself is not a scholarly work—the editor himself says so in the introduction to the Thai edition. Also, it doesn't really make sense if you think of it—why would the ruler need to request assistance only to snub them and have his forces take care of the issue themselves?) In any case, though, the Simmses' statement that "the rebellion was put down with such brutality that whole areas of the kingdom were depopulated" is clearly erroneous, as it is contradicted by every narrative.

I'm not quite sure how best to move forward with this. I still believe that this should not be an article, because (1) the topic event probably never took place, as it is only mentioned briefly in traditional histories and not corroborated by evidence, and (2) even disregarding the first issue, the amount of coverage so far identified, in any context (rebellion or not), that specifically covers the events of 1934, is extremely brief, and in no way can satisfy the depth requirement of the GNG. The original issues that most of the article is not about the subject still stand. I might see if there's place for a more general article about forced migrations in Southeast Asia, as it's a significant topic covered by more sources than those dealing with Muang Phuan alone, and if the History section of the Muang Phuan article can be rewritten with better sourcing. But for this article, I'm inclined towards starting a second AfD, which will now hopefully be better informed. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

None of that immediately changes my opposition to merging. Muang Phuan is entirely unsourced (except for a quotation). If that were sourced to a degree that it was verifiable, from within the article, that the Simms' interpretation deviated from the mainstream, then I would be ok with redirecting there with a brief description of the Simms' views. That can be done, if what you say about the sources is accurate, without the need for another AFD. But as it stands, I would oppose merging—this article is sourced, Muang Phuan is not, and it would be completely wrong to merge a sourced article into an unsourced one which contradicts it. If this goes to AFD I would also oppose outright deletion of the title; the Simms' have said there was a rebellion, so it is not unreasonable to think that people might look it up. The title should go somewhere. SpinningSpark 15:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)