Talk:Songkran

Reliable sources

Use reliable sources. Read WP:RS, WP:Cherrypick, WP:NPOV. There's already a Water Festival article. Random website mentions don't make it reliable. Hybernator (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please look at the article again. The word, "Songkran" comes from a Sanskrit word and is used to refer to the New Year festivals that occur when the sun transits the constellation of Aries. In India, they use the word, Mesa Sankranti, this article is neutral, I don't know what you're saying. (101.160.19.227 (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC))

Sankranti is neutral. None of your sources say Songkran is an umbrella term. And you're citing a diversity calendar, a crisis management company's website? You must read WP:RS!!! The other source [1] appears to be legit. But it says Songkran is a term used in Thailand. It does NOT say it's an umbrella term. This is pure misrepresentation.Hybernator (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sankranti is not neutral because that can refer to any period of time of when the sun moves to another constellation of the zodiac. "Songkran" is neutral because it specifically means, movement of the sun to Aries. Well if you looked at the sources of the celebration of the festival outside of Asia, you will see it's used as an umbrella term. (101.160.19.227 (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC))

• I just called out your three citations. Hybernator (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Well you didn't call out all of them, did you? (101.160.19.227 (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC))

• You do realize that people can read the edit history of the article, right? You just removed the "umbrella term" from the article saying "Reverted to original wording." Are you serious? We can see what you did. LOL. Hybernator (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not a "LOL" moment. I know that, that's why I wrote an edit summary. I wouldn't have done that if I didn't know that. That's what an edit summary is for, to show another user what someone else has done, not sure how that's funny. (101.160.19.227 (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC))

October 2017

I've tagged the article for disputed accuracy. I don't think the above issues have been adequately addressed. The fact is that Songkran is the Thai/Lao pronunciation of the Sanskrit-derived term, and I don't see any evidence that it can apply as an umbrella term that covers more than the Tai celebrations. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

This Mandarin-language article confirms the usage of the term "Songkran" to refer to refer to those festivals celebrated in Theravada Buddhist countries. The article talks about how the Dai New Year uses the term "Songkran" for their New Year and how the name traces it origins to Sri Lankan influence. It also talks about how "Songkran" and its derivatives are also used in the languages of Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar etc. and that it means "New Year" in the Pali language and that the Dai people and Southeast Asian countries all celebrate the new year festival of Songkran. (121.220.45.120 (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC))

@Paul 012: This is a lexical issue. The term Songkran is the usual English name, and it is used in English for the local festivals of Burma, China (i.e. Dai), Cambodia and Laos. Given the current patterns for tourism, I don't think it at all surprising that the Thai word should dominate in English usage. The final 'ti' seems to have been dropped long ago, and is only to be found in etymologising spellings. (There's a disconnect between the Khmer spelling and pronunciation!) Now, the Sri Lankan celebrations do seem different enough not to be encompassed by the word Songkran, and that goes for the Indian celebrations bar the extreme northeast (Sangken). --RichardW57m (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Image edit war

There seems to be an intractable edit war going on for months over the inclusion of File:Songkrant Khmer.jpg in the infobox. One of the claimed issues is that of copyright, and this might have merit, as the image description page says "My Photo Drawing by Kim Sophon" without providing evidence of permission from Kim Sophon. The proper venue to sort this out would be a deletion request on Commons. In any case, I think the article would be better without such an image in the infobox, as it's specific to one culture while this article's scope is supposed to be the cross-cultural aspect. There's already a collage of the celebration in various cultures just after. It could be worked into the infobox instead, with the captions shortened. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Songkran, Thai word edit war

To whom it may concern, I do believe that there could be article edit war of "Songkran is a Thai word", so I concluded list of additional highly trusted citations of international institutes that support the mentioned as the following.

• Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland said:- "The term Songkran is a Thai word meaning ' to move ' , and it refers here to the Sun, which moves into the sign of Aries at this time of the year." in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Vol. 10 (2004, p. 357.).
• The National Unity Department of Malaysia (a.k.a Jabatan Perpaduan Negara Dan Integrasi Nasional (JPNIN)), Prime Minister's Department, said:- "‘SONGKRAN’ is a Traditional New Year of the Thai people and this day normally fulls in the month of April. 'SONGKRAN' is a Thai word meaning change of exchange." in Festivals and Religious Occasions in Malaysia (1985., p 26.).
• V.S. Bhaskar as additional Chief Secretary to Government of Assam, India said:- "Songkran is a Thai word which means 'move'..." in Faith & Philosophy of Buddhism (2009, p. 261.)

