Talk:Preah Vihear Temple

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

Why have Prasat in the title?[edit]

It is more commonly just called "Preah Vihear" in most guide books as well as history books. Prasat is used as a classifier for stone temples and ruins and can be used even for Angkor Wat (e.g. Prasat Angkor Wat), but I don't think it should be apart of the title for the articles about the Khmer temples and ruins with the exception of Prasat Kravan because there, the word prasat would be needed to make a difference between it and the kravan flower. But in this situation, it is not really needed like for most temple names. --Dara 02:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is it's native name (Khmer language) Prasat Preah Vihear and in Thai Prasat Khao Phra Viharn. -- (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Prasat Preah Vihear[edit]

Prasart or no Prasart, it should be in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Added information on elevation above sea level and reign dates from back of access ticket!--Gak (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Just across from Thailand - This is not across but Thailand and Khmher both agree to separate the building into 2 sides. So, the people from Thailand can enter without giving any passport from one side. Not that it is comepletely belong to Khmer
And there are more places that is not neutral. Please change -- (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Dear Thank you very much for your comments. Preah Vihear has been a controversial place for such a long time! But I must respectfully disagree with your analysis. The World Court ruled in 1962 that Preah Vihear is in Cambodia. Thailand accepted that decision. Today the temple is still in Cambodia (the border line passes only a few meters from the base of the temple's lower entrance steps). As you point out, Thailand and Cambodia cooperate today to allow people to enter the temple from Thailand without visas. But you are not right in suggesting that Cambodia has surrendered sovereignty over the temple. Cambodia is like a person who owns a forest but allows neighbors to come into the forest whenever they want to enjoy the cool air. But the forest still belongs to that person! So please check your information. I invite you to contact the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs. People there will confirm that under international law, the temple is the possession of Cambodia, not Thailand. May I ask, were you the person who changed the article to say that Preah Vihear is in Thailand? If so, I hope that you will restore the correct wording. Thank you very much for your interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That is so wrong. Thailand never accepted the decision by the World Court, but Thailand could not do much even though it disagreed. Furthermore, the staircase and a few more meters actually belong to Thailand even by the World Court judgement. Also, the world heritage proposal by the Cambodian government include 4.6 sq km territory that do belong to Thailand. This area isn't part of the temple itself, but around it. Even if the whole temple may belong to Cambodia, the proposal which UNESCO has accepted includes Thai territories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hello If you mean that Thailand never emotionally accepted the World Court's decision, you're right--many Thais continue to feel that the temple was stolen from them. But if you mean that the Thai government never legally accepted the decision, you're wrong. Check the statements of Foreign Minister Thanat Khoman in 1962. You will see that Thanat, speaking for Thailand, accepted the court's decision, however reluctantly. Thai troops withdrew and the site was turned over to the Cambodians. In the last 46 years, no Thai government has made any serious attempt to assert sovereignty over the temple. In the recent dispute over World Heritage proposal, Thailand's claim is not that it owns the temple but that it owns adjacent land that Cambodia was including in its application. (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Dear The Cambodian government didn't include the 4.6 sq km territory in the application because they wanted it to be approved quickly, as they didn't want it to drag on any further. The Cambodian government never ever ceded the disputed territory to Thailand, so get your facts straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Simply, Thailand has accepted that 'the temple' is in Cambodian territory according to the court. But the present day dispute is about the area down to the hill and around the hill. Right, Cambodia has claimed its sovereignty over it, same as Thailand, she has never recognized this. Nothing about this in the court decision.

And now Thailand has step up to show her right over this area. And yes, this could be seen in several perspectives or features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtramanx (talkcontribs) 07:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Thailand CLAIMS the border has never been demarcated. This is, in a very limited way, correct, it is also immaterial as the border has most definitely been MAPPED. In 1907. That 101-year old map was judged by the ICJ to show where the border is. Thailand continues to occupy land the 1907 map and 1962 judgement show to be Cambodian. Thailand's deploying soldiers into this area is a clear border violation, an illegal act under international law and a demonstrable insult to Cambodia, Cambodian national soveriegnty and Cambodian dignity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Krishna fighting Arjuna[edit]

The title of the picture says "Pediment showing Krishna fighting Arjuna, gopura three." Is this correct? This is wierd because these two characters are allies in the Mahabharata epic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In my book (Vittorio Roveda: Preah Vihear - ปราสาทเขาพระวิหาร. River Books, Bangkok 2000, ISBN 974-8225-25-9) it is Shiva, who is fighting Arjuna. Who is right? --hdamm (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The Rough Guide to Thailand says, "a particularly eye-catching one above the outside of the northern doorway shows an episode from the Hindu epic the Mahabarata, in which the god Shiva fights with the heroic Arjuna over who gets the credit for the killing of a wild boar – in fact the carving here looks as if they are enjoying an affectionate embrace." Changed. HenryFlower 10:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thai name[edit]

The Thai name for a Cambodian site is really irrelevant. Different countries would have different spellings and pronounciation for the site, so it should just be put in the Thai language article of the same site. Please don't try to push Thai.DQconnect (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Thai is clearly of relevance because of the place's history. Badagnani (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - listing the Thai name does not mean we second any claims from Thai nationalistics on reverting the 1962 decision. Removing it is IMHO the violation of NPOV, not adding it. andy (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Garbage. I note that those agreeing with the inclusion of the Thai name and Thai script are primarily involved in editing pages about Thailand. This is not a page about Thailand, it is a page about Cambodia. The appropriate use of the Thai name and script are in specific reference to Thailand's occupation of the temple (disputes over ownership) or in reference to nationalist Thai politicians using Preah Vihear as a wedge issue in Thai politics.

