Talk:Songket

First line

The first line of this article contains a miss-conception about songket: in songket, cotton or silk threads are not necessarily woven with gold and silver supplementary weft, as those can be of cotton and silver themselves. The more general characteristic is that the supplementary thread is of another color than the main one.

Pwjohnson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2021

Songket is a fabric that belongs to the brocade family of textiles of the Malay world Indonesia It is hand-woven in silk or cotton, and intricately patterned with gold or silver threads.[4] The metallic threads stand out against the background cloth to create a shimmering effect. In the weaving process the metallic threads are inserted in between the silk or cotton weft (latitudinal) threads in a technique called supplementary weft weaving technique.[5]

Songket Bamboofabric.png A typical Minangkabau songket, the pattern in the lower third representing bamboo sprouts Type Art Fabric Material silk, cotton, gold, silver Place of origin Palembang (mainly and originally)[1][2], Maritime Southeast Asia[3] Manufacturer Indonesia Songket UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage <<Country Indonesia>> Domains Traditional craftsmanship Reference 01505 Region Asia and the Pacific Inscription history Inscription 2021 (16th session) List Representative List Unesco Cultural Heritage logo.svg Songket is often associated with the Srivijaya Empire as the origin of the songket tradition, several types of popular Songket can not be separated from locations that were once under Srivijaya rule, one of the dominant locations which is also believed to be the capital of the Srivijaya Empire in the past, namely Palembang, which located in South Sumatra. Besides Palembang, several areas in Sumatra are also the best-in-class Songket producing locations, which include areas in Minangkabau or West Sumatra such as Pandai Sikek, Silungkang, Koto Gadang, and Padang. Outside of Sumatra, songket is also produced by regions such as Bali, Lombok, Sambas, Sumba, Makassar, Sulawesi, and other areas in Indonesia.

Due to the historical factors of the Srivijaya Empire, trade, and mixed marriages, Songket has also become popular in the Maritime Southeast Asia region, especially in countries around Indonesia

Based on the analysis conducted on the statues at the Bumiayu Site, South Sumatra, it can be seen that songket has been worn by the people of South Sumatra since the 7th century AD, when Srivijaya was based in Palembang. This statue was found at the Bumiayu Temple Archaeological Site which is located on the downstream bank of Lematang River which empties into Musi River, precisely in Tanah Abang District, Penukal Abab Lematang Ilir district approximately 120 km to the west of Palembang City.

In Indonesia, five songket traditions are recognised as Intangible Cultural Heritage by the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture.[6] They are songket traditions of Palembang[7] and Sambas,[8] both appointed in 2013; Pandai Sikek songket of West Sumatra,[9] appointed in 2014; songket tradition of Beratan, Bali appointed in 2018;[10] and Silungkang songket tradition of West Sumatra, appointed in 2019.[11] In 2021, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) officially recognized Songket Malaysia as a Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afriz 62 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2021 (2)

SONGKET FROM INDONESIA THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afriz 62 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2021 (3)

Songket

A typical Minangkabau songket, the pattern in the lower third representing bamboo sprouts
Type	Art Fabric
Material	silk, cotton, gold, silver
Place of origin	Palembang (mainly and originally), Maritime Southeast Asia
Manufacturer	Indonesia

Songket
UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage
Country	Indonesia
Domains	Traditional craftsmanship
Reference	01505
Region	Asia and the Pacific
Inscription history
Inscription	2021 (16th session)
List	Representative List

Songket is a fabric that belongs to the brocade family of textiles of the Malay world (today, Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore). It is hand-woven in silk or cotton, and intricately patterned with gold or silver threads. The metallic threads stand out against the background cloth to create a shimmering effect. In the weaving process the metallic threads are inserted in between the silk or cotton weft (latitudinal) threads in a technique called supplementary weft weaving technique.

Songket is often associated with the Srivijaya Empire as the origin of the songket tradition, several types of popular Songket can not be separated from locations that were once under Srivijaya rule, one of the dominant locations which is also believed to be the capital of the Srivijaya Empire in the past, namely Palembang, which located in South Sumatra. Besides Palembang, several areas in Sumatra are also the best-in-class Songket producing locations, which include areas in Minangkabau or West Sumatra such as Pandai Sikek, Silungkang, Koto Gadang, and Padang. Outside of Sumatra, songket is also produced by regions such as Bali, Lombok, Sambas, Sumba, Makassar, Sulawesi, and other areas in Indonesia.

