Talk:Theravada New Year

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)

@Pierrevang3 Unbelievable, you're so intelligent better than all of those citations of the article and better look down others up on nonsense or biased POV than writing the article. What an ego and all talk. Just keep rolling your eyes maybe you'll find the brain back there. Sorry if my messages don't make sense to you but it's so waste of time to talk back to someone being busy with critical of others and propagandize own ideology. Please remember, the term Songkran is NOT EQUAL to Sankranti (sanskrit) both meaning, writing, and original script according to Thai grammar. Don't pretend knowing better than native spoken. Thanks. Quantplinus (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Unbelievable lol, then let's play the good faith game by using your own takes on wikipedia rules. Just FYI, page protections are the prerogatives of administrators and not the one of the user who think they own the article Pierrevang3 (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Phonetic notation note

• The term "សង្ក្រាន្ត" in Khmer language was romanized (IPA) as "sangkraan" in accordance with Romanization of Khmer. see Wiktionary.
• The term "สงกรานต์" in Thai language was romanized (IPA) as "songkran" in accordance with Royal Thai General System of Transcription. see Wiktionary.

Quantplinus (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Romanization in Khmer isn't fixed, see the use of Songkran in regards to Cambodia in those articles[6][7].

It is ultimately the same word otherwise why would you mention in this article about "Songkran", the word "Sangkraan" etc... in the ethnic group section you've added? Your double standards are astonishing and don't make sense. Pierrevang3 (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Songkran is NOT Khmer word

According to Romanization of Khmer, the term សង្ក្រាន្ត (Khmer script) is romanized "sangkraan" (see Wiktionary) while the term "สงกรานต์" (Thai script) is romanized as "songkran" following by Royal Thai General System of Transcription (see Wiktionary). As stated in these academic resources,

• Doctoral Dissertation: Images Of The Dai : The Aesthetics Of Gender And Identity In Xishuangbanna. pp. 334–335 said "The term Songkran is a Thai word meaning to move."
• 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.)
• Taipei City Government of Taiwan (ROC) said: "(Songkran) is in April, and Thai people celebrate their new year by splashing water at each other, hence the Thai name Songkran, i.e., "Water Splashing Festival. in Teipei: 2008 Yearbook. [臺北市年鑑2008-英文版 (In Chinese)]. p. 269.
• By comparing the search result of "Songkran is a Thai word" OR "The term Songkran is a Thai word" between "Songkran is a Khmer word" on Google Book
• The term Songkran on Oxford English Dicitonary.
• Bangkok: Portrait of a City (1974) by Philip Ward: "The Thai word ' Songkran ' literally means a move or change]".
• Ancient Sukhothai: Thailand's Cultural Heritage (2008) by Dawn F. Rooney, PhD, an art historian specializing in Southeast Asia. :- "Songkran ' is a Thai name that derives from a Sanskrit word meaning ' to move to ' , a reference to the sun's movements."
• เรื่องราวต่าง ๆ เกี่ยวกับประเทศไทย (1994) by T. Chadchaidee, ‎L. Chadchaidee. :- "Songkran is a Thai word which means " move " or " change place " as it is the day when the sun changes its position in the zodiac."

Please note: The Doctoral Dissertation "Images Of The Dai : The Aesthetics Of Gender And Identity In Xishuangbanna" by Komlosy, is peer-reviewed and published in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Vol. 10 (2004.)

Quantplinus (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I fully protected the article until 15 May 2024 which is when the previous semi-protection was set to expire. When consensus has been established (see WP:DR), ask me or any admin to restore the semi-protection. Edit warring must not continue. Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Thank you very much for your kindly support and your help. Quantplinus (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is denying Songkran is a word used in Thai, there's once again no need for you to put your references. Romanization in Khmer isn't fixed. Basing your point solely on romanization doesn't make sense as it varies, and as this article concerns a foreign general festival not the romanization itself? You yourself have put the other Khmer romanization on the article, why would you do so then?

You're pushing your own POV onto wikipedia and been even pushing a conspiracy theory by writing "Songkran in Sanskrit forms, written as Vishuva Sankranti in Khom", "The term Khom denotation given by Assoc. Prof. Santi Phakdeekham as it refers to the Tai ethnicity prior 1800 CE, inhabited in lower part of Chao Phraya River which is distinct separation between Angkor and Cambodia."