As this is an English-language entry, the appropriate names are the English transliteration of the name and it's original-language name, that would be Khmer. Third-party translations/transliterations belong in said third-party-language entries. (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Thai name is clearly of relevance because of this place's history. Other languages such as Tamil, which is from a nation thousands of miles away that does not have a dispute over this place and has not claimed it in the past, are not of relevance. Badagnani (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If the Thai name is of clear relevance because of the history then clearly it should go in the history section. The Thai name is recognised only in Thailand by Thai speakers, it is, therefore, of zero relevance when naming the temple in English. Giving London it's original Latin name of Londinium would be of more relevance than putting Phra Viharn in the intro to this article as the Romans actually began that city. Khao Phra Viharn is a name with no currency anywhere in the world outside Thailand and the Thai language. If it is used it should be noted as such. And that means it belongs in the history section. (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The history section is fine. The thing is, you didn't move it there, you blanked it again and again, despite this discussion page and despite the fact that in order to give a properly encyclopedic treatment all relevant names should be provided, as they are at Funan, for example. Badagnani (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, I removed a single piece of information. You continued to accuse me of replacing the article with a blank page. A clear violation of your editorial powers. To which: "Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Prasat Preah Vihear. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers". Learn what the verb and phrase "to replace with a blank page" means. Also to which: "This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Preah Vihear Temple, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badagnani" You piled error on top of error. Nowhere did I vandalise the page, after previously failing to replace the Preah Vihear entry with a blank page. In other matters: Note my continued use of the word "if". "If it is to be used", nowhere have I made an executive decision that it is to be so. If you wish to continue editing an English-language encyclopaedia, I strongly suggest you learn the language first. (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So why does the article on the Kuril Islands include a whole section on the Japanese name? These islands now belong to Russia, so why is the Japanese name relevant? It's the same reason why the Thai name here is relevant - the temple was on the territory of Siam till 1904, and some Thai people still hope to regain it from Cambodia. A Latin name would be irrelevant, a Burmese name as well. But the Thai name has it's validity. Wikipedia:NPOV means that all viewpoints have to be covered, not just the one from the Cambodians. Failing to include the Thai name would be a violation of NPOV. Does the Thai name really hurt so much? Please switch off your nationalistic feelings, we are trying to be neutral here. Or if you think it should not be in the introduction - why not create a separate section with the etymology of the Thai and Khmer name, similar to that Kuril Islands article? Would that be a compromise? andy (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
In The Kuril Islands, Japanese name is not given the ozero section of the article. Japanese name was provided to describe about the name derived from. It is different from Preah Vihear Temple, Preah Vihear Temple is Khmer Temple and was built by Khmer king. It is clear that it is Khmer Temple. It was occupied by Thailand illegally and was judged by International Court that It is Khmer Temple. So The Thai script is not needed on the zero section of the article described about the temple. On the other hand, the name of the temple is derived from Khmer name (Khmer Spelling), there is no reason to add other languages spelling. So only Khmer spelling is enough. --kiensvay (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Thai translation is now in a category exactly matching that of the afore-mentioned Kurile Islands. Can the matter now be dropped?KhProd1 (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I strongly agree that Thai name should be put as same as Khmer. Preah Vihear Temple once recorded as the historical place in Thailand. Moreover, Thailand had important roles about this disputing temple, too. It should be fair to give Thai name as Thailand had conquered this temple for centuries (Cambodia was a Thai colony for such a long time). If this is unfair, why would there appear to be a French name on Jersey as the island was not belonged to France? --Passawuth (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it is not important. It is Khmer Temple and original Khmer Temple. It was occupied by Thailand and it was judged by International court. It is clear, so only Khmer scripts is enough. --kiensvay (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • But that's for centuries. This is all because colonisation. If France didn't occupied Cambodia - whole country, including this temple is still Thailand. Can you stop being biasing to Hun Sen, please? It is clear that both scripts should be added. --Passawuth (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that (Imperialist) Siam occupied the temple (as you've clearly pointed out), the temple was a big dispute on the ICJ between these two countries, and now ongoing political issues in both countries, make Thai language relevant somehow? Well, just my humble opinion. I suggest we could invite some non-Thai-nor-Cambodian editors to have a look at the article, read the history and probably some other sections, and give some neutral comments? That might be better than having an endless argument with nationalistic agendas. (By the way, Passawuth and other Wikipedians, please stick to the encyclopaedic reasoning. This is a multi-national project, throw away your nationalistic sentiments. It's bad enough with those hawks on the street. No need for another war.) --KINKKUANANAS 12:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Are you saying People Alliance for Democracy is hawks on the street? --Passawuth (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Excuse my butting in, but I couldn't just let this pass. I say PAD = People Against Democracy. I'm a Georgia cracker, myself, but growing up I thought it referred to "cracking corn", Georgia's moonshine version of lao khao. Thanks to some astute Wikipedian, I now know cracker means braggart. It takes one to know one, and I know the crackers of PAD advocate government by tantrum, just as many of my fellow crackers do. And it did my heart good to see pix of PAD crackers getting their heads cracked by locals when they invaded to stage a tantrum. Pawyilee (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
To Passawuth, Your Crazy dream. Your saying is clear that Thai is the invader. How worse you are! --kiensvay (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To all Thais! Don`t confuse about Prasat Preah Vihear . She belongs to Cambodia only not Thailand(Noway), if we look at the past and present, Prasat Preah Vihear are still in Cambodia. But I knew that she was stolen by Thais........ She belonged to Cambodia and is still belonging to Cambodia. you get it? --T-rithy (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  • คุณ Kinkku Ananas: เฮ้อ มันไม่ยอมกันง่าย ๆ อ่ะครับ มีคำแปลภาษาไทยในบทความ จะอะไรกันแค่ไหนเชียว? เขมรพวกนี้ ที่จริงผมไม่อยากเริ่มเรื่องนี้เล๊ย... แต่เขมรมันลบอยู่ได้ (explaining what happened)...
  • To T-Rithy: If this is so, France stole whole Cambodia as well! 30 times worse than what you accused Thailand to be.
  • To Kiensvay: Isn't that clear Khmer Empire also invaded Siam as well?
  • To anyone: My aim is just to add Thai transliteration on the article! Those Khmers disagrees. We come to the point where we could no more resist our emotion. Isn't that right, Kiensvay? --Passawuth (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

