Talk:Lan Xang

Etymology

It seems obvious that the name Lan Xang is derived from a former pronunciation of 萬象 in some Sinitic language.

While I don't know whether this is the actual etymology confirmed by scientific means, or whether it is a popular etymology, I think it should be mentioned in the article either way. Please add information if you know more about this. Wikipeditor 00:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about it, perhaps it is the other way round and the Chinese 象 comes from a South East Asian word, and lan may be totally unrelated to 萬. Wikipeditor 18:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I’m removing the reference since it’s unclear what relationship there is (if any) between ລ້ານຊ້າງ and 萬象. At the moment it implies the term is derived from Chinese which seems unlikely. If anyone has something more concrete to add, here’s what I’m removing...

, from Sinitic 萬象 "vast number of elephants"

☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Statements needing clarification

Muang Sua was the first kingdom established by the Tai in Khmer territory.

The Muang Sua article seems to imply it was taken from the king of Nanzhao, not the Khmer.

The next six years (1362-68), however, were troubled by religious conflict between Fa Ngum's lamaistic Buddhism and the region's traditional Theravada Buddhism. He severely repressed popular agitation that had anti-Mongol overtones and had many pagodas torn down.

"Lamaistic" sounds like a dubious term for Mahayana. The Fa Ngum article simply concludes...

Fa Ngum introduced Theravada Buddhism into the area.

☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 18:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert: 10:21, 25 June 2008

Before making a drastic change to the text that conflicts with the primary source, please provide some sources yourself. Logging in might be nice too. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 00:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverting anon edit of 1 November 2009

Someone added this to the References section on 1 November. 17 days later, someone else made some minor fixes. But clearly it's completely unencyclopedic, and needs to be removed, so I'm doing that. Here's the removed content:

The one from Wiki about Lan Xang is more like a siamese propaganda version. There are so many mistakes in the article.

1/ In 1359 the Khmer king gave the Pra Bang to his son-in-law, the first Lan Xang monarch Fa Ngum (1353-1373). His Khmer wife was instrumental in welcoming a religious and artistic mission that brought with it a statue of the Buddha, the Phra Bang, Not his Ayutthaya wife. In 1368 Fa Ngum's Khmer wife died.

2/ Oun Heuan Fah Ngum's son, Half Khmer/Lao changed his name to Samsenthai (300 thousands thai), Samsenthai never paid tribune to Ayuttaya. Laos lanxang was in its strongest period. 300 years later when Lanxang was in declined, that when tribune started.

3/ True, that The kingdom, made up of Lao, Thai, and various ethnic hill tribes, lasted in its approximate borders for another 300 years and briefly reached an even greater extent in the northwest.

4/ True, Fa Ngum's descendants remained on the throne at Luang Prabang for almost 600 years after his death, maintaining the independence of Lan Xang to the end of the 17th century through a complex network of vassal relations with lesser princes. At the same time, these rulers fought off invasions from Vietnam (1478-79), Siam (1536), and Burma (1571-1621).

Some of the editor's points seem valid, and someone with more knowledge should make an effort to find citations and improve the article accordingly. But adding an argument against the wikipedia article to the References section of the article is obviously not the way to do it. --99.50.122.183 (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative transliterations Lan Sang and Lane Sang derive from rules for romanization of Lao:

Consider moving paragraph on rules for romanization from lede to Notes section of McCarthy's account. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Edited and moved to ref group="note". --Pawyilee (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)