A quick search can show to anyone that the term Khom takes root in the fascist past of Thailand and was aimed to create a new ethnicity to take claims on the Khmer culture in Thailand, see Khom and the references cited in the article. Your good faith on the matter seems really hard to assume and I wish Johnuniq would be able to advise. Pierrevang3 (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi Johnuniq! I've seen you've put a page protection on the article, would you mind to take a look at the talk page as the content of the article is therefore now wrong. The aim of the article is to sum up all the Buddhist new years celebrated in April, not only the Thai one which already has an article Songkran (Thailand). Edits were originally aimed at showing the common sanskrit origin, for more context see the discussion above. Thank you! Pierrevang3 (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I wrote above that consensus is needed and mentioned WP:DR. I have no knowledge of the topic and am simply acting to encourage standard procedure for Wikipedia, namely that editors discuss disagreements and engage with points raised by others. Those points should be backed by reliable sources. While I haven't looked at this article, I am aware that many things have multiple origins and it is often misleading to write that the origin of X was Y. Life is usually more complicated. I will not be participating in the discussion. I have provided a couple of links and people should read them to understand what is needed. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Johnuniq consensus is hard to reach here with an editor seemingly appropriating the article for themselves, see the multiples rollbacks edits they have done, the involvement of another user expressing concerns about it and another reminding the sanskrit origin of the whole thing. When all of the arguments put forward are being "rejected" (questionnable authority) by this very contributor on shady motives to put instead logical fallacies, I wonder how consensus can ultimately be reached. Pierrevang3 (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion is how Wikipedia works and patience will be required. Don't talk about other editors here. This page is to discuss what should happen with the article. I have provided a couple of links and if you want to ask a question, it should be about the details in those links and how they apply to this situation. I see discussion above but what is needed now is a proposal about how to word the article. Discussion about the proposal should mention sources and should engage with points raised by others. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Johnuniq alright, thanks... it's gonna be an arduous process as all reliable sources were already put forward...

If both parties fail to reach consensus, what should be done with the article? Pierrevang3 (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It's set out at WP:DR. There has to be a good-faith discussion on this page where people engage with points raised by other editors. There have to be reliable sources. If a proposal with consensus emerges (WP:CONSENSUS), that proposal can be put into effect and removing it would be edit warring which would lead to a block. If there is no clear consensus, an WP:RFC might be needed but that doesn't happen until later. I'll find some time later to see what is going on here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Agreed. FYI, here are my cross-check their sources but found some conflicts in Diffs 1,

• Line 58: it was cited to Chuon Nath Dictionary and Robert K. Headley's Cambodian-English dictionary but they did not precisely match of what the context in Line 58 said.
• Etymology Section: was cited to Revue des études ethnographiques... P. 367 Line #7. (translated) you will see the term "mâha-sânkrant" explicitly matched with Line 114, but it was repeatedly removed.
• Line 114 was repeatedly removed even epigraphs were included from Inscription Database

It's very simple resolution if the amendment was followed by those resources rather than cherry-picking. I followed WP:NPOV but still was blamed like bias POV, nonsense, double standard. I respectfully urge you to ponder this. Thank you Quantplinus (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not repeat yourself and do not raise side issues such at talk about bias and so on. The only thing that matters is what text belongs in the article. There is no need to notify me regarding comments on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay thank you Johnuniq! But isn't this case beyond consensus? I mean the lead reads "Songkran is the water-splashing festival celebration of Tai peoples in traditional new year for Buddhist calendar widely celebrated across South and Southeast Asia in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, parts of northeast India, parts of Vietnam and Xishuangbanna, China begins on 13th April of the year."

Apart from it not being proper english, what's most concerning to me is that it is blatantly false no matter what your considerations on the matter are. I get that people have different views, but in this case isn't it like universally false? If it is a Tai people festival, how can it be celebrated in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and parts of Vietnam, where there is no local Tai speaking populations in those countries? Isn't it like a logical fallacy? It is not as if in those countries, the festival is presented as Tai, it has been part of the local culture for centuries...

(Genuinely asking about the Wikipedia policies in those kind of cases, thank you so much in advance!) Pierrevang3 (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying issues

I am trying to clarify issues but am finding it difficult since I have no background knowledge. I should make it clear that my opinion regarding what should be in the article has the same weight as anyone else's opinion. My role is to prevent edit warring and to clarify the nature of the disagreement so future discussions can focus on the details.

Please use the following section to discuss only the point raised. Anything else should be in a new section.

Songkran/Songkran (Thailand)

Why are there are two articles: Songkran and Songkran (Thailand)? What is the topic for each?

I see that the article was created on 29 January 2003 but was later moved to Songkran (Thailand) which made this page a redirect (23 April 2012). Then people started adding stuff, for example, 30 December 2016 ("Songkran is a term derived from the Sanskrit word, saṅkrānti"). Later, it was suggested for merging with South and Southeast Asian solar New Year at 1 April 2019. Then enthusiasts developed what is now shown at Songkran. Johnuniq (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Johnuniq I genuinely don't know, before all the Thai-centric oriented edits, the article seemed to be referring to the new year commonly practiced in South and Southeast Asia (see this[8]) which is indeed the same as South and Southeast Asian solar New Year, it begs the question of a potential merging. Pierrevang3 (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I split the above (which seems to be the only attempt to answer the question) from the comment below. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Johnuniq sorry to insist, but what about the lead sentence that is obviously wrong? Pierrevang3 (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a whole page here. Why mess up this subsection where I am trying to get people to focus on one small issue at a time? Johnuniq (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Johnuniq I’m raising this question because you’ve been responsive here and not above where I tagged you about it Pierrevang3 (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A top down approach to reevaluting the article would be more straightforward. Starting with the lead is a good idea. MosheeYoshee (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss issues however and wherever you like. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Are there any other views regarding the question? Participants here should have a feeling for what the topic of the article should be. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Back-and-forth

My only concern is the fact that the article as it is now is false in many points and as such shouldn't be on wikipedia:

- Songkran isn't a Thai only word nor the first mention of it was Thai, see the dictionary of Chuon Nath [9] (gotta search at "សង្ក្រាន្ត") or the many Middle-Age Khmer inscriptions that are already mentioned in the article

- Those inscriptions were previously put to back the Thai etymology when they were in Khmer, see the inventory[10] of Khmer inscriptions of the French School of the Far East

- The mention of the Khoms is yet another case of false information in this article, see this paper[11] from the Humboldt University of Berlin

My previous point was to show that the word was a sanskrit loanword found in Khmer, Thai and Lao and that the festival was shared in many countries before being urged to put the conflicting informations in the article. It is not rocket science to see that this festival is shared in many cultures, what I am opposing are the blatantly false informations present in the article. Pierrevang3 (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• If Songkran isn't a Thai word, why does Chuon Nath dictionary lack of the term "Songkran" or "สงกรานต์" entry? I refused in case of Songkran isn't a Thai word as backed by reliable resources under the topic Songkran is NOT Khmer word. According to Diffs 1, it's obviously that you replaced the term Songkran is a Khmer word backed by only one resource, Chuon Nath dictionary, which is lack of definition of the term "Songkran" or "สงกรานต์" entry.
• Whatever Inscriptions were written in any languages, but some are located in Thailand, and they are treasure of the Fine Arts Department of Thailand, but you tried to claim them over other countries rights. I have distinguished them based on geolocation for each country section to avoid any conflicts, but now you raise it.
• You said false information based on your own POV even they are backed up by academic resources and you have never read books written by Assoc. Prof. Santi Phadeekham. Your paper did not even mention of Songkran festival nor the term Khom in Wat Sri Chum Inscription and Lanna old archives but focused on politics and government and nationalism issue. Each epigraph is also distinct too, namely inscriptions in Cambodia written as Sankranta while inscriptions in Thailand written as Sankranti. The epigraph of Phimeanakas inscription (K.291) in Cambodia is "raṅko liḥ 4 pratidina saṅkrā[nta] {N32} pūjā neḥ nai", but you replaced it to Sankranti. while I precisely wrote as Sankranta followed by its epigraph. It's obvious that you tried to distort it. What is your reason that suppose inscriptions located in Thailand belong to Cambodia?

Quantplinus (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

They were temples built during the reign of the Khmer Empire, with inscriptions left in the Khmer language, see Old Khmer, therefore the inscriptions are attributed to Cambodia. Refusing to concede that point and continuing to espouse nonsense and argue about meaningless spelling variations is not productive. MosheeYoshee (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Said by who? of those inscriptions in Thailand territory are attributed to Cambodia. Why does Phimeanakas inscription (K.291, Ind. S1, S2) written in Sanskrit rather than Khmer language? Does your statement have any backed by academic resources and contemporary evidence(s) during the reign of the Khmer Empire? and how does academic resources mention of the term Songkran?