References

No proof it originated from Palembang

There is no proof whatsoever that Songket originated from Palembang. Researchers have concluded that Srivijayan era clothings are called Kebaya not Songket, please edit back the origin of Songket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.238.10 (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

https://southsumatratourism.com/2021/02/18/songket-at-bumiayu-temple-arca/ Ckfasdf (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Bumiayu Is not a Songket

Bumiayu is not a proof that it is a songket, give me a strong academic evidence that it originated from Palembang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaysianwarrior1957 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is an academic article on The History of Songket Based on Archaeological Data, written by Retno Purwanti and Sondang M. Siregar from South Sumatra Archaological Office (Balai Arkeologi Sumatera Selatan). This archaeological academic paper suggests that "based on archaeological data, it can be seen that songket has been known by the people of South Sumatra since the 9th century AD, as seen in the statues from Bumiayu. At that time songket was only used by the nobility, as seen from the statues which were probably the embodiment of a king. The use of songket only in the upper classes continued until the sultanate from the 16th to 19th centuries AD. After During the collapse of the sultanate, songket began to spread among non-aristocrats. The evidence for the existence of songket limited to the motifs found on the vest worn by Figure 1 at the Bumiayu temple complex site, Pali Regency. The use of this vest was also popular during the Palembang sultanate and was only worn by the nobility. The use of the vest in Figure 1 with the lepus motif shows the continuity of the use of the lepus motif for the nobility that has been around since the 9th century AD". You're welcome. Gunkarta  talk  12:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

PikiranHati keeps vandalizing Songket article

I request this page should be protected from further vandalism from PikiranHati in order to stir up tensions between Malaysia and Indonesia. We should keep the article neutral of any sort of political motives Tellisavas (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Tellisavas

Refer to latest edit-warring on songket origin today (16 October 2022) and since similar edit warring was also happened in the past. Please find below is the summary of disputed origin claim:

In short there are two origin claim, which are:

1. Palembang origin claim by several editor (including PikiranHati and myself)
2. Langkasuka origin claim by Tellisavas

Palembang origin claim is based on publication titled "The History of Songket Based on Archaeological Data" which is published in Siddhayatra’s Journal, Volume 21, No. 2, page 97-106, November 2016. That publication states that there are 8th century relic/statue that was found at the archaeological site of Bumiayu temple (near present-day Palembang). Those statues wear songket patterned cloth, therefore it becomes the oldest evidence of the use & existence of songket cloth in Sumatra and the archipelago. Siddhayatra journal itself is a peer-reviewed journal of archaeological as stated by Southeast Asian Archaeology.

Langkasuka origin claim is based on two books, which are "Songket Revolution" by Noor Azlina Yunus and "Strengthening Local Knowledge Towards Globalization Issues And Practices" by Mohamad Rashidi Pakri, Nurul Farhana Low Abdullah, Salasiah Che Lah. Unfortunately I couldn't find online/pdf version of "Songket Revoulution", So I cannot really find that this book said on the origin of Songket. However this book is published by Yayasan Tuanku Nur Zahirah, a foundation dedicated to promote Malaysian heritage, therefore there is a possible bias on this book and it lacks peer-review.

The second book "Strengthening Local Knowledge Towards Globalization Issues And Practices" didn't have the same issue as the first book as it was published by USM (somewhat reputable publisher). The issue on this book are it didn't really specify when Songket started to be used, it did state that Songket is used in wedding based on Malay Annals, it also mentioned that application of silver/gold thread on clothing is started in 13th century at earliest. Lastly, there is not even a singe word mentioning of "Langkasuka" on this book.

Refer to WP:SOURCE, If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science. Therefore, I don't really see why you should dispute peer-reviewed publication and replace it with 'lower' quality source. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes and your resource is from people with no academic credibility. Tellisavas (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tellisavas: If you claimed that Siddhayatra journal don't have academic credibility then you have to explain it why and provide proof. See WP:BURDEN. For example, if Siddhayatra is included in list of Predatory publishing then it can not be used. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no credible evidence that Bumiayu carvings are Songket nor does it mention in any sources that Bumiayu carvings are Songket while there many sources that Songket has a long history in the Malay Peninsula. Please state your evidence and a from a neutral perspective. Tellisavas (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tellisavas: The same can be said to your source "Songket Revolution" by Noor Azlina Yunus, as it was is published by Yayasan Tuanku Nur Zahirah, a foundation dedicated to promote Malaysian heritage, mainly Songket. And that book is not even a academic publication with peer-reviewed. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Same in terms of what? Can you give me literary evidences of your claim? One statue with ambiguous history cannot be considered an ultimate proof that it originates in Sumatra. Do you have any other evidences which suggests that Songket originated in Sumatra? And when does the word Songket first used? Think about it, the distance between Bumiayu and Silungkang Songket is 800 years. Where are those Songkets within those timeline? Tellisavas (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

At least what was written by Noor Azlina Yunus was based on neutral sources with dates and names mentioned. Where is Bumiayu? Who created it? What is the name of the person who created the Songket? What are the meanings behind those floral motifs? Tellisavas (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Yayasan Tuanku Nur Zahirah is a foundation dedicated to promote Malaysian heritage, mainly Songket. It'll be reasonable if they only publish anything that will promote Malaysian Heritage. Even if Noor Azlina Yunus statement is true, it only explain that "Chi Tu Guo Ji" royals uses silk without reference to present-day Songket.

Meanwhile the The History of Songket Based on Archaeological Data suggest that based on pattern found in statue in Bumiayu, Songket or clothing with songket pattern is already known in Sumatra at least in 9th century. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you keep repeating the same sources even though I've asked for a literary sources. The Bumiayu is no more than a speculation based from what I've read. The motifs used in Bumiayu bears no correlation to today's Songket and still you did not give me dates or literatures from neutral standpoint which states that Songket originated in Sumatra. Please provide evidence. If not then this will go nowhere. Tellisavas (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The user Ckfasdf has said that the Malaysian viewpoint is a biased viewpoint but there is not that much different from his source which also came only from Indonesian perspective instead of a neutral perspective. The Bumiayu complex makes no mention whatsoever in any inscription in Sumatra that says that the carvings on Bumiayu temple is songket.

There is a more credible source that the earliest known mention (although not by name) of Songket making is by studies conducted by Lunsigh Scheurleer 2008, pp 33-24 which states that during Liang Dynasty in the 6th Century AD, the reports were made that a kingdom located south of Patani and north of Kedah (which is the historical approximation of where Langkasuka is) were wearing "rose coloured cloth with gold flowers". Even in another reporting accounts made during the Sui Dynasty also mentions the same thing in the 7th century AD that says based on "Chi Tu guo ji", an account written by Sui Dynasty envoys after a visit to Chi tu in 606-10 CE describes highly organized and wealthy royal court, where the Chinese envoy was offered a gold “hibiscus” crown and camphor. Nearby, the coastal kingdom of Langkasuka, located near Patani (south of Thailand) was a centre for Malay culture due to its proximity to the states of Kelantan and Terengganu in Malaysia, where songket weaving is predominant. The culture of weaving was prevalent in the Langkasuka courts.".

If the Indonesian claimant to the Songket is valid, there should be no loophole regarding the history of Songket. There should be a continuous inscriptions regarding the use of Songket from the 10th century onwards but so far there is none while Malay Peninsula continued to have literatures specifically mention the word "Songket" from pre-Malaccan and post-Malaccan period onwards through laws, poems and stories. Tellisavas (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tellisavas: Firstly, I strongly suggest you to read Wikipedia Policies (especially WP:ORIGINAL) and learn on how to reply on talk page as stated in Help:Talk pages so you don't need to create new section to reply other editor comments. After that we can start to discuss your comment.

Refer to one of Wikipedia policy which is "Verifiability", All material in Wikipedia must be verifiable and burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds the material. Regarding your comment above, you mentioned that your sources are studies by Lunsingh Scheurleer and "Chi Tu guo ji". Please provide us the reference for those both study, otherwise your statement may be considered as original research. Please note that another Wikipedia policy is "No Original Research". If you can provice your source, then we can discuss further. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you dont read the links that I have given you. Please remove your nationalistic tendencies and give credible evidence besides Bumiayu. Tellisavas (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Seriously... which link? you are supposed to put the link to your source here. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

May I ask, where is the literary evidence for Songket weaving in Sumatra? Batik at least have literary evidences in Java, hope you give one as well. Btw, there are no Indonesian historians universally accept that Bumiayu carvings is a Songket, nor are there any Songket artefacts found in Sumatra prior to the 15th century. Tellisavas (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Publication titled "The History of Songket Based on Archaeological Data" acknowledged that weaving tradition brought by Chinese merchant during the 7th Century. That publication also state pattern that was found in the statue in Bumiayu is the same as Songket pattern found in present day. Therefore the researcher argue that Songket is already known by south Sumatra people in the 9th century. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

And the literary evidences also agreed that Chinese weaving have already been introduced in Malay Peninsula in the 6th century CE based on evidences made by Liang and Sui Dynasties. 200 years before South Sumatra. What you give is not literary evidences for your claim. Tellisavas (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This means you don't have any evidences to claim that it originated in South Sumatra in the first place, 9th century AD happens after 7th century descriptions made by Chinese dynasties on cloth weaving in Langkasuka kingdom. Tellisavas (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Even various kingdoms in modern day Sumatra and Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo) which has more valid claims than what is made by The History of Songket Based on Archaeological Data makes no mention of any Srivijayan influence on their songket but instead traces their Songket back to Malacca.

For example, based on an thesis called PEMBUATAN PURWARUPA SONGKET PAKAIAN ADAT SILUNGKANGDI KECAMATAN SILUNGKANG KOTA SAWAHLUNTO SUMATERABARAT mentions that Songket Minangkabau originated from a village called Silungkang and it was introduced by a Hulubalang named Baginda Ali which originated in the state of Selangor which in the 16th century is part of Malacca.

The Riau Malay songket especially those from Siak were originally brought to Riau from a Terengganuan by the name of Wan Siti binti Wan Karim. She was brought from Terengganu during the rule of Sultan Sayyid Ali in the late 18th century in order to teach the people of Siak how to make a Songket. This information exists in Siak Palace museum.

The Sambas Songket based on Sambas accounts were introduced to Sambas by Bruneians when Sambas was under Brunei rule (during the reign of Sultan Muhammad Tajudin). The Brunei influence started to emerged after the fall of Malacca in the 16th century of which Brunei replaced Malacca as the main Malay entreport kingdom in the region. It is proven that there was an extensive trade between Brunei and Malacca and prior to Malacca there are no mentions of Songket weaving in Brunei which shows that Bruneian Songket was introduced to the country via Malacca. Tellisavas (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Again.. possible original research and it even if that statement is accepted it only prooved that Songket is popular in borneo/sumatra during 16th-18th century, not on the origin of Songket itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It has been stated above based on accounts of China that Langkasuka already practiced weaving which did not appeared in any Sumatran inscriptions nor does any foreign kingdoms mentioned of any such Songket weaving in Sumatra. Give one credible evidence and not using wikipedia policies just because you don't agree with it. Tellisavas (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

any reference to support your claim? otherwise it'll be original research. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Chinese sea trade with the Malay World began as early as the fifth century, stimulated by demand for luxury goods by the Chinese royal courts. It has been reported that spices, turtle eggs, perfumed woods, ivory and tortoise shell are some of the coveted items by the Chinese nobility. The Chinese apparently influenced textiles in the Malay World including Kelantan as Chinese envoys brought silk, which influenced the use of silk by royals in Malay palaces. One prominent Malay kingdom mentioned in Chinese history is “Chi Tu” or the Red Earth Land (Tanah Merah), believed to be interior of Kelantan. Chi Tu guo ji, an account written by Sui Dynasty envoys after a visit to Chi tu in 606-10 CE describes highly organized and wealthy royal court, where the Chinese envoy was offered a gold “hibiscus” crown and camphor. Nearby, the coastal kingdom of Langkasuka, located near Patani (south of Thailand) was a centre for Malay culture due to its proximity to the states of Kelantan and Terengganu in Malaysia, where songket weaving is predominant. The culture of weaving was prevalent in the Langkasuka courts. (Note: this paragraph is extracted from “Songket Revolution”, written by Noor Azlina Yunus, published by Yayasan Tuanku Nur Zahirah, 2008). Tellisavas (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Since you didn't provide for the statement, then it is original research and Wikipedia don't accept original research, see Wikipedia:No original research. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Please state your evidence based on the accounts of Songket weaving prior to the 7th century CE. 200 years before Bumiayu? Tellisavas (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

What original research? Those are based on facts with literary evidences. Where are your proofs? Tellisavas (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't give excuses, please provide literary evidences for your claims. Tellisavas (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I've examined the quoted refs, the contested claim is this sentence in the lead "textile craft originated in the Malay Peninsula and later spread to Sumatra and Borneo during Srivijayan and Malaccan period." The ref only mentioned the history no older than Malacca Sultanate period (claimed in ref dated as 13th century, but actually Malacca was founded in early 15th century), plus even the quoted ref said: "However, the date of when the songket weaving started still in dispute". Another contested claim is this sentence "Songket is often associated with the Langkasuka as the origin of the songket tradition and became widespread after Langkasuka was incorporated into Srivijaya Empire." However the quoted ref content is inaccessible. Gunkarta  talk  03:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

https://books.google.com.my/books?redir_esc=y&id=Op8qEAAAQBAJ&q=songket&fbclid=IwAR2dlKYCGuCRQFG1FkuPnoBFj4Rn8Tdkq-A3uxaubqy2dZNgI01_GQG9Nok#v=snippet&q=were%20known%20for%20the%20production%20of%20songket&f=false Tellisavas (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The reference that is inaccessible as Gunkarta mentioned is the book titled "Songket Revoultion" by Noor Azlina Yunus. Meanwhile there link you mentioned above is for the other book. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It does originally developed in Langkasuka before it spread elsewhere in Sumatra and Borneo. Based on Chinese accounts and Malay poems, laws and history. Tellisavas (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no reference that Songket IS developed in Langkasuka before spread elsewhere. Even on Noor Azlina Yunus's statement on "Songket Revoultion" (assuming we accept that reference), it was only mentioned that The Chinese apparently influenced textiles in the Malay World including Kelantan as Chinese envoys brought silk, which influenced the use of silk by royals in Malay palaces., which means Langkasuka royals are wearing silk clothes without further references to Songket.

If we look up for other source on Langkasuka Kingdom such as on this book and this article, it was further mentioned that King and senior official of this Kingdom wore clothes to cover their shoulder similar to the Veshti worn by men in Keralla, and women wrapped themselves in cotton clothes and wear jeweled girdles about their bodies. Again, there is no direct reference to present-day Songket. How can you claim the origin of something when there is no direct reference with your source. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Ckfasdf, the references push forward by Tellisavas to support the claim "Langkasuka was the place of origin of songket" by using 7th century Chinese report on "Chi Tu", did not mention any word containing "songket" at all, or at least describing any similar method or a pattern that could be verified and identified as songket today. The assumption was only based on Chinese report which was actually only describing on how silk was brought by Chinese envoys, and assumed to influence the use of silk in the royal fashion of this Malay peninsula polity. Gunkarta  talk  17:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any literary evidences that Langkasukan royals wore Veshti? Or you make your own biased claims based on your original research? Tellisavas (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Three editors have rejected this change, there is no consensus to approve the Tellisavas revision, can we go back to the normal revision first, to keep this page stable. PikiranHati (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:, I do agree to revert this article back to the last stable version, prior of edit war. Gunkarta  talk  17:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The protection will expire tomorrow. Ymblanter (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thank you for your information. My next concerns is similar POV push edit may happen again in the future, as it already happened several times in the past before this edit-war (just look up on page history) and happened again few days ago so we have this lengthy discussions. So can we assume to have consensus to not dispute the origin of songket, unless there is a reference that mentioning origin of songket before 9th century, and at least describing any similar method or a pattern that could be verified and identified as songket today. Ckfasdf (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The Indonesians have made biased views against the origins of Songket without further evidences other than those Bumiayu temple complex. They now even want to claim that Singhasari Temple uses Songket as well without much evidence to do so? This act of nationalism against cultures way more ancient than today's borders by removing Malaysian views (which has been proven to be continuous through works of literature and songket weaving) shows how unprofessional Indonesians are in regards to culture and tradition. By Tellisavas (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

textile worn on statue in Singhasari are based on this reference. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Bias

I read the above talk. I agree that the bias on this page is extraordinary.

1) The Patterned Splendour clearly explains the history of songket in Langkasuka (Malay Peninsula), Sumatra, and Java but some editors only want Sumatra and Java to be mentioned, with no mention of Langkasuka at all

2) Costumes and Textiles of Brunei and Tamadun Brunei dan Kewujudan Seni Tenun provide the narrative from Brunei's perspective and should be included

3) Strengthening Local Knowledge Towards Globalization Issues And Practices provides the narrative during Malacca period, important time in Malay history

Apparently some editors do want any mentioned of Langkasuka, Brunei or Malacca in this page

MrCattttt (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

1) Regarding Langkasuka origin, it was already discussed in the section above. In short, there is no source that justify Langkasuka origin.

2) Brunei perspective can be included, but the proposed addition didn't really inform anything new to the reader other than King of Brunei wears silk clothing, and there are archeological evidence in form weaving tools (but no mention of year).

3) I have no idea on what you are trying to say here.

At any case, we will need to keep status quo until new consensus reached. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree. The same source that mentioned Palembang and Java also mentioned Langkasuka. And this is purposely removed due to bias. Bruneian perspective has been added, but why did you revert it although you agreed? MrCattttt (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Please be more clear on your objection also please do not engage in edit warring. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Brunei... Refer to your edit here, so you only want to include Brunei people? IMO, Brunei people are also Malays (same ethnics group as Malaysian Malays). So, no need for duplication. Ckfasdf (talk)10:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV should not be compromised because it is site policy and is non-negotiable.

So, in short:

1. You are okay to include Indonesian narratives from The Patterned Splendour but not Malaysian (Langkasuka) narratives from the same book, The Patterned Splendour? Langkasuka is mentioned on page 34, but you guys purposely single out this part of history from the book when editing the page.

2. You are okay to include Song’s narrative of songket in Java from The Patterned Splendour, but not the Liang Dynasty’s narrative of songket in the Malay Peninsula from the same book, The Patterned Splendour or the Liang Dynasty’s narrative of songket in Borneo from Costumes and Textiles of Brunei of SPAFA Journal Vol. 11 No. 2 11?

3. You are okay to include archeological evidence from Balai Arkeologi Sumatera Selatan but not from Tamadun Brunei dan Kewujudan Seni Tenun from Universiti Brunei Darussalam, one of the top 10 universities in Southeast Asia?

4. You are okay to assume Brunei people are also the same ethnics group as Malaysian Malays. But not okay to assume Palembang people are also the same ethnics group as Malaysian Malays. Non-Malays in Malaysia also have songket, Melanau for example. Why can we put “Malaysia”? MrCattttt (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Langkasuka ambassador to the Southern Liang court 516-520 CE

1/2) IMO, you could use source from The Patterned Splendour. However, it's just there are some issue. Firstly, regarding your previous edit/addition, it was obvious WP:COPYVIO and I think Diannaa already warned you about this. Secondly, the author stated this textile could well have been a songket of some kind, which implies she is not entirely sure whether it is a songket or not.

And if we look up other Langkasuka source such as on this book and this article, those sources mentioned that King and senior official of this Kingdom wore clothes to cover their shoulder similar to the Veshti worn by men in Keralla, and women wrapped themselves in cotton clothes and wear jeweled girdles about their bodies. And there is no direct reference to present-day Songket. Furthermore in WP, we have article on Portraits of Periodical Offering which shows tributary documentative paintings from various kingdom (including Langkasuka) to Chinese emperor. I know it's possible OR, but I dont think Langkasuka ambassador on that painting wears anything like present-day Songket.

3) Please note that Tamadun Brunei dan Kewujudan Seni Tenun. is a conference paper/proceeding NOT peer-reviewed publication, hence it may not be considered as WP:RS (note there are plenty discussion about reliability of conference paper/proceeding in WP:RSN.) Whereas, The History of Songket Based on Archaeological Data is peer-reviewed publication and that's the most preferred source in WP per WP:SOURCETYPES.

4) Refer to Bruneian Malays article, it was stated that They are also defined as a part of the Bumiputera racial classification together as a subgroup within the Malaysian Malay ethnic population..., so I dont think there's anything wrong with my previous statement. Btw, some of Non-Malays in Indonesia also have songket, Sasak people for example. Ckfasdf (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

1./2. LMAO, what you write is original research. you yourself agree with what you said in 1./2. is original research and it violates Wikipedia:No original research. you basically combined a few sources and implied something that not one of the authors had even claimed. this is a basic rule and should not be considered when editing Wikipedia.

3. Please note that you can find similar claims in Textiles and Identity in Brunei Darussalam, a form of a book. So, it has a similar weightage as The Patterned Splendour. So what is your excuse actually?

4. Refer to my question on 4 again, I had specifically said Non-Malays in Malaysia also has songket, Melanau for example. But you only want to combine Malays in Malaysia with Brunei. You purposely ignore this. Even Javanese, and Minang are defined as a part of the Bumiputera racial classification together as a subgroup within the Malaysian Malay ethnic population, but you don't want to include Indonesian ethic groups but Brunei is okay for you? MrCattttt (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

1/2) Only the last part of my previous comment is possible OR (which I asked you to compare cloth used by Langkasuka ambassador to present-day Songket). The rest are sourced content and some even used in the Langkasuka article.

3) Books at least undergo editing process, so it can't be compared to conference paper. If you look up WP:RSN, some ppl said conference paper is WP:SPS.

4) You could list all ethnic groups in the infobox, but it may defeat infobox purpose to summarize key features per MOS:INFOBOX. Since songket is predominantly used by Malay people (in Indonesia/Malaysia/Brunei), I guess we can remove "Indonesian" and just put Malay people. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

1./2. Nope, the whole argument you presented is original research. You wrote, “which implies she is not entirely sure whether it is a songket or not.” Copy from the wiki rules, Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or ‘’imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves’’. The key word is “imply”, you implied a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Am I right?

3. Costumes and Textiles of Brunei of SPAFA Journal Vol. 11 No. 2 11, Tamadun Brunei dan Kewujudan Seni Tenun, Textiles and Identity in Brunei Darussalam are valid sources. Since you are okay with citing books, I will cite the book Textiles and Identity in Brunei Darussalam by Dr. Siti Norkhalbi Haji Wahsalfelah on Brunei’s perspective. This source should be treated equally as any other sources about Malaysia and Indonesia.

4. At least we got this right, please do the honor to edit it as agreed.

Do we have a deal for NPOV? MrCattttt (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

1/2) What I did on that sentence is Paraphrase. And refer to WP:NOTOR, paraphrasing is not WP:OR and even suggested by WP:V. Also, you may need to look up on what "could have been" means, such as here.

3) "Costumes and Textiles of Brunei" is an peer-reviewed publication, so it's OK. "Tamadun Brunei dan Kewujudan Seni Tenun" is conference paper/proceeding, so it's not OK as it can be WP:SPS. "Textiles and Identity in Brunei Darussalam" is a book, so it may be OK. But keep in mind of WP:COPYVIO.

4) I just noticed that this article uses Template:Infobox clothing type. And on its documentation, paramater |manufacturer= not to be used on "Historic" clothing type (only for "Modern" clothing type). So that parameter will be removed, as that's not that parameter intended for. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

1. What you wrote is definitely an OR. "could have been", "could came about", "could have inspired", "could be related", "could represent a textile technique known as songket" are all "could have been", used multiple times throughout the book. this is normal. this does not imply the author is not sure.

You clearly used OR to discredit this paragraph by using the implied conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. You assume this paragraph is wrong but other paragraphs from the same book that has "could have been" as valid. that is defined OR and definitely not NPOV

2./3/4 At least we got 2./3/4. clear out. Thank for cooperating MrCattttt (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

1) the author explicitly state this textile could well have been a songket of some kind. Refer to Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners, the definition for "could have" is used for saying that perhaps something was true, although you do not really know, which suggest some possibility but whoever said this do not really. And that definition is still aligned with my comments.