France came to Cambodia as parents not like Thailand invaded Cambodia to steal some valuable things. if u think Cambodia now were part of Thailand , you should also think about the past time, where Thailand was? No Thailand in the past , Thais ran away from China to Cambodia. It was Cambodia , Get it?--T-rithy (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we put aside politics and be more collaborative on the encyclopaedia project? How about WP:3O and WP:ECCN, according to WP:DR? Also, history is much more complexed than just who-invaded-who and who-stole-what. We are talking about centuries, probably a millennium, long of history, with none of us actually witnessed. Note that, despite the long history of the Southeast Asian nations, the modern centralised states of Siam/Thailand and Kampuchea are no more than a few centuries long. --KINKKUANANAS 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As describes In The Kuril Islands given, Thai scripts placed on the below section. The zero section describes about the Temple. No need to add any more time. --kiensvay (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I still find andy's and Badagnani's view sensible, and also for being ongoing conflict. I'd love to hear some other opinions, though, so I'll leave it as is for now. --KINKKUANANAS 16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Well then, you don't want to use #wikipedia-th. I will talk here. I think it is quite insensible to cut Thai transliteration on the article page. Furthermore, if France came to Cambodia like parents, why do you declare independence, then? If France is your father/mother, there's absolute no reasons for Cambodia to be independence. According to what you told me, you wish your country is still one of the French colony. --Passawuth (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • T-Rithy : Thais come from Baan Chiang in Udon Thani province, near Laos. The information that Thais came from China are not updated nowadays. Information had been changed. So you can be sure, Thai didn't came from Cambodia.
    • Another thing, please consider and realise how much Cambodia "robbed" and "killed" innocent villagers on the Thai province that is near Cambodia. That's why we have to invade you. If you don't robbed and killed innocent Thai people until we cannot resist, we shan't invaded you. But when you have freedom that Thailand established for you, such as fighting your enemy and let you free, you invaded and killed innocent Thai people over time. So, we invaded you because we wanted you to stop doing those and betray us ungratefully. Get it? --Passawuth (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Passuwath, you don't win arguments about ownership by stating that if not for Party C then Party A would have long ago occupied Party B. The Temple, as pointed out by many, is not in Thailand. It was not built by Thais. The local Thai citizens of Si Sa Ket province are ethnic Khmers, not Thais, and they speak Khmer. The Temple was built by Khmers and is in Cambodia. The Thai name for the temple is of zero value outside Thailand. Should the Cambodians demand that the name Prey Nokor be listed in the zero section of Ho Chi Minh City/Saigon? As for Thailand's current criminal activity, I'd be a little more circumspect before I used that as justification...As for the Khmer Empire invading the Kingdom of Siam: Learn your history. Siam rose from Ayuthayya. The people of Ayuthayya came south from China. AFTER the Khmers moved north and west. Siam rose AFTER the decline of the Khmer empire began. You are only digging your hole deeper with such clear misunderstaings and ignorance of history... KinnkuANANAS, andy and Badagnani clearly got their way with the creation of the Nomenclature section, so why are you championing their view after the fact? And the modern Kingdom of Cambodia is older than Preah Vihear with an unbroken line of kings (except for the 70-93 interregnum) stretching from the time William the Bastard was preparing to dethrone Harold Godwinson and ending with Boromneath Preah Bat Norodom Sihamoni. Kampuchea? That's been dead since January 7th, 1979.KhProd1 (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