If your resources state it clearly, I will use it for references. Quantplinus (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Match the K.number inscription to this inventory[12] of Khmer inscriptions of the French School of the Far East. The inventory has been often brought forward... Pierrevang3 (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

At this point you're being obtuse on purpose and arguing in circles. It is well known that Tai migration began around the 13th century, and the temples obviously predate Tai migration into Southeast Asia from China. Let me ask you this, if not inscribed by the Khmer then who? MosheeYoshee (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably by the mysterious "Khom", who to everyone except the Thais are the same Khmers, of course. –Turaids (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The Khmer Empire has been fallen since 1431 and being ruled by Siamese colony until 1863, ancient sites and antiques ownership have been exhausted since then until 19th century, Siem Reap was still undertaken by Siamese colony, said in Nirat Angkor Wat (Departure unto Angkor Wat) composed by famous Khmer poet, Phraya Suttantapreecha (Indara) (1859-1924) in the reign of King Rama V. see Poets. Your rights has been exhausted since the Fall of Angkor.

In present, all ancient sites located in Thailand were legally authorized to be ownership and rights for restoration and reconstruction in accordance with the SEATO Treaty i.e. Pimai was undertaken with the assistance of a French architect supplied under the SEATO Cultural Programme grant under Dr. B. Groslier between the Fine Arts University under Prof. H.R.H. Prince Yachai Chitrabhongse. see The SEATO Report (1971), p.14..

The U.S. Department of State has stated "Pimai is called the Angkor Wat of Thailand." in Thailand: post report, p.13. The U.S. Metropolitan Museum of Art (MET) set to return King Jayavarman VI statue (Golden Boy), who built the Phimai temple to Thailand in May 2024. see News. All ancient sites in the past located in Thailand even built by other ethnics, officially became of Thailand not Cambodia nowadays by Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). Wake up from your fantasy and get real! or you can try to access to ancient sites in Thailand with single Cambodia ID Card, jails are welcome 24/7/365.

The term Khom exists according to a recent discovery of Khom inscription (before 12th century) at the Bagan Archaeological Zone in Myanmar by Myint Hsan Heart, the Research of the Burmese scholar. Please update your knowledge. Quantplinus (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a lot of unnecessary repetition just to say "Their temples are Thai, because Thailand legally owns them now!" (the second part of which no one is even disputing) The only problem with legal ownership is that it has nothing to do with culture or linguistics. –Turaids (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The real point is they removed them when I cited inscriptions located in Thailand under Thailand section (which can be cited together both Cambodia and Thailand). They exclusively those inscriptions belong to Cambodia only. Do you get to the point?

Especially, the issue of the term Songkran, which is proper noun (Ref 1., Ref 2. p.3, Ref 3. p. 12.), but it was repeatedly edited to "Songkran is a Khmer word that refers to the Cambodian New Year." with no backed by secondary referencing. Hope you understand the same page. Quantplinus (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

If those inscriptions are found in temples built by the Khmer Empire and are written in Old Khmer, then both culturally and linguistically they are Khmer even if geographically they are now located within the legally recognized borders of modern-day Thailand. Instead of writing "Songkran is a Khmer word that refers to the Cambodian New Year." I would write, "In Khmer [language], songkran refers to the Cambodian New Year." Instead of writing "The word Songkran or Songkrant (outdated Thai form), is also a Thai word or Siamese word, as contractive word in Thai forms of Sangkran (sim kranti), which derived from the Sanskrit word" I would write "In Thai [language], Songkran or Songkrant (outdated form) is a contractive form of Sangkran (sim kranti), which itself is a borrowing from Sanskrit saṅkrānti" to avoid any unnecessary connotations. –Turaids (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this wording, it's neutral and provides etymological value. MosheeYoshee (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Turaids No Songkran in Khmer language, it explicitly spelled as SANGKRAN as the following resources,

• Maha Sankran Ref #1 Ref #2
• Mahasang Krane Ref #3
• Angkor Sangkran Ref #4
• Moha Sangkran Ref #5.

There is no SONGKRAN entry in English-Khmer Dictionary Ref #6 Ref #7.

Don't confuse between letters SA- and SO- Quantplinus (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Additional FYI,

In Bulletin Mensuel (1966) p. 7 said: — Samdech Sahachivln Chef de l'Etat a présidé, au Palais Royal, la cérémonie dite « Phean Yeak », cérémonie de la fête du « Trâs Sangkran ». Ref #1. The term Phean Yeak is the Royal festivals and ceremonies in Cambodia. (explicit syllable: SANGKRAN)

And Cambodian New Year called Chaul Chhnam Ref #2. (by Marie Laure de Saint-Rémy in 1970).

Siamese New Year called Songkran Ref #3 (by Engelbert Kaempfer in 1690). Quantplinus (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Again with this nonsense, how is spelling in a foreign language supposed to mean anything? MosheeYoshee (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Technically there's neither the word "sangkran" nor "songkran" in Khmer, because it doesn't use the Latin alphabet. Just like you provided resources that spell it as "sangkran", other editors already provided resources that also spell it as "songkran". As a native speaker of Thai, surely you must know how romanization works and how it can yield slight variations in spelling. –Turaids (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Myint Hsan Heart's 'research' is speculation. Seems like you're just spouting nationalist rhetoric you've seen on Facebook where Khom supposedly means Thai, when that is not the case and hilarious to think so. Again I will point you towards Peopling of Thailand, as Tai speaking peoples did not start filtering into Southeast Asia until the 13th century due to Mongol invasions and conquests. MosheeYoshee (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

You knew better than the scholar by own perspective. Are you haven't fun enough for dancing around the subject yet?

How did you know that I have seen it on Facebook? It seems you saw often in Facebook by yourself then said so other people would do too. How nice putting own thoughts into other head you are.

I never cited anything here using social platforms as academic resources which are places of misleading information. Quantplinus (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Citing Mying Hsan Heart is a common approach by Thai netizens on Facebook, I'm sure you're aware. MosheeYoshee (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention that Cambodia was never a colony of Siam like Thai people like to say. There were no Thai colonizers moving into Cambodia, there was no direct rule from Bangkok. You are confusing colonization with suzerainty. MosheeYoshee (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

ARTICLE 1. The Siamese Government cedes to France the territories of Battambong, Siemreap. and Srisophon, the frontiers of which are deflned by Section I of the protocol of delimitation annexed hereto. Ref 1 Ref 2 [...]

Signed by V. COLLIN and DEVAWONGSE VAPOKRAKAR in the report of The U.S. Dept. of State and the Great Britain Parliament. Quantplinus (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hilarious. Ceding border territories does not mean colonization. MosheeYoshee (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It is a khmer dictionary, why would you search for an entry in thai or english?

The Chuon Nath dictionary is the reference dictionary in Khmer language. For the umpteenth time, nobody is saying songkran isn't a thai word, be focused and read carefully, it's not ONLY thai. Pierrevang3 (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

There are the term Songkran entry in other languages dictionaries precisely denote to Thai,

• Japanese Dictionary: ソンクラーン (noun). Thai New Year - From Thai "songkran".
• Chinese Dictionary: Songkran. (Thai New Year/Thai New Year festival).
• Oxford English Dictionary: Songkran (noun). The festival of the Thai New Year, characterized by various observances involving the pouring or splashing of water. [from 1727-]
• Latin/English/French Dictionary: Songkran by Jean-Baptiste Pallegoix
• Thai-English Dictionary: สงกรานต์ (noun).

However, you said the word Songkran is Khmer word in Diffs 1, Diffs 2.

What's the reason you tried to own the term Songkran even if there is no entry in Khmer dictionary? That's just simply insufficient proof. No proof, exactly.

Get real! the term Songkran is a Thai word backed by 10 various academic references under the topic Talk:Songkran is NOT Khmer word. Quantplinus (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 May 2024

There is misnested italic markup in reference #48 in the "Thailand" subsection.

Please change:

* [https://www.oed.com/dictionary/songkran_n?tab=meaning_and_use#190072726 "Songkran" (noun) in ''Oxford English Dictionary (Online)]''.

to

* [https://www.oed.com/dictionary/songkran_n?tab=meaning_and_use#190072726 "Songkran" (noun) in ''Oxford English Dictionary (Online)''].

Thanks —Bruce1ee^talk 00:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)