These contexts can be found in Google book and citations from Thailand institutes were not included here to prevent doubts of the evidence. Thank you. Quantplinus (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Quantplinus I can't speak to the accuracy of those citations, but I will say that the article introduction could use some cleaning up.

The subject of this article is the celebration called Songkran, not the word "songkran" itself. That could be clearer in the introduction. Right now, the first part of the paragraph heavily focuses on the word's etymology and makes use of excessive citations. It feels cluttered and unbalanced considering it is the first thing a reader will read.

I propose that these details be moved to a new section in the article called Etymology. If the dispute about the word's origins is ongoing, it may be best to leave out any reference to that in the article introduction for the time being.

When a resolution is reached, we can include a concise etymology in parantheses in the introduction. That seems to be standard in articles with a non-English subject name.

Please share your thoughts on this proposal so we can make the article more clear, even if the dispute is ongoing. Thanks! Othernature333 18:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Othernature333 Agreed, let me deep research few days so I can write Etymology section. the current citations are not enough to write a separate section as those said just a Thai word and meaning blah blah... that's very short in detail. Thank you for sharing your thoughts to improve the article. Quantplinus (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: Etymology section was recently added with many citations, but too many vandalisms occurred. Quantplinus (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This is really much ado about nothing, as the fact is simple: the observance originates from the Hindu calendar, and the terms, whether rendered as songkran (Thai and Lao), sangkranta (Khmer) or thingyan (Burmese), are all derived from the same Sanskrit origin, saṅkrānti (सङ्क्रान्ति).

I raised this back in 2017 (see above), and I still don't see why this article, which is supposed to serve as a multicultural overview, should use Songkran as its title over a neutral descriptive term that would precisely identify the topic. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Paul 012 Yes, the fact is so-so simple in philology's overview. However, in Etymology in multicultural overview, the term Songkran is considerably more specific and unique compared to each country's observance. It seems their observances are similar but being different in procedures in each local. In daily-life communication, when Thais and foreigners say about Songkran, they consciously know that the term belong to Thailand. Even doing ton of research, book, reference more likely mentioned observances in Thailand than others (That's why it was only recognized by UNESCO). Actually, in my viewpoint, I should move Etymology section to Songkran (Thailand) rather than this article however this Songkran article directly mention to Songkran (in Etymology) than Songkran (Thailand) (in Culture, Festival and History). Hence, in my opinion, may be the term Traditional New Year Celebration in South and Southeast Asia looks more multicultural overview than the term Songkran. But I have no idea how to shorten this term. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Quantplinus (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Paul 012 More idea, merging Songkran and Songkran (Thailand) into one as Songkran only and leave the existing Water Festival as it should meet criterion of multicultural overview. And the content of Songkran also similar with Songkran (Thailand) it can be easily cleaned up, IMO. Is it a good solution? Quantplinus (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Paul 012 @Quantplinus This article is becoming heavily Thai centric. I prefer the article prior to all of these changes. First and foremost 'Songkran' is derived from the Sanskrit, which should be in the leading sentence. The leading sentence in the etymology section, 'The word Songkran or Songkrant (outdated Thai form), is a Thai word or Siamese word', implies that others observing the 'Songkran' holiday inherited the term from Thai language, which is not the case. I would suggest rewording and using resources that aren't Thai centric. Most of the sources don't add much to the article, they state the obvious that Songkran is a word used by Thai people inherited from the Sanskrit langauge. MosheeYoshee (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention the stone inscriptions of Phimai, Wat Sa Kamphaeng Yai, and Wat Phra That Choeng Chum contain older laterite temples of Khmer origin (in modern day Thailand) so using them as a source for it being a Thai word is entirely misleading. The inscriptions are written in Khmer. MosheeYoshee (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@MosheeYoshee That's because the article using word Songkran which is only used in Thai language, in Thailand. Even most International resources said of Thai. It's the fact that replying exclusively belonging to Thai. If you think This article is becoming Thai centric too much. Please add content rather than remove them (even citations available, with context included.) That's your own opinion which out any evidence(s) supported.

The stone inscriptions of Phimai, Wat Sa Kamphaeng Yai, and Wat Phra That Choeng Chum. You can write content for khmer part rather than remove by your own personal point of view. For any removals, if you do not provide any citations, academic archives, or trusted resources to support, any changes will be reverted. Quantplinus (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

So much for shedding your biases... Your suggestion to merge Songkran and Songkran (Thailand) shows your interest in spreading a particular obvious narrative. MosheeYoshee (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@MosheeYoshee In facts, the term Songkran exclusively belonging to Thailand, while other countries do not use the term as soon as no such archaeological evidences support as; books (generel academic works), contemporary archives, foreigner's record, official books, especially field of anthropology study. Quantplinus (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Paul 012 @Othernature333 @Quantplinus You are saying that Songkran is solely belonging to Thailand, despite referencing historically Khmer temples, such as Phimai Historical Park, and their Old Khmer inscriptions that mention 'Songkrant' as evidence for belonging to Thailand? The level of cognitive dissonance here is impressive. There are plenty of inscriptions mentioning 'Songkran(t)' written in Khmer. As an editor, you should do your due dilligence instead of blindly cherrypicking references to support your biased narrative. Since you made lots of changes to the article, I implore you to reevaluate your biases and think outside of your nationalist ideology. MosheeYoshee (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@MosheeYoshee Please provide your trusted citations, references, or you can add content with citations provided. Arguing with no academic purpose, is not right solution to improve the article. Thanks. Quantplinus (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Judging by your continuous reversions, I don't think you're looking to improve the article, instead you are here to spread you biases. I know my edits will be met with the same fate. MosheeYoshee (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can support what they write with cherrypicked references. You mention academic purpose, but your academic integrity is lacking. For the sake of integrity I want to suggest that you consider 'opposing' viewpoints (opposing in this case being that Songkran is not exclusive to Thailand) and read articles that challenge your current view. It is uncomfortable to challenge your preconcieved viewpoints but that's how you grow as an editor. MosheeYoshee (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@MosheeYoshee I acknowledge what you trying to argue but any argues without trusted citations support. Not only me still revert it. I have read many books and checked against each citations, I tried best to summarize them in neutral overview. If you have academic knowledge with trusted citations to share us, please add content rather remove. That's basis of wikipedia's rule. Quantplinus (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Songkran isn't a Thai or Siamese word, it is sanskrit: Sankranti

The inscriptions you used to back your views are actually written in Khmer in Khmer temple now located in Thailand, it doesn't advocate for the word being used in Thai but rather in Khmer language, you even used the system of notation of the Khmer inscriptinn K.Number, here is an inventory of the Khmer inscriptions and their notations[2]

There are mentions of the word used in languages other than Thai:

- page 3[3] dated 1909

- page 61,62[4] dated 1910

- page 565[5] dated 1904

The recent edits on the article are blatantly false... it begs a huge overhaul. Pierrevang3 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pierrevang3 The book Astronomie Cambodgienne written by F. Gaspard Faraut said in p. 61 that calendar was translated from Pali language by Leon Faraut in 1908 AD and the word Mahasang Krane is not the same meaning of Songkran of Thailand nowadays. I have already read and reviewed that French book before writing Etymology section.

It's false that "Songkran isn't a Thai or Siamese word, it is sanskrit: Sankranti because there is no the word Songkran in Sanskrit Dictionary, you can check here. also there's no Songkran in original sanskrit script too. Whether inscriptions were written in any languages, its meaning still being translated as Sankranti, and they are in Thailand as property of the Fine Arts Department of Thailand.

Your citations have no contexts said that Songkran isn't a Thai or Siamese word, or said that Songkran s sanskrit word.

So, your removals are unaccepted because your citations are unclear. Thanks. Quantplinus (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pierrevang3 Check these books that said,

• Songkran is a Thai word
• Songkran is a Thai name
• Songkran (n.) from Oxford English Dictionary

Quantplinus (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobody denies that Songkran is a word used in Thai. But it ultimately comes from Sanskrit and is not SOLELY a Thai word as evidenced by the inscriptions in Khmer you provided. Pierrevang3 (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You are literally proving nothing by saying The book Astronomie Cambodgienne written by F. Gaspard Faraut said in p. 61 that calendar was translated from Pali language by Leon Faraut in 1908 AD and the word Mahasang Krane is not the same meaning of Songkran of Thailand nowadays. "

So what if the calendar is translated from Pali? Who said that the calendar was solely Khmer. The thing is that the word is used in Khmer so it's not uniquely Thai, that's a sanskrit loanword found in Laos Cambodia and Thailand

Mahasang Krane designates the new year in Cambodia, this article is for the new year celebrated in April in Southeast Asia. Pierrevang3 (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pierrevang3 Just add more content as additional title under Etymology section if it's true that Mahasang Krane designates the new year in Cambodia with trusted citations rather than remove the article. Removals article with opposition will be escalate as vandalism and your account will get penalty. Thanks Quantplinus (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Your etymology section is wrong. You’re using Khmer inscription to back the fact that Songkran is a Thai word, huge logical fallacy there.

