Talk:Salavan province
 | A fact from Salavan province appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 January 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Kengthan Incomplete Primary School
editAn internet comic strip <xkcd.com> raised money to construct The Kengthan Incomplete Primary School in Laos Salavan Province on Road No. 13 South. To see pix, go to http://blog.xkcd.com/ and scroll down to
Speaking of which, here are pictures of the xkcd school nearing completion in Laos: --Pawyilee (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Numbers
editDo the numbers denote postcode? They seem to be out be one (ref: www.addressdoctor.com) any thoughts? 129.78.220.7 (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Khmer people
edit@Pierrevang3 I understand. Actually it has not any reliable source on the "Khom people". But why did you edit it to only Khmers? According to many sources that I find, it was Mon-Khmer people (Cham), not only Khmers who settled during that time and the province was inhabited by various indigenous tribes. (You can see this [1][2]) --Supakit prem (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! I simply modified Khom to only Khmer because the previous text went like this "a Mon-Khmer group, the Khom people established settlements". So the original text, which I did not write, refers to only one ethnic Mon-Khmer group which is the Khom. And Khom is a Thai term that refer to the Khmer and is used now, following the works of Thai fascist thinker Luang Wichitwatakan, as an umbrella term for anything Khmer that Thai nationalist spheres do not want it to be Khmer.
- Regarding your second remark it might true and if it’s the case then it is legitimate to mention it but there is a problem: the Cham are not Mon-Khmer but rather Austronesian. So the source appears therefore not to be reliable.
- As for the fact that the province was inhabited by multiple indegenous tribes, I think it can be added along the original statement mentioning the Khmers, which is to be kept as it includes a precise date contrary to the source referring to the indigenous tribes. Pierrevang3 (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Concerning your reply I still be not sure about you said "[…] the Khmers, which is to be kept as it includes a precise date contrary to the source referring to the indigenous tribes." What precise? Is there the evidence that you can precisely verify that the Khmers settled during that time? If you found it, please send the source into this talk.
- Yours Sincerely --Supakit prem (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Like I said, I did not write the original text, I replaced the word Khom with the exact terminology.
- I’m just against putting back the word "Khom". Pierrevang3 (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- That said, I suppose the source linked in the wikipedia article would include this fact, but I can’t open it sadly Pierrevang3 (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)