  1. Andy has said please be neutral. Adding Thai transliteration did surely hurt your feeling so much. I saw it is irrelevant. But remember, currently Thailand has an important role in it. Unlike this island, it is Russian for centuries ago and now Japan cannot disagree with it. Furthermore, Thailand has disputed area near Prasat Preah Vihear as well. This temple issue has been on the news of both Thailand and Cambodia. --Passawuth (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Siam rosed after Siam could INVADE Khmer Empire. Moreover, Siam people was there under the control of Khmer Empire. Not declining of Khmer Empire yet, but we could declare independence. Khmer Empire ends in Ayutthaya period, but this is in Sukhothai period. In Ayutthaya period, whole Khmer became colony of Ayutthaya. --Passawuth (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
"Or if you think it should not be in the introduction" - or doesn't me I think it should not be in the introduction. --Passawuth (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't talk much in this topic because my english is not strong. One thing I can say is that both Thai and Khmer people in this discussion are the nationalists. With this idea, there is nothing except hate of the two nationals and the story will be never happy ending. -- (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Passuwath, andy did say to be neautral. Please show us where you are being neutral. Your nationalism is practically causing you to foam at the mouth here while you giddily describe the glories of the Thai conquests of Angkor. Not to mention your bald-faced lies about Cambodia attacking Thai border provinces and killing Thai citizens. Perhaps you should look at the recent news to see whose citizens are being shot and killed on the border. Your neutrality is clearly as non-existant as your understanding of history.KhProd1 (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

KhProd1, you have studied some Thai history. I, however, advise you to study more about it. As this is true and I did not lie. If you do not believe me then some day try to argue with the Thai historians. I understand my history at some level that is, of course, better than you. I strongly advise you should study your own history and don't write other country's history down if you don't know their histories well enough and talked to the native as if they are not native of that country. --Passawuth (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Fact is fact. Fact never dies. Truth is always true. Don't mention me in this way. You do not know Thai history well enough. At least, worse than me. --Passawuth (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I know my own history very well, thankyou. From before the arrival of Dirk Hartog, let alone James Cook. I also know Cambodian history and Thai history as it relates to Cambodia. Why would I argue Thai history with Thai historians? They're just about as nationalist and revisionist as the Japanese. As are the Khmer "historians" who can only talk about the betrayals by Thailand and Vietnam. As you said, facts are facts. You need to get some. Start with the arrival of the French at Oudong and work from there. Important dates include 1941, 1954, 1962 and 2008. At none of these times did Cambodia attack Thailand...For the Thai version of history we only have to go back to the Laos border war of 1987, is it any wonder others view guns as your standard answer...KhProd1 (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about modern days history. I'm talking about history back to 400 years ago. --Passawuth (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we get back to the question about which scripts shall we include? --KINKKUANANAS 15:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thai scripts is completely irrelevant in this article. This is a Khmer temple and built by the Khmers, to all Thais, just accept the fact, this beautiful temple was built by Khmer. Just because you have looted the Temple once, doesnt mean it belongs to you. Stop being greedy and arrogant. Even you try to change the name to make it look like "Thai", but the whole world still see it as Khmer temple, sorry. Im neither a Khmer nor Thai, but a Malay. In Srivijaya page, the Thais also try to make the empire as a "Thai empire", just because the Srivijaya name have "jaya" sound at the end which has same name as "Chaiya" province. This is a joke, actually the "Chaiya" name originated from a Malay word "cahaya" means "light" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To evaluate[edit]

Bold text just removed. Was it correct?

Badagnani (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The part where it said the map didn't follow the real watershed is correct. See this pic for example The higher plain is thailand side and lower plain is cambodia side. I have no idea about lacking of technical skill statement. (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not lack of technology. But we cannot protest or said that it was incorrect to France. I will give out the text that one of the Thai Royal Family said around 60 years after this map:

Chao Phraya River is the river leads to Bangkok, the capital city of Thailand. And Chantaburi is a province in Thailand not so near Cambodia. --Passawuth (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


Why doesn't เขา appear in the Thai name in the Thai Wikipedia article? Badagnani (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems it was wrongly copied from Khao Phra Wihan National Park - which has the Khao (hill) in its name. andy (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove it, then? Badagnani (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, User:Ahoerstemeier, can you please respond to the above? Badagnani (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The เขา doesn't seem to be accidental; [[1]] is a disambiguation page, one of the links being to the article on the temple, while this article has the version with เขา in the intro, but without it in the title. Whether either is more correct I don't know. (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

For now, "เขา" (Khao) was omitted from the name in order to clear meanings between the hill and the temple. Besides, UNESCO refers this place as Temple of Preah Vihear (no Khao). Every mass media in Thailand presents this name also. This is why Thai articles were renamed recently. You then can see the old name only in historical. --Octra Bond (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Image of Khmer[edit]


That giant img of the script should be replaced with the actual text. I would do it myself but I'm not 100% sure that ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ is correct. It defeats the purpose of the Khmer fonts existing if every page that uses them has an image instead. And it's not increasing exposure of the language. Those who are really interested in it would go through the trouble of downloading the font and then more people would have the font, which is what the ideal is. ALTON .ıl 21:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The image history said the old version of the file was a whopping 603 kb. Someone changed it(thank god) and now its only 2 kb, but the person wanted it to look pretty for sojme reason and added the colour. Once I get off my wikibreak, I'll fix it. However, if you want to kill the image, you can list it at Images for discussion and state your reasons. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 23:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Alton that we should have the proper Khmer text rather than an image - the image is an ugly workaround for something that isn't that much of a problem anyway - people who can read Khmer are likely to, or at least can, install the fonts, whereas for those who don't the image is is no more useful than a series of question marks, or whatever one's computer does with unknown scripts. What I don't understand is why we are forcing a large font size - what's wrong with the standard size? HenryFlower 08:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The default size shows up as miniscule, near-microscopic text that is entirely illegible. Badagnani (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, replacing the image this way is what I meant. But I also see a very large size font; on my computer (using Safari) it appears as large as the article title. ALTON .ıl 02:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
If you have right Khmer font it will be just ok. Default Khmer font for windows is very small. --Passawuth (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The Khmer script looks fine to me with the 11-point specification or with none, so I've no objection to either of those. :) HenryFlower 12:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Basically, it depends on the font you use. --Passawuth (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks good now. If someone is interested, we have the same situation at Sri Lanka (I brought up here). Again, I'd do it myself, but I'm not confident if I'm replacing it with the correct words. ALTON .ıl 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment moved from main article[edit]

I moved this from the article page - Alison

Preah Vihear has a simple meaning, "God's Temple". Preah mean God, and Vihear mean temple. Some people try to make life harder than it is, by write a whole paragraph just about the name of the temple (such as the one below) and still never get to the point. May be they need to write a book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Nomenclature comment mentioned in the media[edit]

See [2]. Badagnani (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


In the location section it says "The temple is 280 km from Angkor Wat and 296 km from Phnom Penh", but this is impossible as Angkor Wat is much closer to Preah Vihear than Phnom Penh. Someone should check this. (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)sjc

2000 boundary MOU[edit]

The article does not mention the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding between Cambodia and Thailand on the Survey and Demarcation of Land Boundary. That agreement seems to be the basis of Thailand's current claims."Thai-Cambodia border 'normal' but Thai military on high alert" --Bejnar (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


I have qualms about the map used on this page, see here: File talk:Preah Vihear Temple.png. TuckerResearch (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

pronunciation of Preah Vihear[edit]

Would it be easy to add a sound file of a native speaker saying "Preah Vihear"? (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Preah Vihear Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Split this article[edit]

This article ought to be split into two - one about the temple itself (very skimpy at present), and one about the Thai-Cambodian dispute. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

A whole detailed article about the dispute already exists at Cambodian–Thai border dispute. If you can improve the history and/or description section, that would be great. I know sourcing can be rough, I recently started Prasat Ta Muen Thom, but Preah Vihear has had a lot more written about it. However, with the temple being the center of the recent tension (shots have been fired, armies have been mobilized), the dispute is part of the temple's modern history, affecting everything from academic access and preservation to ownership and tourism, so the main issues should at least be summarized in this article or it wouldn't be complete.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 09:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I've just been there - it's all quiet at present - and have read John Burgess's book, which is popular rather than academic but a reputable source. I will try to add some more content when I get home. I agree the dispute should be mentioned but really these are two quite different subjects. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Missing reference[edit]

There is a citation for Freeman under the heading The site that is not referenced in the References or Sources sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louize5 (talkcontribs) 20:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Preah Vihear Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)