You’re dwelling on mentions of the word in Thai historiography when the article is supposed to concern all Southeast Asian new years, put your etymology section in Songkran (Thailand) if you want, but its place is certainly not in this article.

You are claiming in the lead that Songkran is a Thai word when it is a Sanskrit loanwoard found in Laos Cambodia and Thailand.

For all these reasons your edits are not legitimate. Pierrevang3 (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pierrevang3 Please provided academic citations, any personal perspectives are unaccepted.  Quantplinus (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The article is not for Songkran as it is practiced in Thailand, see Songkran (Thailand), it’s an article for the new year celebrations practiced throughout southeast Asia.

Songkran is a sanskrit word, you even wrote it yourself? It comes from Sankranti and is pronounced that way in Laos, Cambodia and Thailand.

We quite literally don’t care if the inscriptions are the property of whatever you want to believe, it’s a logical fallacy. If a French own a Thai manuscript, does it make it French?

There isn’t a mention of Songkran not being a Thai word but there are mentions of Songkran in Khmer language which therefore proves that the word isn’t solely Thai, that’s basic logic. Pierrevang3 (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pierrevang3 It because of that Songkran is a Thai word which derived from the Sanskrit word as seen in those academic citations, That's simple fact. You can also mention those inscriptions with academic citations too. But what you done is the removals without citations support, it's vandalism.

So, I recommend you add content that argue each other of each academic citations rather than write your own perspectives especially said of accuse others. It's waste of time. Thanks. Quantplinus (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That’s so desperate you’re pushing your view even though I’ve already provided you proof that Songkran is a word in Khmer language and even you yourself provided the Khmer inscriptions of Songkran from the Angkor era? How is it then solely Thai? Pierrevang3 (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pierrevang3 Why don't you add content in the article? You said you provided proof, but you still wrote talks here. If you trusted the proofs you mentioned above, you can add your content in the article rather than remove stuff that other wrote with academic citations. I still didn't see any content from you for hours. Quantplinus (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe because that’s not the purpose of a wikipedia article?

Otherwise it would become a mere list of opinions, that’s not an article.

You are using wrongly your "academic sources", how about you address the fact that:

- the Khmer inscriptions provided back the use of Songkran in the Khmer language not in the Thai language

- the references you’ve put say that Songkran is word used in Thai word not that its etymology is Thai. A quick search on a Thai dictionary shows that it comes from a sanskrit word.

The thing is that you’ve put false informations on wikipedia and that’s an issue. Pierrevang3 (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pierrevang3 It seems you are misunderstood.

• The Etymology section is about Meaning and study of word origins whatever epigraph written in any languages it had read and translated to, Sankranti which derived from the origin Sanskrit word as the article said. If you'd like to focus epigraphs and history of inscription, you can create new topic, e.g. Wat Sri Chum Inscription.
• You accused others wrong, said of wrong academic resources but you don't add any contents with citation provided. It's waste of time.
• You don't really know grammatical Thai language. If it isn't a Thai word, why did you find the word Songkran in Thai dictionary? What's about Sanskrit dictionary?

The dictionary said of word's derivation as same as the word "Comment" is English word, which derived from Latin "commentum". Do you think the word "Comment" is still Latin word? Quantplinus (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

-etymology is the study of the history of a given word in a particular language and its history. You gave a historical account of the word songkran in Khmer to back the origin in Thai without explaining the link between the two, and without mentioning that the inscriptions are in Khmer, that's literally a NONSENSE

-why would I add content when you're adding wrong content? Is a wikipedia article supposed to be a list of conflicting views?

-songkran is literally written like the sanskrit word, the "ต์" sonority is just silent, let's say you write an article about the word "attention" for the use of the word in France and England, knowing that it is both an English and French word , derived from the latin word attentio, would you only say that it is an English word? Do you realize how much nonsense it is

But ultimately you're just pushing a certain biased POV widely found in one specific circle Pierrevang3 (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)