Talk:Royal Ploughing Ceremony

WP:SCOPE

issue if we're focusing on southeast Asia when the imperial Chinese ceremony was more famous and influential by far. — LlywelynII 00:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

According to whom, and when? Searching for "China royal ploughing ceremony" on Google only returns coverage of the current SEA ceremony in Chinese news sites. In any case, the Chinese ceremony should be a separate article, since as far as we know no connection has been shown. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

According to general culture and history, on an extremely cursory search. If you don't know how to Google, apologies but you might want to work on that. (Don't feel as bad though, since Google is noticeably worse since the mid-2010s.)

In any case, once you've brought the Japanese in, obviously you're dealing with the Sinosphere... the most important component of which was China, which undertook this ritual as a central part of imperial legitimacy for 3000ish years and doubtlessly inspired or influenced the practices in neighboring kingdoms.

More generally, the point is that the article needs to pick a lane. If it's about royal plowing ceremonies generally, then it needs to be entirely restructured to stop focusing so much on Burma and Thailand. If it is focused on Burma and/or Thailand, it needs to be renamed to reflect that and it needs to jettison Japan and other bits of the article into a more general overview anyway. — LlywelynII 15:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

So why noy add something on China. India could do with more also. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Why not take it easy and tone down the condescension a bit? I was just pointing out (five years ago) that a cursory search revealed nothing to back up the claim that the imperial Chinese ceremony was "more famous and influential by far". In any case, I agree with your point of needing to pick a lane. I favour having separate articles, though I'm not yet convinced that that a rename is needed. I haven't so far seen any sources that refer to the East Asian tradition as the "Royal Ploughing Ceremony", capitalised as a proper noun. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ceremony for Cambodia is on Thursday 19 May 2022

That's according to my Khmer lunar calender Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Oops! That's calendar Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit war

@Oblivy, @2405:9800:B871:48B9:39EE:6931:22AB:FA6F, @Prince of Erebor

It looks like there's an edit war going on here. I'd like to foster some discussion, as there have now been 11 reversions within the past few hours. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 15:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@User:Neuropol: I have rollbacked three edits in this article. An IP user User:167.179.243.82 vandalized by removing sourced and purely informational content without any explanation. User:Sjö also performed a revert in between two of my rollbacks. I have reported that IP user to AIV, and they are currently blocked by admin User:Bishonen.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

With the page protection hopefully this episode is over, but I want to defend @Prince of Erebor from having this cited someday as edit warring behavior. IP's made repeated partial blanking edits, without edit summaries, to remove sourced and apparently neutral material. Other editors including me assessed the blanks as unconstructive and restored the status quo. Exemption 4 to 3RR permits reversion of obvious vandalism and page blanking. No reason to think this doesn't extend to reverting repeated partial blanking that amounts to vandalism.

Maybe I'm wrong? Not attacking @Neuropol who seems to be calling in good faith for discussion. But also not holding my breath for the IPs to come to the talk page to reach consensus. Oblivy (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It's like giving them rope. If you prompt them to discuss an edit war, and they don't respond or take action, it's a lot easier to take action (i.e. report to noticeboard) against them. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 00:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe for a logged-in editor, IP editors not so much. Meanwhile common at pages like ANI for beef-bringers to link to comments like yours, with statements like "user has been called out for edit warring in the past", and then the editor has to defend themselves by saying this was all good faith reversion of IP vandals. Oblivy (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)