I am Jon Fernquest (journalist, historian, programmer, teacher). [1]
I am just updating updating and cleaning up topics that I have extensive knowledge about.
I found my previous user pages from decades ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jonfernquest
Statement of Purpose edit
I can claim knowledge of the Myanmar history pages I am editing with several long published papers in peer-reviewed journals [2] and frequently cited in Myanmar history Wikipedia articles (e.g. [[3]]). Michael Aung-Thwin (MAT) cites and uses my narratives in his 'Myanmar in the Fifteenth Century: A Tale of Two Kingdoms' and a 2018 Siam Society article on Tai history uses my narratives as a main source [4].
The most primary sources are usually 'chronicle narratives' since 'epigraphy' is lacking, and these are, following the tradition of Pali and Sanskrit literature, literary embellishments of history (cf the very similar Kashmiri chronicle tradition in Sanskrit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajatarangini).
Many, if not most, primary sources come from traditional palm-leaf manuscripts and not publicly available in edited book form or translation. For Razadarit Ayeidawpon, for instance, there is a rough translation manuscript, but you would have to go to the stacks of Chulalongkorn Library or the Siam Society to find it, which is where I found it, definitely an informal and very rough translation, but always cited in my works. For the Burmese chronicle, I have my own rough translation that I have used in the past and there is also one cited in Strong's 'Relics of the Buddha' (2004). And the manuscript of Shorto's translation of the most important Mon chronicle was handed out by a prominent scholar to other scholars with a promise not to share the original manuscript. An improved version by prominent Mon scholars was going to published about a decade ago but in the end never appeared.
In short, all the important sources that should be cited by wikipedia articles are not publicly available. A lot of this stems from western academia favoring PhD work that can be transformed into tenure-achieving monographs, while not valuing scholarly translation. This is not true in all scholarly domains however. Sanskrit and Pali studies have always prioritized close commentary on original texts.
Advances in natural language processing in AI (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BERT_(language_model)) have made machine translation a lot more accurate and this should eventually help a lot with scholarly translations. For example, yesterday I stepped through the online copy of the Thai Razadarit epic at the Thai National Library [5] getting a rough translation just by using the Google Translate browser plugin I already had installed. This at least allows comparison with the Burmese and Mon versions and would be an substantial start for any scholarly translation.
I will be contributing to Myanmar history pages. For starters, I will try to share the informal translation sources mentioned (at least on my Google Drive or someplace like Wikileaks) that should be the first source used and cited before widely-cited speculative work by Michael Aung-Thwin MAT (which uses these sources). There is also important work to be added such as current archival manuscript work in Thailand by a researcher focusing on Pali verions of the Razadarit epic, a historical-literary work with versions in four languages: Burmese, Mon, Thai and Pali. Here another variety of problem presents itself, namely a historical-literary work that transcends the boundaries of national borders (transregional history).
I will help with editorial comments when I see places for improvement or innaccuracies (I had editorial responsibilities at the Bangkok Post for a decade). In the process, I will always provide citations and adhere to the high Wikipedia standards. As my ethnomusicology professor at University of Hawaii used to say, Wikipedia is the best original source for info nowadays in many disciplines. One can no longer dismiss it as scholars once did. Cheers.