Jump to content

Talk:Thailand/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Coordinates: 13°45′26″N 100°30′08″E / 13.757203°N 100.502096°E / 13.757203; 100.502096
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Environment

Most of the wikipedia countries have a paragraph about the environment - why not Thailand? Is her environmental record that bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightingforever (talk • contribs) 14:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

TAT Edits

It appears that the Tourism Authority of Thailand is going on a campaign to "attempt to involve travellers in improving and editing all of the information about Thailand on Wikipedia.org and on Wikitravel.org," according to a story in the Bangkok Post today http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/topstories.php?id=125749 (6/2/08, story will probably go offline within a week). I have a feeling that this talk page will become very busy over the next year.--Chuckygobyebye (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say the same.. So far this page is very poor and can't even start to compare with info found on the CIA factbook... 82.35.248.11 (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the TAT edits so far focus on province articles, and the users not even checking their talk page and blindly reverting... Please everyone keep an eye on all Thai-related articles Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Southeast_Asia/List_of_Thailand-related_topics for POV or tourism brochure style edits. andy (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


Announcement from TAT

Editions on WIKIPEDIA

TAT has not started editing any article on WIKIPEDIA as yet whereas the articles about 3 provinces in Thailand, Pathumthani, Songkhla and Petchabun, are not edited by TAT.

Editions with the username borndistinction is just try to find out whether how it works but has not touched any content at all.

Editions on WIKITravel

TAT has edited and created new content on few articles on WIKITravel already by consulting WIKITravel expert by proving them the authority and copyright of the content from TAT. [1] --Borndistinction (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Southern Violence

Nothing about that in the article. Lest we forget, southern violence escalated in early 2004 during the Thaksin Shinawatra administration (the first to describe the insurgent as "terrorists". The situation has worsened with daily attacks against local residents, policemen, soldiers, teachers and monks. More than 2,000 people have been killed. Worth mentioning. 82.35.248.11 (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


W...wait a minute, I disagree. The Malaysia Peninsular starts from the very tip of Johor, not Singapore. The meaning of "peninsular" is that the land is connected to the mainland by just a thin strip of land(like Peninsular Malaysia). But Singapore is connected to Malaysia only by two bridges. It is NOT counted as peninsular. So it wouldn't be Peninsular Malaysia. Joshywawa (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


This section should be revised completely as the contents have no reference at all. It is mentioned in this section that Phuket is derived from the word Bukit in Malay?? Please find a solid source of reference to substantiate this nonsense. This is completely an imagination plus Pro-Malay interpretation. I could have similarly said that the world Malaysia itself derived from Thai word "หมาเลียเสี่ย" (Ma lea sia) which means ' A dog licking a rich man' in Thai too since the whole malay peninsular had been Thai territory in the past.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.158.34 (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem with including Thailand's sex tourism?

It looks like the proponents of Thailand don't want the whole truth shown. This is being demonstrated by the continual deletion of the small section. The very weak excuses being that it has nothing to do with the economy. I disagree, the sex trade brings large amounts of money to the Thai economy, in fact there is supposition that it's an invaluable and crucial source in some areas of the country. 2003 it was estimated that approximately 950,000 single men visited the country purely for sex, it was further estimated "That year, the extra adult male holidaymakers from around the world probably generated almost £1bn—over 1 per cent of Thailand's GDP.".

So what are the objections to this section? Is it purely because those editors are only interested in putting forward only the positive things? If that's the case then they are breaching WP:UNDUE. The facts are currently missing from this article because of POV editors with some form of agenda. I will be reinstating the section (when I am safe from WP:3RR) along with additional info and additional references. Verifiable facts run WP, not the Thai tourist board. --WebHamster 22:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mixing up things. Firstly, sex tourism is not such a big fraction of the economy to merit a separate subsection. It can just be captured in one sentence. Secondly the removed phrases conflated it with child sex, which a completely different matter and does not belong in the ecomomy section. Perhaps you care to start a "crime" section elsewhere in the article?. −Woodstone (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No I'm not mixing things up. In many parts of Thailand the sex tourism is indeed an economic issue and I think it's safe to say that a single entity that amounts to 1% of the national GDP is indeed a matter of economics. The sex centres are there to make money, that sounds like economics to me. Your assertion that there should be a crime section has merits but not all not all of the sex centres the tourists aim for are criminal. Either way your assertions are one of moving the section, not deleting it. --WebHamster 02:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete the issue of sex tourism. I only demoted it from a separate subsection to a paragraph. None of the other (and much bigger) economic activities have a section of their own, so there is no reason to make one for sex tourism. The part I removed is only on child sex, which is a criminal, not an economic issue and should not mixed in the economy section. Feel free to start a section on criminality elsewhere in the article. −Woodstone (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the original statement, sex tourism should definently be shown on the article since it is a problem and at the same time a big part of money income. -- Bp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.6.75 (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Capital City - wrong name?

Surely the capital is not Bangkok? It's every pedant's pet "fact" that the capital is Krung Thep (well, at least the short name is). We're talking about the same city here, but it hasn't been called Bangkok by the Thais for over 200 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.9.80.254 (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is called Krung Thep in Thailand. But this is the English language wikipedia, and almost everyone who speaks English will know the city by the name Bangkok, and not Krung Thep. Why else is the BMA uses that acronym and not KMA? The information that in Thailand it known by a different name is placed as a footnote directly after the name, that should be enough for the pedants. andy (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


So because "everyone who speaks English will know as Bangkok", that's what it should be? The majority is not always correct. Look at the recent cases - Beijing, Kolkata etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.52.49 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And to cite the opposite case - Mecca vs. Makkah. Wikipedia is not the place to advocate anything, it just represents the current usage of the name. And as long as my air ticket tells me that I go to Bangkok it is quite sure the name Krung Thep hasn't arrived in the west, despite being 200 years old already. And I am not aware of anyone official from Thailand ever asking the Thai name to be used, like it was for Kolkata. andy (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As further evidence, road signs in Thailand in latin script use "Bangkok", while the version in Thai script has "กรุงเทพฯ", the equivalent of "Krung Thep". −Woodstone (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The area of Bangkok(which Thai people call Krung Thep---กรุงเทพฯ) used to be called บางกอก---Bang-Kok which means the district of olives. So all Thai people recognise the term Bangkok as the name of thier country's capital city, even if they don't know a word in English or any other languages. 125.25.91.128 (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.91.128 (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


I don't think Thai people want to change. (I'm Thai too!)
Thai -> กรุงเทพฯ (Krung Thep)
Chinese -> Pronounce as "man4gu3" (Number is Chinese tone.)
English -> Bangkok
So it's different in each language.
We also call these different name in Thai.
English/England → อังกฤษ (Pronounce as Ang-glid)
Japan → ญี่ปุ่น (Pronounce as Yee-pun)
China → จีน (Pronounce as Jeen)
I think it useful for gossiping these people to Thai people. Because of these different names, they don't know that we are talking about them! 555 (Pronounce as HaHaHa→laughing sound) Visarute (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Education

Someone recently added:

Education is compulsory up to and including Grade 9, and the government provides free education through to Grade 12.

That is not very informative. What age groups are meant here? Also, in many rural areas it is very common that children from age about 10 skip school to contibute to family income. −Woodstone (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thai school grades

That somebody was me - I wrote almost the entire main article as well as this short overview. I felt sure that anyone reading it would be familiar with the very widespread US grade system. As far as I know, only Germany numbers its class backwards.It's all explained in the main article. And, yes, many children skip school, particularly in the two rice fild periods - planting it and cutting it - also mentioned in the text in the Main Article.

Main article: Education in Thailand

paragraKudpung (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any reference to children's ages in the mentioned article. −Woodstone (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Thailand

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Thailand and add your name if you would like to be a participant. Right now we are working on tagging the talk pages of all Thailand-related articles with the WPTHAILAND tag. Badagnani (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

76 provinces, not 75!!

Orginally, there were 73 provinces in Thailand. Later in 1993, 3 new provinces-Sakaew, Amnatcharoen, and Nongbuarampu were established. Pattaya is not considered the 76th province but a politically special district. No Thai people have ever counted Pattaya as a province. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmimzy (talk • contribs)

75 is correct - the 76th is Bangkok, but that is not a province (changwat), but a special entity which has both things from the provincial administration as well as local administration like a thesaban. andy (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thailand in the Dutch Empire

Hello everyone! There is a discussion at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map, because user Red4tribe has made a map of the Dutch Empire (Image:Dutch Empire 4.png) that includes significative parts of Thailand. Would you like to comment? Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

New Map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dutch_Empire_new.PNG http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ square=tradingpost (Red4tribe (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Still OR, POV and unsourced (yours is not not a credible source). Please discuss stuff at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map. This was just a request for comment, not a discussion. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAfrica.html (Red4tribe (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Still OR, POV and unsourced (yours is not not a credible source). Please discuss stuff at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map. This was just a request for comment, not a discussion. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.colonialvoyage.com/
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAfrica.html (credible source) (Red4tribe (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Burma

I have corrected the name Myanmar to Burma.

You will see that the article Burma is called Burma, not Myanmar. Beyond all else Wikipedia should use one name as a constant, not Both.

To summarise this issue, Burma was always called Burma until the Military Junta renamed it, what power does the Junta have to rename the country in English?

If Germany demanded that all english speaking countries referred to it as Deutschland, well we'd laugh at the suggestion. The BBC and CBC refer to Burma as Burma, and nearly all english speakers know the country as Burma, so based on the argument above for keeping the name 'Bangkok' Burma should be used in all places on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umbongo91 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is no consensus for Burma or Myanmar on Wikipedia, and the country's article has been moved several times. See Talk:Burma/Myanmar --Paul_012 (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Southern Unrest

I am far from an expert on Thailand or Thai history, but in trying to clean up some of the grammatical errors in the article, I noticed a couple of rather long paragraphs near the beginning of the article dealing with the unrest in the south of Thailand that seem to be a bit out of place and/or biased. Once these paragraphs have been edited for bias, they might be better off under the "history" section.Yodaki2 (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I am tagging the section with NPOV. I know this is really drive-by tagging but I have no expertise enough to even consider editing it. But it does desperately need attention. Kanatcha (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

English language in Thailand

In the introduction the following phrase need to be revised: -However, English is widely understood, particularly in Bangkok, where it is almost the major commercial language. [3]- English is widely taught but not widely understood. Less then 5% of the Thai people have a level of English good enough for a simple conversation. The source of this information is the TAT (Tourism Authorities of Thailand). This gouverment body understandably promotes Thailand but there information is far from reality in many cases. I once held an presentation on tourism for 9 high ranked TAT employees of which only 2 had any idea what the subject was about. the other 7 persons did not understand any English at all. I do not have any sources to rely upon for editing this phrase other then m own experience, 5 years of living and working in Thailand. I hope some other expats will support my statement that a very small minority in Thailand does actually master the English language. Seb van den OeverSeb van den Oever (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

English usage in Thailand

I think speaking English has nothing to do with showing one is a member of the "high-society" strata. I suggest deleting the high-society from the last paragraph under the topic "Culture" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhelek (talk • contribs) 07:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Khmer minority

I'm not versed on this subject, but there seems to be some discrepancies. In the lead, it calls the Khmer people a minority in Thailand. The Khmer people article says that there are some 1.2 million such people in Thailand. It lists them after Mons, who only have a little over 100,000 people in the country, which, upon initial glance, would imply that there are less than 100,000 Khmer in Thailand. Malay are not called a minority in the lead, despite them being listed as having 1.9 million people in Thailand. So, I'm wondering, should both Malay and Khmer be considered minorities, or neither?

It's a small, albeit confusing issue. 206.248.191.84 (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Southern violence

In this section it says that the Malay state of Kedah is AND given to the British AND to the Thai. To whom is it actually given to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takeaway (talk • contribs) 23:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)



This section should be revised completely as the contents have no reference at all. It is mentioned in this section that Phuket is derived from the word Bukit in Malay?? Please find a solid source of reference to substantiate this nonsense. This is completely an imagination plus Pro-Malay interpretation. I could have similarly said that the world Malaysia itself derived from Thai word "หมาเลียเสี่ย" (Ma lea sia) which means ' A dog licking a rich man' in Thai too since the whole malay peninsular had been Thai territory in the past.[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.158.34 (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

IMF database

Interesting: please compare the IMF data with those provided by the Bangkok Post Economic Review Mid-Year 2008. The Bangkok Post cites as its sources the National Statistical Office among others (quite reliable I would say?), while the IMF does NOT give any sources. So whom would I trust? --hdamm (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Vegetable Carving

Where would it be appropriate to insert a link to vegetable carving? I was thinking about placing it in the culture section, but I'm not sure exactly where it would go without clashing. George.eliza (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

80% is ethnically Thai?

I'd say this is pretty misleading. A better alternative would be 80% is ethnically Tai, including Thai and Lao, ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.16.30 (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Typo; Please Fix

The beginning of a sentence in the sports section reads as follows:

Other sports in Thailand are slowly growing as the country develops it's sporting infrastructure...

it's > its (I'm never creating an account). 76.93.41.50 (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Blatant Political Bias

"The Undemocratic Yellow PAD "People's Alliance for Democracy", who were royalists, fascists, elites and military officials saw Thaksin as a reformer who wanted to change Thailand to a Republic state so they had to eliminate Thaksin from politics because PAD does not want Democracy in Thailand since that could be an obstacle to their power."

How has this been allowed to stand?

This is an appalling article that has been kept at a consistently low quality by edits from people who don't want their factions criticised. In fact, I've never seen a high-quality wiki page about Thailand anywhere on the web for this reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazzla (talk • contribs) 09:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Succession

Are women allowed to inherit the kingship? What is the succession law?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 13:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

sex trade again

If the sex trade forms $4.3 billion and 3% of the economy [4], and 10% of tourist dollars [5] are spent on it, it is notable and worthy of inclusion. If you believe this is is POV, you are welcome to find rebutting sources.--Loodog (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact foreign sex tourism only represents a fraction of Thailand's sex trade. Prostitution is inherent in Thai culture - apart from the numerous 'massage' parlours in the larger town and cities, almost every village has a karaoke bar which exists solely for the purpose of selling sex to Thai males, and bungalow resorts to take the ladies to. Due to the strong traditions in rural Thailand where sex before marriage is generally not practiced, it is often the only recourse to satsifaction for single Thai men. There are plenty of valid references to all this, but as a busy editor on other topics, I don't have time to research them. for this article.--Kudpung (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree with inclusion (Loodog). Agree with broader issue which should properly be termed "Sexual services industry." In addition to economic analysis, an anthropological perspective I think will reveal a lively dissent on the part of people in this industry againt more mainstream definitions of Thai cultural identity, socialization, education, family, law and industry/labor. How fascinating for such cultural and linguistic dissent to occur and be sustained for 40 years or more in a country where political discourse has largely broken down and faltered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanamjun guy (talk • contribs) 08:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Monarchy

In my opinion, no article about Thailand would be complete without a reference to the Monarchy. Virtually every home, office, bank, and retail establishment has a picture of the King. I will try to write a scholarly and concise paragraph about the homage that almost all Thai people pay to the Monarch, and include a reference to the lese majeste law, which some have defined this way: "Thailand's most powerful political and social 'hammer' may be the kingdom's lese majeste law". Rak-Tai (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This issue is quite a quandry, although I understand your point, Rak-Tai. In my opinion, the monarchy should be ignored so long as lese majeste laws indiscriminantly jail people who comment on it or attempt to describe it. Even a simple geneology of the Chakri Dynasty instantly reveals that it took power through a military coup and "intrigue," while pointing to the contentious issue of succession which is soon to come. In the current hyper-monarchical political climate (and opposition through a "whispered" national socialist republicanism), it is hard to maintain objectivity. This is exactly the point where Wikipedia:Thailand must hold firm: being objective. Whoever says this or other "facts" is likely to get their Thai visa revoked. Furthermore, the Thai government will immediately block all links to Wikipedia (as it does with the Economist now). What benefits then do you expect to gain by discussing the monarchy? How will the Thai and English versions of Wikipedia then relate? Another way to maintain objectivity may be needed: say less, follow the lead of the Thai version (with heavy deletion of questionable pro-monarchist views, and provide external links. or? sanamjun guy (talk) 15:05, 03 September 2009

Name

Isn't Thailand known as the Rattanakosin Kingdom?--213.126.117.235 (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

technically, Rattanakosin is a period, not a Kingdom. It refers to the time when Bangkok has been the capital of the country under a monarchy. sanamjun guy (talk) 15:05, 03 September 2009

OK, but don't you think we should have something about the origin of the name Siam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelskit (talk • contribs) 01:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For Thai, Rattanakosin is a short term of the full, official title of Bangkok. Rattanakosin Period refers to the period of which the political center of the kingdom shifted to Bangkok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtramanx (talk • contribs) 10:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Land of the free

"The word Thai (ไทย) is not, as commonly believed, derived from the word Tai (ไท) meaning "free" in the Thai language"..."The phrase "Land of the free" is derived from the fact that the Thai are proud of the fact that Thailand is the only country in Southeast Asia never colonized by a European power."

These sentences seem contradictory? AlexTG (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

Current etymology entry is incorrect. The Royal Institute of Thailand's on-line dictionary does not give an etymology, but does give definitions of ไท and ไทย with examples.

ไท defined by RIT
1. (Antiquity) 1. Noun, Thai (๑ (โบ) น. ไทย) as in "one Year of the Rabbit, Tai bit assumption" (Siamese inscription) (เช่น ปีโถะหนไทกัดเหมา. (จารึกสยาม). [เหมา means to assume power over or right to in the sense of to hire or rent -- the Siamese inscription may refer to Tai rebelling against tribute.]
2. Noun, someone Big (๒ น. ผู้เป็นใหญ่.)
ไทย refers to a country (ประเทศ) and people (ชนชาติ); quality of being free (ความมีอิสระในตัว), not being a slave (ความไม่เป็นทาส); person (คน) such as Thai or person from rural area (เช่น ไทยบ้านนอก ว่า คนบ้านนอก) [and] devilish-hearted Thai (ไทยใจแทตย์) meaning cruel-hearted person (ว่า คนใจยักษ์.)

Note: RIT adds in parentheses that ไทย when used in connection with royalty refers to ceremonial alms-giving (ม. คําหลวง ทานกัณฑ์) See ไทยทาน below.

New Model Thai-English Dictionary (1999) So Sethaputra (th:สอ เสถบุตร) ISBN 9-7493-5098-7]

ไท, ไท้ Noun (poetic) a lord, a boss เป็นไท verb, to be lord, to be boss. Synonym ใหญ่
ไทย (ไท) Noun and Adjective, free, freedom loving; Thai, pertaining to the Thai or Thailand; a Thaiman, a Thailander เป็นไทยแก่ตัว Verb intransitive, to be free, to be independent. Synonym อิสระ; สยาม
ไทยทาน (ไทยะทาน) (Poetic) offerings, charity, gifts Synonym ทาน

--Pawyilee (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The examples you gave are merely homonyms, so why is it incorrect and what are the changes to be made? Sodacan (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Native Starch Industry of Thailand

Can this article be merged into Thailand ?--Adi4094 (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Distorted Map

Why is the map showing the location of Thailand distorted? It's compressed horizontally, and it looks terrible. Does this serve any purpose? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Which map do you refer to? The one in the infobox, or the one in the text itself? But for both is just a matter of the chosen projection, it may just be a projection not used that often for Thailand maps and thus looks unusually distorted. andy (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm referring to the one labeled "Location of Thailand," and it's not a projection problem. Thailand is too small for any projection to cause problems. Somebody got the idea of shrinking the image horizontally to make it fit, which is always a bad idea. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I suppose it could be a projection problem if it's taken from a much larger map, but it doesn't look like one. There's no distortion of curvature that I can see, which is why I think it was just compressed horizontally. Anyway, there's no reason to choose an unusual projection for a country as small as Thailand. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a projection issue; the detail in the locator map is taken directly from the world map, which is centered at 0, 0. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Transport

The recently added section on transport contained only a list of details about Thai Airways International from which it was copied and pasted. It is company information, and is relevant to that article only.--Kudpung (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I hadn't noticed that - I agree. A Transport section that gives an overview of transport in Thailand is a good thing, but detailed coverage of one company is out of place -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Southern Insurgency & Politics and Government

The Southern Insurgency section should be rewritten or deleted. The whole Politics and Government section should be merged with the main History section. Leaving perhaps the most recent news in the Politics and Government section, where the majority of it should just be a description and information on the constitutional roles of the Monarchy, Executive (PM and Cabinet), Legislative and Judiciary. I want to do this for a while but did not want to do this unilaterally, some input would be much appreciated. Sodacan (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No one really? Sodacan (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that historical portions of the Politics and Government belong in history; your assessment of the content (description, hard facts) is sound as well, in my opinion. As far as the Southern Insurgency, what specifically do you think is bad about it? Are you speaking specifically of the South Thailand Insurgency page? Maybe outline your reasoning on that? Archon888 (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The southern insurgency section in this article should be in the politics section and describes the current situation in the south and its repercussion against Thailand as a whole (right now it is mostly history), the history should be in the South Thailand Insurgency page itself and not here. My objections is that it is in the wrong place and have the wrong description for what is needed in this article. Sodacan (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.7.77.190, 22 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Re: "Thailand" page, "political crisis" heading: Casualty figures for the April-May Red Shirt uprising should be updated to 85 deaths and 1,378 injuries. (http://bangkokpost.com/news/politics/178754/pm-vows-to-seek-truth). Likewise, for the "2008–2010 Thai political crisis" page, "2010 "red shirt" opposition supporter protests" heading, as well as for the "2010 Thai political protests" page.

68.7.77.190 (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Done All three updated - thanks for providing the reference -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Bangkok"

"Bangkok" is a Thai word consisting of two elements: "Bang" meaning haven, specifically, a haven where boats may be pulled out of the water; and "kok" meaning a plum or olive (neither fruit is of economic importance in Thailand, so the same word is used for both.) There once was a village of this name on a river, the name of which was once entered on world charts by the Thai word for river, Menam, with the name of the vanished haven entered as the name of a port that was, in fact, much more than a mere haven as it had several piers. After a while, the Thai objected to their river being named in non-Thai languages by the Thai word for river, and asked that it be entered on non-Thai language world charts as the Chao Phaya River. They have never objected to their capital being called "Bangkok" in non-Thai languages, and even put the English spelling B A N G K O K on road signs and buses; but never in Thai orthography. So, the recently removed phrase, , although the name "Bangkok" has not been used in Thailand for more than 200 years [1] is not nonsense, though it could be worded somewhat better. The editorial comment, the name is all over the place on road signs, is not nonsense, either, as bi-lingual signs in Thai and English always have "Bangkok" as the English name of the capital, but never as the Thai name. The comment also could have been somewhat better worded. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Lloyd, John; Mitchinson, John (2006). The QI Book of General Ignorance. Faber and Faber Limited. p. 122. ISBN 978-0-571-24139-2.
I don't think there's any need for it in the general Thailand article, which should not contain excessive detail about Bangkok - and the Bangkok article seems to make the origins and use of the name clear enough. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of images

I see that User:Tobby72 has deleted a number of images from the Thailand article several times, and the removal gets reverted each time. Even if it's not happening rapidly, it's still edit-warring and it has to stop. I don't think "per WP:style" is a sufficient explanation for the removal, especially as the removal is clearly contested - the Manual of Style is big and complex. So I must ask, Tobby72, can you please explain exactly why you are removing the images? Which part of the manual do they contravene? I've reverted the removal for now, so that people here can see the images easily, so will you please stop removing them until we can achieve a consensus here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate.
  • Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other.
  • Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article.
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Style#Images
Tobby72 (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I understand. However, I'm not sure that a literal enforcement of the MOS and removal of the images is the best approach here. The MOS is really a set of guidelines rather than hard and fast rules and needs to be evaluated in relation to individual circumstances, and I think the value of an image can override its deletion on purely style grounds. I also see that another editor has rearranged some of the photos into a gallery, so your thoughts on that would be appreciated. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Just because the layout may not meet some people's ideas of page presentation, simply deleting permitted elements could be regarded as disruptive editing.--Kudpung (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Education

This section talks about "grades". That needs explanation. The term "grade" is heavily US oriented. Not many people outside of the US know what is meant by "grade 6" or "grade 9". 173.168.179.81 (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to go ahead and improve it.--Kudpung (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Shan States

The Shan States became part of the British Empire after the Third Anglo-Burmese War. Prior to that they were Burmese. Siam never controlled any part of Shan States. Nor did any Siamese troops ever cross over to any Shan lands, save except for Kengtung, which it invaded multiple times (in 1804, 1811, 1849, 1852-1854 and 1942). If we simply go by what each country claimed, then Burma claimed Lan Na and Chiang Saen all the down to 1885 too. But the reality was that Burma ceased to control Lan Na after 1776, despite its lingering claims. That the Shan States were part of Burma is widely accepted. Not even a contested subject. I can provide all the citations about Burmese control over the Shan States. Hybernator (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I remember visiting a museum in Bangkok, showing the Thai/Siamese empire throughout history. Very big at some points, I wonder how accurate it was. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Weird WW2 revisionism

Could someone please take a look at the activities of 118.173.117.239 (talk · contribs)? These undiscussed revisions have been taking place for days under various floating IPs. I've reverted this person enough to the point where it's pretty clear that s/he is not here to talk - just to grind a lot of axe. It would be great if an editor with more knowledge of the subject could look at these - not just me. Should I semi-protect? -- Y not? 02:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Political Crisis

This heading contains a lot of "as of" phrasing dating 2008 to 2010. Should be updated. 156.26.17.11 (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

[6] I believe it to be highly relevant to the article, and it does provide, I believe, a "unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." --Sdistefano (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:ELNO for wikipedia policy concerning external links. I have seen the website to which the link directs and I see it as a form of spam. If you want to add the highly relevant information, you can start a page called, for instance, Beaches of Thailand which does not contain advertising for hotels. - Takeaway (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not appreciated being treated as a spammer ; I have contributed to Wikipedia for many years now and I am not an online advertiser. Would you consider the page to have "objectionable amounts of advertising"? I find it to be more relevant - and have less advertising than the current link to Flickr, for example.
A wikipedia article could not have the locations of beaches on a map, or information about hotels (which concerns most people going to the beaches of Thailand) or a collection of photographs. I don't intend to discuss this any further, but in the interest of education, I would like to know under which guideline is this considered to be spam Sdistefano (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
What little encyclopedic information it may contain is far outweighed by the advertising. --NeilN talk to me 17:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The main two reasons for not including the link would be WP:NOTTRAVEL, which states that "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like", and WP:ELNO, which discourages links to pages with excessive amounts of advertising. And yes, the link that you added exists to advertise hotels and guesthouses. Also, per WP:EL#ADV, "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked." You have stated that you work for the website. According to policy, you should have first placed the question here on the talk page before editing it into the page. I understand that you do not like being treated as a spammer but the external link which you have placed can not be seen otherwise than being a form of spam. I will have to reiterate my first suggestion: If you feel that adding information about where beaches can be found in Thailand is "highly relevant", please begin a page about the subject but do not add external links which are in more than one way in violation of wikipedia policy and guidelines. - Takeaway (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Really sorry about this, I was unaware of that specific guideline. I thought I could just "be bold" (another guideline, I don't recall from where) and just add the link knowing that it would be removed immediately if there was no agreement. Truly sorry if this was found to be disrespectful. Please believe my word that I never intended to spam the site. I thought this was acceptable after having looked at the link for Flickr. Sorry for the trouble - Sdistefano (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Geez, guys: have you never heard of Wikitravel? --Pawyilee (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirected from Siam

Articles linked to Siam or Kingdom of Siam are automatically re-directed here, even when they really want the historical Kingdom of Siam prior to the name change; so I added dab link|For the Kingdom of Siam prior to 1932, see Rattanakosin Kingdom. --Pawyilee (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Bias/propaganda for Political Crisis?

The following paragraph is suspicious. Experts please clarify.

As of April 2010, a set of new violent protests by the Red Shirt opposition movement, possibly backed financially by fugitive former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, have resulted in 87 deaths (mostly civilian and some military) and 1,378 injured.[35] When the army tried to disperse the protesters on April 10, 2010, the army was met with automatic gunfire, grenades, and fire bombs from the opposition faction in the army, known as the "watermelon".

Tuntable (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggest removal. There has never been any evidence presented to back up the claim that automatic gunfire, grenades, et al came from any faction of the Thai army.124.120.142.214 (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

IPA romanization

Someone might want to double check the IPA romanization in the first line of the article ([râːtɕʰa ʔaːnaːtɕɑ̀k tʰɑj]). I'm not a native Thai speaker so I'm not going to bother fixing it, but I am familiar with it somewhat. And I highly doubt there are any /ɑ/ (open back unrounded vowel) in the pronunciation for ratcha anachak thai. --Dara (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Emblem of ASEAN.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Emblem of ASEAN.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The exchange rate is Baht 33.00/USD.

Wrong! Now about 30USD wp --195.112.238.223 (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Thammasat Stadium.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Thammasat Stadium.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

File:View of the Business district skyline in Bangkok.PNG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:View of the Business district skyline in Bangkok.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Why was it named Siam?

Something which the etymology section does not explain is why the country was named "Siam". Could someone provide information on this?--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marshal. I studied Southeast Asian Studies and I can't find a definitive reason why the country was named Siam in either English or Thai sources. There are several theories, all of which are unverifiable. Even Thai academics have a fun time debating this. It seems unlikely to be resolved easily. Srijulakhota (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Other sports

Basketball should now also be listed under "Other sports": http://www.fiba.com/pages/eng/fc/news/lateNews/p/newsid/49783/arti.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.36.186 (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Bangkok Skyline view Sathorn.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bangkok Skyline view Sathorn.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The photographs of cities in the "demographics" section are incorrectly labelled. The photograph on the left labelled "Nonthaburi" is a photograph of Pattaya. The photograph on the right labelled "Nakhon Ratchasima" is Hat Yai district in Song Khla province. I would love to change them myself, but I am new and don't know how to change labels in a table or titles of a photograph. Sorry about that. I live in Thailand and only just got back from working in Hat Yai. Srijulakhota (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted [7] the anonymous edit which caused this error. Materialscientist (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Coordinate error

13°45′26″N 100°30′08″E / 13.757203°N 100.502096°E / 13.757203; 100.502096 The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—Goslife (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

History 1933-1997

The article doesn't cover this period, which is historically important. The 1933-1997 section links to other Wikipedia pages, but it's probably a good hour's work to extract a decent summary from them. It would be very nice of someone to undertake to write that summary. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.222.198 (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC) what are people doing in thyland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.129.51 (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

More relevant wikipedia links than those in thr article is History of Thailand (1932–1973) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Thailand_(1932%E2%80%931973) and History of Thailand since 1973 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Thailand_since_1973 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.229.174 (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

SRS

Should we mention that Thailand is the worst place to undergo a sex reassignment surgery? I've heard that alot of transgender people end up dead after having the operation.--Kuminiko (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Where did you "hear" this? Also, please define "worst". - Takeaway (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Well I've a transgender friend, at a party I met several of her friends who are also trans, and listening to the talk one of them said that the surgery is very cheap in Thailand,so the surgery is cheap, but its also very little professional. So as they are trans I guess they know a lot about it and that therefore they are right. :) --Kuminiko (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
You might want to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The wikipedia guidelines do not mention guests at a party as being reliable sources. - Takeaway (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Oops I guess I was wrong.. however, how do you explain that the surgery is very cheap?--Kuminiko (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what one sees as "cheap". GDP per capita in Thailand is around 5500 USD so for most Thai people it wouldn't be "cheap". The cost of living in general is much cheaper. Perhaps specialists in Western Europe and North America are too expensive? In any case, your concerns would belong better in the article Health in Thailand, not in the overall Thailand page. - Takeaway (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been living here in Thailand for nearly 14 years, and with increasing health problems typical for people of my age. I can state without any hesitation that surgery in private international hospitals here, while expensive for Thai nationals, is excellent, and inexpensive for Western health tourists and residents. As Thailand also has three perfectly recognised genders, it is fair to assume that the country is fairly expert with gender surgery. So let's get back on tack, and discuss the Thailand article rather than 'heard from the next bar stool' speculation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC notice

There is a Request for comment about the need/redundancy of Largest cities/city population templates. This is an open invitation for participating in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Demographics of Thailand

Before the differences in what should and what shouldn't be included descends into an edit war, I'd advise the editors involved to talk it over first here on the talk page instead of reverting each other's edits. I miss subtlety in the present demographic breakdown as it does no justice at all to the very complex intermingling of the different peoples and Thai subgroups (where are the northern Thai for instance) that make up Thailand's population. The previous edit indeed omitted the Malay ethnic group from the deep south. - Takeaway (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Film

The German Wik article has a section on the film industry in Thailand. We should, too.Kdammers (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Ludicrous "Science and Technology" sub-section

It really is disappointing to see that some Thai editor (assuming) keeps clogging the main page with this unjustified sub-section. In actuality, it is only a link to the Thailand National Science and Technology Development Agency page, just another unremarkable government agency, with industry assistance departments being commonly found in many nations.

Note on a wiki-Phenomena:

There is/was a wiki-phenomena of indigenous editors spruiking completely unwarranted "Science and Technology" sections on the pages of some Third-World nations, especially on pages for Asian/South East Asian countries. The Third-World editors of these sub-sections would typically decorate these areas with pictures of the shiniest, most metallic looking objects and buildings they could find, to somehow imbue a patina of credibility to the claims that these nations were scientific powerhouses. -- Uppermiddle78 (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

1933 to 1997

Politics and Government

The last paragraph before the administrative section is totally inappropriate here. "Despite from the recent policy issue in the previous years, the latest 2012 Expat Explorer Report, which undertaken by HSBC Bank International, Thailand still remains top spot for the expatriates to work and live.[43] According to the studies, Thailand ranked 3rd place for the Expat Economics Category[44] and ranked 2nd for the Expat Experience Category, by just one place behind Cayman Islands and less than one point ahead of 3rd place Spain.[44]" It belongs in rankings or culture. This is crystal clear. It also seems likely that this was inserted by a government apologist. The article is locked, so how is that possible? WHY is that possible? !! The paragraph was obviously not written by a fluent English speaker. I suggest (strongly) that it be moved and also the following changes: "In the 2012 Expat Explorer Report, by HSBC Bank International, Thailand remains a top location for expatriates to work and live.[43] According to the study, Thailand ranked 3rd for expat economics[44]. It also ranked 2nd in the "experience" category, behind 1st Place Cayman Islands and ahead of 3rd place Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.189.79.30 (talk) 07:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"Thailand" vs. "Siam"