2/3/4) since you already published your edit. aside from issue on the content itself, it also may have issues on WP:COPYVIO. I dont think close paraphrasing would be sufficient, but better ask the expert on this matter. @Diannaa:

Additional note, I am not representing all editor who have objection with your edits, other objection may have their opinion and our discussion may not be considered as consensus if there are still objection from others. And major changes are most likely to be reverted, especially if it's contentious topics. Before making major changes, I strongly suggest you to follow WP:CAUTIOUS. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Questionable edit by new editor

recently new editor Saufy Jauhary insist to make change on origin and image on infobox, also on some other details. He claim songket origin is from Terengganu based on the fact that Songket is listed in UNESCO's Intangible cultural heritage, He also put Kheng 2011 as reference for his claim on origin of Songket.

In which, I disagree on his claim because:

1. ICH listing on songket (as shown https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/songket-01505 here) never mention about origin of Songket.
2. first sentence on his cited source JNE Kheng 2011, explicitly state "The art of songket weaving is believed to have come to the Malay Peninsula through trade, migration and political marriages since the fifteenth century" which implies Songket is originated somewhere other than Malay peninsula
3. there is no single mention of Terengganu as origin of songket in History Section, and History section is clear on origin of Songket with proper source cited.
4. Also in History section, it was mentioned that "Terengganu weavers believe that songket weaving technique was introduced to Malaysia from India through Sumatra's Palembang and Jambi where it probably originated during the time of Srivijaya", this statement is taken from Rodgers and Summerfields 2007.
5. lastly, he indicate that he is not willing to discuss on talk page based on his edit summary, whereas he stated "Discussing on the talk page is just your trick", which is clear indicator of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.

That's why such edit will almost definitely be reverted. cc Gunkarta Ckfasdf (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Possible of origin: Langkasuka ???

However, this has been severely questioned because the words ‘gold flowers’ are not mentioned at all in the original text of Book of Liang. Instead, ‘golden belt’ and ‘golden earrings’ are mentioned which have nothing to do with rose-colored cloth. Stop using the mistranslation from the book “Patterned Splendour” as strong evidence. Because the author of the book “Patterned Splendour: Textiles Presented on Javanese Metal and Stone Sculptures, Eighth to Fifteenth Centuries.” indeed translated the original text of “Book of Liang” incorrectly. On the contrary, the author of “Nagapattinam to Suvarnadwipa: Reflections on the Chola Naval Expeditions to Southeast Asia.” translated the original text correctly. The original text of Book of Liang is: 其王及貴臣乃加雲霞布覆胛，以金繩爲絡帶，金鐶貫耳。 This sentence is written in classical Chinese, so it needs to be translated into modern Chinese. Here are a few websites that can translate classical Chinese into modern Chinese. From modern Chinese, you can copy it and paste it at Google Translate to translate it into English. https://app.gumble.pw/wenyan/ https://app.xunjiepdf.com/fanyiwenyanwen/ https://www.fanyi1234.com/wyw/ Anyway, I copied and pasted the sentence from “Nagapattinam to Suvarnadwipa: Reflections on the Chola Naval Expeditions to Southeast Asia.” King Bhagadatta in Langkasuka and his nobles wore above their robes red cloth which covered the top of their back between the shoulders. They wore golden belts and gold rings on their ears.

Translations from 2 different books

Correct and wrong translation of 其王及貴臣乃加雲霞布覆胛，以金繩爲絡帶，金鐶貫耳。

Aszer123 (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I have already replied to you in my talk page. Please read WP:OR. The statement "However, this has been severely questioned" needs a source which exactly says that. Digging into original ancient text to prove that the garments of the Langkasuka nobility were not Songkets is original research. –Austronesier (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Aszer123: I appreciate your effort in looking into the possible origin of songket from the Langkasuka Kingdom. I agree that even confirmed reliable sources can make mistakes. However, as Austronesier pointed out, when claiming that 'this has been severely questioned,' the dispute or challenge to this origin needs to be backed by reliable sources. Without proper citation, we cannot include such a claim in the article, as it would be considered original research. Please remember that on Wikipedia, we serve as editors, not researchers or authors. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)