Talk:Culture of Champa

Kseni-kam (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath talk 10:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the culture of Champa, a medieval state in modern Vietnam, adopted Indian astronomy, calendars, writing scripts, religion, social hierarchy, and political systems?

• Source: See very many throughout article.

• • ALT1: ... that one issue with understanding the culture of Champa is that available inscriptions are concerned near-exclusively with the elite, and ignore ordinary people? Source: Shveyer 2014, p. 222.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Elvia Carrillo Puerto

Moved to mainspace by Kseni-kam (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 58 past nominations.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC).

• ALT1 is interesting and satisfies all DYK criteria. I couldn't personally access the source, but the claim made is verified in the actual article so no problem there. Only issue is that the article name has changed since this nomination, so the bolded link needs to be re-inserted with the new name. 296cherry (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I've modified the hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that. ALT 1 is approved (assuming good faith on the source). 296cherry (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@296cherry: I came here after seeing your query at WP:DYKT. and noticed that you have given the nomination an AGF tick. The AGF tick has been removed from Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions, but for some reason not at {{DYK checklist}}.

@AirshipJungleman29: please could you check that the facts of the hook in the article are cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear, per WP:DYKHFC? I looked for the words astronomy, calendar, script, religion, social hierarchy, and political and could not find end of sentence citations for the statement they were from India. Then could you list the citations here so the reviewer can check them? I am asking for all the detail as the reviewer has said they are new and to help the prep builder and promoter to check the citations. TSventon (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

TSventon, ALT1 is approved, not ALT0. Do you want a quote to support that too? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Good point, I have struck Alt0 as the reviewer had not done so. Schweyer 2014 seems to be offline and in Russian, so a quote and translation would be helpful. Supplying six quotes for Alt0 would be hard work for all concerned. TSventon (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Also the sentence beginning Cham inscriptions provide little information about commoners does not have an end of sentence citation and the reference following it is Shveyer 2014, pp. 96–97, not p. 222. TSventon (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@296cherry and AirshipJungleman29: I have now reread the guidance and Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines#External policy compliance says that the nominator must provide a copy of the wording of the source and a translation if necessary (see details in the guidance). The wording was changed in May. TSventon (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

TSventon, see the following from the relevant pages of the French translation (couldn't get my hands on the Russian): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Les inscriptions mentionnent uniquement des brahmanes (les prêtres) et des kshatriyas (les guerriers en Inde, spécifiquement les rois au Campā). Rien n'est dit sur le peuple ...En pays cam, les seuls écrits ayant subsisté sont les inscriptions gravées sur pierres, sur briques ou sur des objets cultuels en or et en argent. Il s'agit d'écrits officiels, politiques...

...The inscriptions only mention Brahmins (priests) and Kshatriyas (warriors in India, specifically kings in Campā). Nothing is said about the people... In Cam country, the only writings that have survived are inscriptions engraved on stones, bricks or on religious objects made of gold and silver. These are official, political writings...

@AirshipJungleman29:, thank you, please can you give the full citation of what you are quoting? TSventon (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

TSventon, as above, pages 96–97 and 222 of Shveyer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29:, the Russian citation is Shveyer, Anna-Valery (2014). Древний Вьетнам [Ancient Vietnam]. Москва: Вече. ISBN 978-5-9533-3838-7 pages 96–97 and 222. I would expect all those details to be different for the French edition. TSventon (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29:, @TSventon:, I did some research of my own and found this quote: "It is important to remind ourselves that the extant artifacts (stone inscriptions, temple architecture, religious iconography) were products crafted for elite classes (in particular, for Cham kings) and thus arguably reflected the religious practices and culture of the elite groups." 296cherry (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

References

Probably, yes, but I don't quite get why that's relevant... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Presumably just for completeness sake. Also translations can create small differences in meaning. By the way, what do you think of the source and quote I mentioned? 296cherry (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks good, yes; it's in the further reading if an editor wishes to improve the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Just added it to the bibliography and as a ref for the relevant sentence. If that source + quote are used for this DYK, personally it would be enough for me to accept it. But since I have taken part in the research, I will defer the review to an outside editor (perhaps @TSventon:?). 296cherry (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

ALT1 checks out, though I'm going to suggest that "are concerned near-exclusively with the elite, and ignore ordinary people" is tautologous and a promoter should pick one or the other.--Launchballer 14:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@296cherry: I understand that you did a full review on 1 October, please could you post a description including, where you assumed good faith.@Launchballer: I believe that you are reviewing a hook and relying on 296cherry's review. TSventon (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon: I quickly checked off newness, length, and neutrality, as they were non-issues. My assumption of good faith was specifically with (Shveyer, 2014), since I could not find it anywhere on the web. I completed random spot checks on several of the english-language sources via my university library. Hook reliability was accepted w/ assumption of good faith (no longer relevant with new source). 296cherry (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@296cherry: did you check for copyright violations? You could run a WP:EARWIG check on the ru article. TSventon (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon: Just checked, only a 6.5% match. 296cherry (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how effective that would be TSventon, see WP:NOTEARWIG. In any case, that is not a requirement for DYK reviews (WP:DYKCITE) and neither are spot-checks. Useful yes, mandatory no.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I agree that Earwig is useful, but not mandatory. The Russian article is a featured article using offline sources, so you would hope that Earwig wouldn't find anything. On the other hand Earwig did find copyright violations in the French original of Battle of Vrigne-Meuse, which was based on online sources. @296cherry: the important information in Earwig is not the percentage, but what text is duplicated when you click on compare. In this case the ru article lists The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social, and Military History, which is not a copyright violation. TSventon (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon: Ah, okay that makes sense. Sorry, I’m a lot more careful when I’m editing on my laptop, mobile Wikipedia is annoying to edit with. 296cherry (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)