Why is there no mention of the controversy over the names "Thailand"/"Siam" in this article. According to a Thai national, who is not of the Thai ethnic and language group, whom I recently saw being interviewed on television (unfortunately I do not remember which station/channel), he and many others do not use the name "Thailand" but make a point of referring to it by its traditional name "Siam" because they feel that "Thailand" is insulting and discriminatory to those born in that country who are not of the Thai ethnic/language group. (Personally I have always preferred the name "Siam" anyway and now use it myself in support of those whose culture is being deprecated by the official name.) Mike Hayes (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue may of course be mentioned, if reliable sources are available that document it. I don't doubt your statements, but personally I don't think there's much point in such protest since the term Siam also had ethnic connotations long before the popularisation of the name "Thai" and modern ideas of nationalism. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not you think it is important is irrelevant if you are not an ethnic minority in Siam. Mike Hayes (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Of course, no one's personal opinion is relevant to the development of this article. You may be interested to know, though, that in the Southern Thailand insurgency some refer to ethnic Thais as "Siamese infidels", which seems to reflect that they don't like the name "Siam" either. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to comment about the controversy but there is sufficient evidence that the name was originally "Siam".
  • Simon, Thomas W. Ethnic identity and minority protection : designation, discrimination, and brutalization. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books. ISBN 0739149822. Examples from Thailand, which (except for a slight interlude)13 changed its name from Siam in 1939, vividly illustrate the nebulous state of ethnicity...
  • Mishra, Patit Paban (2010). The history of Thailand. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood. p. 119. ISBN 0313340919.
  • The nonprofit sector in the developing world : a comparative analysis. Manchester [u.a.]: Manchester Univ. Press. 1998. p. 303. ISBN 0719053862. ..In a nationalistic spirit, Prime Minister Phibun Songkhram (1938-44; 1948-60) changed the country's name from Siam to Thailand and adopted segregation and discrimination policies with regards to non-Thais. The word "Thai" became very important: The concept "Thai" has many connotations. Legally, of course, the Thais are those who are defined by law as holding Thai nationality (sanchat) and, rather loosely defined, Thai race or ethnicity(chuachat). {{cite book}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
  • Whitney, Naomi Wise ; contributing editor L. Leland (1997). Passport Thailand : your pocket guide to Thai business, customs & etiquette. San Rafael, Calif.: World Trade Press. p. 16. ISBN 1885073267. ..that a military prime minister changed the country's name from Siam (Khymer for "dark brown people") to Thailand (literally, land of the free.. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
These sources clearly mention the name change.  Brendon is here 08:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The name change is already mentioned in the article, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Charnvit Kasetsiri is petitioning to change the name back to Siam for several years already (at least since 2007), but it seems he did not get many followers [8]. So probably not relevant enough to be mentioned in this article. andy (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Samut Prakan

The table with the largest cities in Thailand doesn't includes Samut Prakan, but that's one of the biggest cities in Thailand. Can somebody look to that? Supercarwaar (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is not. The city of Samut Prakan (เทศบาลนครสมุทรปราการ) has just a population of 51691 (as of 2012 population statistics), there are five municipalities with a higher population in the province Samut Prakan alone. It is of course easy to think that the whole province is like one city since there is no visible boundary between the municipalities anymore, but the same applies for the boundary between Bangkok and Samut Prakan province. andy (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There's vandalism at line "The country is a constitutional monarchy, headed by King Asscheeks XVI'Italic text" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.95.166.70 (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Article needs serious improvement

For a fairly visible article with over 6,000 visitors a day, the Thailand article is a surprising mess, with little semblance of cohesion or organization. There are several sections that are virtually blank, several that are given undue weight, and plenty of unsourced information. I find it surprising that a globally significant country like Thailand would have such a poorly written and structured article and stay neglected for so long.

Unfortunately, I am not an expert on Thailand nor do I wish to become one in the near future, I was simply browsing this article for info myself when I noticed its current state. I don't know if this issue has been brought up before, but I just thought it would be worthwhile to give a heads up to people who are interested in Thailand, to at least re-organize and streamline the sections, before adding, subtracting, and improving content. Best of luck :) Cadiomals (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Under heading Political crisis is this sentence: "In April 2009 they forced the cancellation of a regional political summit after storming the venue in the seaside resort of Pattaya." Who forced the cancellation? (I'm assuming it was the PAD.) - 152.76.1.244 (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

The ethnic affiliation of Isan people has long been an issue of discussion and dispute. Are they Thai? Or Lao? Or both? Or neither?

David Levinson, Ethnic Groups Worldwide (1998), writes that Thais constitute 85% population of Thailand. Then he explains that ethnic Thais "form four major groups in Thailand – Central Thai, Northeast Thai, Northern Thai, and Southern Thai". So, he considers Northeast Thai, "also known as the Thai Lao or Lao Isan" as a sub-group of Thais, just like the three other regional groups, although noting "their similarity to the Lao across the border". Similarity, not identity!

Barbara A. West, Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania (2009), treats the four regional groups of Thais as separate ethnicities: Central Thai 33.7%, