User talk:Dara

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Thank you very much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Can you add the Khmer to Fédération Indochinoise des Associations du Scoutisme?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the Khmer name for this organization. --Dara (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem! Does Girl Guides Association of Cambodia also need corrected?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I fixed it. Keep in mind, there is no official romanization system employed in Cambodia. So it can be romanized different ways. Neary, for example could also be Neari, Nieree, etc. But Neary is the most common way it is romanized. And for Khemarak, this version with the <k> at the end (as opposed to 'Khemara') is properly romanized as Khemarak rather than Khamarak as the first vowel is an allophone of <e> not <a>. It sounds more like <ai> or <ae> in pronunciation but is most commonly romanized as <e> just as in the word 'Khmer'. --Dara (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsolicited, but worth sharing[edit]

Hi Dara, I suspect you are a natural-born researcher; and you may know about this already, but in case you didn't: an excellent resource on all plants and animals can be found at the Biodiversity Heritage Library. It is a library of all (or as many as they can get their hands on) original works on natural history. There you can search for, say, Magnolia × alba; Michelia × alba; or any other scientific name for a plant or animal, and they will list all the PDFs, of old and new publications that are no longer under copyright (some lists are huge), that mention that name. Each PDF is available for download, and, once done, the text is actually copyable (highlight, copy and paste) to a word processing or text program (word docs, notepad, etc.), though the OCR program is not always completely accurate (e.g.: the character "æ", common in scientific names of species, especially 50+ years ago, comes out as "se", "•e", or any number of other flubs) so it has to be examined in detail for errors. And yes, they do have the original Species Plantarum (to be found here). Just thought I would share this, in case you didn't already know about it. Hope it proves useful. Hamamelis (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: Since Magnolia × alba is on my watchlist, your latest edit to it reminded me of something I'd forgotten. -- H.
Thanks very much Hamamelis. I had no idea there was such a resource treasure trove out there. I mean, I was just using Google Books, lol. This will come in handy. And I hope to see if the name Mitrella mesnyi is actually a synonym for Melodorum fruticosum. I suspect that the country of Cambodia refers to an oudated taxonomic name for the national flower. Also, I'm not sure if it's wise to rename all Michelia species articles to Magnolia but it seems wrong to have Magnolia × alba and then it's parent under Michelia champaca. --Dara (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Glad to pass it on (wish everyone knew about it).

Regarding the two species you mentioned above; according to, they might be synonyms of different Unona species (see here and here). The Plant List is another, newer resource that is especially good on plant species synonymy. Hamamelis (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, re Mitrella mesnyi and Melodorum fruticosum, I have replied to your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Mitrella_mesnyi. Dr pda (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Buppha Devi[edit]

Hi, are you referring to my edit to put her article under "Wikiproject Ballet"? If you have any other more suitable Wikiproject that you wish to reclassify under, feel free to go ahead. But I think, putting under "arts and entertainment work group" should not be an issue, since this encompasses a larger umbrella. Anyway, I am more concerned with mainstream article content as of now... Mr Tan (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I have changed it to "Wikiproject Dance" for the above page. Agreed. Mr Tan (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Emerald Buddha[edit]

Hi Navarrro, I reverted your edit regarding the Emerald Buddha. It was indeed produced in the 17th century and is not ancient like the one in Bangkok. National Geographic refers to it as being Baccarat-crystal. --Dara (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dara,
That's not possible, never mind what National Geographic says (source please?). Baccarat Crystal didn't exists until 1764, 18th century. You can check the own Wikipedia article or the Official website. So either the Emerald Buddha is not from 17th century or it's not done from Baccarat Crystal. --Navarrro (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you may be right. But this is what is purported by National Geographic (and I assume many other publications, especially tourist guides, followed suit with this information). See National Geographic Traveler Cambodia By Trevor Ranges. This tidbit on Baccarat goes far back to an old NG issue from the 1960s or 1970s. Perhaps this is a misreported information in an old French book. --Dara (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dara,
I don't have the book but I've tried to find out a bit more and now I'm more thinking about the misreported information is in the century not in what's made of. You're right, most of other publications can use National Geographic as a source, but that doesn't mean that the mistake must be reproduced if it's false. I've found this website saying that the statue was made in the 19th century what also fits with the book Pol Pot, Anatomy of a Nightmare of Philip Short (2004) where it's said (page 22) that the statue was done by Lalique a glass designer who lived in 19th-20th century. That also fits with the time of the construction of the Royal Palace in the second half of 19th century. At least from the 15th century the original Emerald Buddha (in BKK) was never in Cambodia so I don't see why they were going to copy it in 17th century, I think it's more probable that the statue was copied in the 19th century for the new Royal Palace and new Capital. In any case the article must be modified to show that misinformation and to not continue broadcasting it. Maybe somebody with more resources can then solve the issue. --Navarrro (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Would it be fair to say that some sources state it is of Baccarat and point out whats wrong with that claim and also mention the Lalique claim as well? Of course present in a way that is neutral if there seems to be conflicting information. I think a more definitive source would be Julio Jeldres but I can't get ahold of his book. I will try to find if Judith M. Jacob has mentioned anything about the statue. --Dara (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dara, I completelly agree with that. Take a look to the new sentence I've written please. Regarding Julio Jeldres, I've found this other extract in other book. Notice what the author says: that Julio Jeldres book is "unreliable in some of the information it provides, particularly in relation to dates." So I'm afraid the mistake of dates comes precisely from his book. By the way, Bangkok temple was indeed the model of Phnom Penh temple, so it also makes sense the copy of the Emerald Buddha is done in that time, 19th century.Navarrro (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)