Talk:Si Thep Historical Park

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2023
Wranyu (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No rationale provided for content removal.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  12:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2023
I request to edit back the original and correct information regarding Si Tep National Park and its architecture which has been evidently and intentionally edited not long ago on the 22nd September 2023 to mislead readers with false information on the architectural style of Si Tep which has been accepted, acknowledged, and officially considered by UNESCO as a world heritage site of Hmon ethnicity and culture of Dvaravati period in which the beginning periods has no connection or correllation to Khmer whatsoever.

In the columm with the picture of Prang Si Tep 'Prang Si Tep, built in Khmer architectural style in the late Dvaravati period around 12th century' -Delete 'built in Khmer architectural style'

Under 'Architectural Style' Dvaravati,Khmer -change to= Dvaravati Kent Anderson2547 (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Kent Anderson2547 (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

p. 25:"Around the 10th – 11th Century AD, the Dvaravati culture1 began to decline in Si Thep as the Khmer political power became influential in the area of the lower North-eastern and Central Thailand. During this time, the Khmer culture was accepted and adopted as seen from a number of large Hindu monasteries found at Si Thep."p.32:"Some original buildings in this area were demolished to construct new monasteries in the Khmer culture, including Prang Si Thep, the wall and the Gopura."p.60:"The Dvaravati culture eventually deteriorated and ended during the 11th Century AD as a result of a growing influence of the ancient Khmer culture across the region at that time. Between the 7th and 13th Century AD, the Khmer culture was also adopted at Si Thep as evidenced in large Hindu monasteries built, notably Prang Si Thep and Prang Song Phi Nong."p.139:"Prang Si Thep was influenced by the Khmer architectural form."You're clearly following the Khmer denialism based in mid-20th century Thai history writing, which is unfortunately still being spun by ultranationalist groups. This has no place in current academic circles. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:. Spare us the nationalistic drivel, please, and read the World Heritage nomination. For your convenience, here are some quotes.
 * You proved my point on this, Si Tep and Mon culture in Dvaravati came before Khmer and overtime declined then after its decline Khmer would THEN have influenced Si Tep but it wasn’t the founding culture of Si Tep which is of the Mon people, again proving my point that the beginning Khmer didn’t even exist until the late Dvaravati period which proves it be impossible for Khmer to have influenced the original founding period of Si Tep. If anything, you would care explain the sudden changes of information, adding Khmer influences into the equation concluding all of Si Tep was built in Khmer style which are against the facts and timelines in the past 22nd of this month. Literally every single information found that is not written by a Cambodian source claims Dvaravati/Mon in fact was of their own culture and Khmer became of influence later in the decline.
 * ‘some -original buildings- were demolished to construct new monasteries in Khmer culture’
 * This is the quote you copied from the World Heritage Nomination site, isn’t this obvious enough that Khmer was not the founding or original culture/architectural style of Si Tep but merely an aftermath of Dvaravati’s decline.
 * ’Around the 10th – 11th Century AD, the Dvaravati culture1 began to decline in Si Thep as the Khmer political power became influential in the area’
 * Your very first one, proving my point once again.
 * Stop pretending that Khmer was first in everything, owned everything, if anything you spare me your nationalistic pride, stop handpicking slices of information that suits your beliefs and start looking for sources of information that’s REAL.
 * Fancy language doesn’t prove you right, Mr. Paul Kent Anderson2547 (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you agree with the facts then I'm not sure what the problem is that you think needs fixing? --Paul_012 (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How about this: let's switch the infobox image to feature Khao Klang Nok instead, as it's more representative of the site's archaeological value as a representation of Dvaravati culture. I think this is the point you found issue with? --Paul_012 (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would strongly agree to that. Thank you. I just wish it would be more accurate in terms of Dvaravati culture/Mon culture. Thank you again, Paul. 2001:44C8:451B:D161:1:0:8CCD:B1EE (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)