Talk:Preah Vihear

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Gopura V at Preah Vihear temple.jpg
• Landscape of Preah Vihear temple.jpg
• Preah Vihear 1.jpg
• Preah Vihear temple 1.jpg
• Preah Vihear temple 10.jpg
• Preah Vihear temple 11.jpg
• Preah Vihear temple 12.jpg
• Preah Vihear temple 13.jpg
• Preah Vihear temple 14.jpg
• Preah Vihear temple 15.jpg
• Preah Vihear temple 3.jpg
• Preah Vihear temple 4.jpg
• Preah Vihear temple 5.jpg
• Preah Vihear temple 6.jpg
• Preah Vihear temple 7.jpg
• Preah Vihear temple 8.jpg
• Preah Vihear temple 9.jpg
• Preah Vihear temple.jpg
• Preah Vihear temple2.jpg
• Preah vihear temple 2.jpg
• Sun set at Preah Vihear temple.jpg
• Sunrise at Preah Vihear temple.jpg
• ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ១១.jpg
• ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ១២.jpg
• ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ១៣.jpg
• ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ១៤.jpg
• ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ១៥.jpg
• ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ១៦.jpg
• ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ១៧.jpg
• ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ១៨.jpg
• ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ១៩.jpg
• ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ២០.jpg
• ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ២១.jpg
• ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ២២.jpg
• ប្រាសាទមានសក់.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Split content about dispute

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)

Agree. Johncdraper (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

2023

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)

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)

2025

I've created an overview article for the dispute at Cambodian–Thai border dispute and merged Horus' version there. More of the content currently in this article could be moved there too. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

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

Requested move 24 July 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Although some debate took place on whether the temple should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Preah Vihear" alone, the evidence that was marshaled in the discussion heavily leaned toward the temple having achieved that status, leading me to see consensus for this proposal. Other arguments such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT further bolstered the strength of argument in favor of the move. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

---

• Preah Vihear Temple → Preah Vihear
• Preah Vihear → Preah Vihear (disambiguation)

– Preah Vihear is the WP:COMMONNAME. Google Ngram shows that "Preah Vihear" is tens of times more frequent than "Preah Vihear Temple" (or "Prasat Preah Vihear"). "Temple of Preah Vihear" is relatively frequent but just "Preah Vihear" without a qualifier is clearly the single most common version. The Khmer word "vihear" already denotes a sanctuary/spiritual abode which is arguably a more particular meaning than the broad "temple", so appending that generic qualifier is pleonastic and diluting. A look at articles in Category:Angkorian sites (and its subcats) shows a predominant practice of omitting generic architectural qualifiers such as "temple" or "Prasat" (a minority include "Prasat" however, which is caused by the influence of official naming, but they are still in the minority and should probably be moved as well). Therefore, "Preah Vihear" is WP:CONSISTENT among Angkorian temples such as Bayon (not Bayon Temple/Prasat Bayon), Banteay Srei (not Banteay Srei Temple/Prasat Banteay Srei), Pre Rup (not Pre Rup Temple/Prasat Pre Rup), or Chau Say Tevoda (not Chau Say Tevoda Temple/Prasat Chau Say Tevoda). Preah Vihear the temple is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in relation to the settlement and the provice and a natural disambiguator is not needed. It should occupy the title of the current disambiguation page, and the disambiguation page should become "Preah Vihear (disambiguation)". —Alalch E. 16:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, for consistency with Prasat Ta Muen Thom, if nothing else. Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

How is the proposal consistent with Prasat Ta Muen Thom? It's not suggesting to rename to Prasat Preah Vihear. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

O, sorry, my mistake. But we can rename Prasat Ta Muen Thom to Ta Muen Thom, or rename Preah Vihear Temple to Prasat Preah Vihear. Smeagol 17 (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

We can also rename Temple Expiatori del Sagrat Cor to Sagrat Cor, or rename Sagrada Família to Basílica i Temple Expiatori de la Sagrada Família. "Preah Vihear Temple" is like "Sagrada Família Temple". —Alalch E. 23:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Support per nomination. ZXCV JJKI (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Support. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment does the existence of Preah Vihear province muddle how common the name is ? Technetium 99m (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

No, and it got its name from the temple. —Alalch E. 14:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Support - agree with nom Asteramellus (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• Partial support for moving Preah Vihear to Preah Vihear (disambiguation), and redirecting Preah Vihear to the temple as the primary topic. Oppose moving Preah Vihear Temple to Preah Vihear, as I find it more natural to include some sort of descriptor, be it temple or prasat, in the title, which more readily identifies the topic to the reader. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC), edited 03:19, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: Preah Vihear province should redirect to Preah Vihear if anything. - From, a Cambodian. TansoShoshen (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

But we have a guideline on this. It doesn't come down to how you feel about it as a Cambodian. No doubt the province is important in the context of day to day life in Cambodia, but in the context of English Wikipedia and writing for a global audience, the temple qualifies as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Preah Vihear" under both criteria established by the guideline. Regarding usage globally, the temple is much more likely than any other single topic, such as the province, and more likely than all other topics combined, to be the subject sought when a user searches for "Preah Vihear". On Wikipedia specifically, this is demonstrated by the pageviews (the temple has more than 10x more). When English-language sources contain "Preah Vihear", that almost invariably refers to the temple, and the volume and frequency of coverage of the Temple relative to the province is incomparable. Look at Google Books for example: In any 10 books that mention "Preah Vihear", you will find typically zero that are referring to the administrative division; the few that mention it don't refer to it using the unqualified "Preah Vihear" (but as "Preah Vihear province" or similar). Regarding long-term significance, the temple possesses drastically greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with the term. This is evidenced by its UNESCO World Heritage designation, its 11th-century origins, it being a significant tourist attraction as a well-know example of Khmer architecture, and its importance in modern history of Cambodia and Thailand. The province, as a modern administrative division, lacks comparable educational relevance or any historical resonance. Cambodia named this province, which neighbors Thailand, "Preah Vihear" after the temple, in 1964, for nationalist reasons, to celebrate the 1962 ICJ decision which affirmed Cambodia's sovereignty over Preah Vihear, and to continue to assert the Cambodianness of the temple and the surrounding territory, which have remained disputed to this day. As the guideline notes, a topic primary in usage is often primary in long-term significance. And the temple satisfies both conditions decisively.—Alalch E. 13:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Alalch E. I am aware of Wikipedia's policy, but honestly, looking at Google Trends data, there's WP:NOPRIMARY. I'm not yet convinced that the majority of global audiences would think of Preah Vihear the temple more than Preah Vihear the province, even in regards to current events. TansoShoshen (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

That's WP:CIRCULAR: Google Trends pulls Google Knowledge Graph entities as the Topics, which in turn may inherit labels from Wikipedia and Wikidata... as is clearly the case here: The English Wikipedia article title "Preah Vihear Temple" was copied verbatim into the Wikidata item's name, and Google adopted that exact string as its KG label. Absent this, the KG label would've been whatever is the most natural and frequent usage, and "Preah Vihear Temple" is clearly not that. As a result, unqualified searches for "Preah Vihear" get split between "Preah Vihear Temple" and "Preah Vihear Province". Due to this imposed unnatural disambiguation, the entity‐resolution does a poor job at guessing, because it is over-skeptical of "Preah Vihear" meaning Preah Vihear and overfits to the over-disambiguated entity labels, wanting to see the word "Temple" or other highly specifying additions to the query such as architecture or UNESCO, etc., to be confident it's the temple. So while queries like "Preah Vihear architecture" and "Preah Vihear governor" would be correctly grouped with the temple and the province respectively, the algorithm fails to consolidate only-"Preah Vihear" queries, partially scattering them as noise. It doesn't discount but does heavily disfavor the simple scenario of a "Preah Vihear" query targeting the temple. The temple still comes out at the top, but not by a wide enough margin. Because "Preah Vihear" is by far the most common query, that mis‐grouping makes the charts for the temple and the province graphs suspiciously similar, which obviously contradicts actual source frequency. So we are dealing with a legitimate feedback loop in this RM: Wikipedia's inclusion of "... Temple" (seen as a WP:NATDAB, no matter how incorrect) influences the KG entity label, which then biases Trends topic grouping, ultimately causing humans on Wikipedia to believe that there is greater ambiguity than there is really is and to misapply WP:NOPRIMARY. —Alalch E. 18:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, it should remain as to minimise confusion PlebeianTribune (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose obviously Preah Vihear in Google nGram is biased because it also encompasses the town and province. Perhaps you should look at other encyclopedias? Those who are supporting per nom are likely not informed of this matter. 🇪🇭 Easternsahara U T C 16:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look at Britannica: "Suryavarman extended the Khmer empire westward into present-day Thailand, where he constructed the large mountaintop temple known as Preah Vihear." (link)

WikiNav, June 2025: 21k for the temple, 2.6k for the province. (, )

Pageviews now: 160,622 for the temple, 7,234 for the province. —Alalch E. 02:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Support. per nomination. Consistency (with other pages/sites) and it's what it's called (locally). PsamatheM (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

What it's called locally would be Prasat Preah Vihear in Khmer or Prasat Phra Wihan in Thai. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

When I went there locals were all just calling it Preah Vihear. But I'd support a proposal Preah Vihear Temple -> Prasat Preah Vihear but my interpretation is that's not what's proposed. I don't have experience of such change proposals but switching to Prasat Preah Vihear would seem to address some of the reasons given for "Oppose" contributions above. (nb when I visited no tourists, just some locals, few monks and fair number of military personnel)PsamatheM (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Banteay Srei appears to be "Prasat Banteay Srei" in official Cambodian usage, but in English-language sources it is most commonly referred to as "Banteay Srei", and, therefore, the English Wikipedia article is titled Banteay Srei. —Alalch E. 20:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hindu temple

Preah Vihear is Hindu temple built for the god Shiva, a Hindu god. This is documented on UNESCO's website on Preah Vihear.

-UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (n.d.). Temple of Preah Vihear. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1224/

It is not a Buddhist temple built for Buddha. It is a Hindu temple built for Shiva.

Wikipedia should establish notability in the first paragraph. Why is this temple relevant? It is relevant because it is a UNESCO World Heritage Site of Cambodia.

SouthHaven1990 (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

SouthHaven1990, I'm finding your arguments less than convincing. Firstly, the article (and its sources) explain the fact that, while the temple was originally Hindu, as Cambodia became a Buddhist nation, its temples were converted to Buddhist worship. Please explain which part of this you may be disputing.

Additionally, the lede (first paragraph) clearly mentions UNESCO status, so again, I'm not sure what your quibble is about. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)