Talk:Preah Vihear Temple

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why have Prasat in the title? 

message: Prasart or no Prasart, it should be in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.136.71.55 (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prasat Preah Vihear 

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

message: * 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 --125.24.54.76 (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: 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 203.126.136.220 (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my book (Vittorio Roveda: Preah Vihear - ปราสาทเขาพระวิหาร. River Books, Bangkok 2000, ) it is Shiva, who is fighting Arjuna. Who is right? --hdamm (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Krishna fighting Arjuna 

message: Bold text just removed. Was it correct?
Badagnani (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To evaluate 

message: Why doesn't เขา appear in the Thai  name in the Thai Wikipedia article? Badagnani (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The เขา doesn't seem to be accidental; [] 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. 81.31.3.226 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  เขา 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The default size shows up as miniscule, near-microscopic text that is entirely illegible. Badagnani (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Image of Khmer 

message: See . Badagnani (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature comment mentioned in the media 

message: 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.89.96.100.247 (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distances 

message: 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)
thread_title: 2000 boundary MOU

message: I have qualms about the map used on this page, see here: .  TuckerResearch (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Preah Vihear Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100306174104/http://www.devata.org:80/2010/02/google-map-mistake-at-cambodian-temple-preah-vihear/ to http://www.devata.org/2010/02/google-map-mistake-at-cambodian-temple-preah-vihear/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Split this article

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing reference 

message: 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/08/america/NA-Canada-Thailand-Cambodia-Temple.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thai-anger-as-disputed-cambodian-temple-wins-heritage-status-862974.html
*Added  tag to http://www.sfexaminer.com/news/2011/07/un-court-draws-dmz-thai-cambodia-troops
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111173337/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/151/17704.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/151/17704.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: A new article, Preah Vihear dispute, has been started by User:Horus. I suggest that most of the coverage about the dispute in this article, including the 1962 ICJ case and the 2008 request for clarification, should be moved there. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Johncdraper (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

text: In addition to this article itself, there are at least one other article Cambodian–Thai border dispute and 3 redirects, all with links to :Category:International Court of Justice cases at some point. The 3 redirects are Preah Vihear dispute – Request for Interpretation of the Temple of Preah Vihear Case – Temple of Preah Vihear case; all redirect to Preah Vihear Temple but probably should better to Cambodian–Thai border dispute. As the dispute has been brought before the ICJ twice (1963 and 2013), we need to be careful how we clean up this mess if we decide to do so. – Kaihsu (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split content about dispute 

message: It appears the opposite was done by User:Reywas92, who merged the content here in July 2022. It was probably the best short-term solution, since the dispute article was underdeveloped, though I still think that the ultimate goal should be reworking the dispute into a proper separate article. I'm not currently prepared to undertake such a project, though. Just leaving it here for now. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to this article itself, there are at least one other article Cambodian–Thai border dispute and 3 redirects, all with links to :Category:International Court of Justice cases at some point. The 3 redirects are Preah Vihear dispute – Request for Interpretation of the Temple of Preah Vihear Case – Temple of Preah Vihear case; all redirect to Preah Vihear Temple but probably should better to Cambodian–Thai border dispute. As the dispute has been brought before the ICJ twice (1963 and 2013), we need to be careful how we clean up this mess if we decide to do so. – Kaihsu (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: 2023

message: Why is this section's neutrality being disputed? Jarble (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute