Template:Did you know nominations/Ram Khamhaeng Inscription
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ram Khamhaeng Inscription
[edit].jpg)
Ram Khamhaeng Inscription
- ... that the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription (pictured), discovered in 1833, used an early script that differed so much from modern Thai that it was only fully deciphered in 1924? Source: "This pillar... was discovered at Sukhodaya in 1833 ... Coedes, before undertaking his definitive edition of the inscription, wrote two preparatory studies... later incorporated in the definitive edition of 1924."[1]
ALT1:... that the shocking claims that the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription (pictured) was fake would have forced Thai history to be rewritten?- ALT1:... that the controversial claim that the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription (pictured) was fake would have forced Thai history to be rewritten? Source: "...shocked, but also thrilled by the unmasking of what would seem to be a major hoax and by the idea that major parts of Thai history would have to be rewritten."[2]
- ALT2:... that in his controversial paper, Michael Vickery called the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription (pictured) a "Piltdown skull of Southeast Asian History"? Source: [3][4]
- ALT3:... that King Mongkut discovered the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription (pictured) during his time as a monk? Source: "This pillar... was discovered at Sukhodaya in 1833 by Prince Mahamankuta, the future King Rama IV, when he was still a monk"[5]
- Reviewed: Church of St. Augustine, Goa
Converted from a redirect by Paul_012 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC).
Thanks for the intriguing article, I really enjoyed reading it! It is new enough, long enough, neutrally written, and well referenced. QPQ is done. No cpyvio detected. Image is freely licensed. All the hooks are verified, and I find ALT1 to be the most interesting. My only recommendation is to change the word "shocking" to "controversial". According to the source, the claim (should we use the singular instead?) was shocking to some people, but others were merely "intrigued but sceptical". -Zanhe (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
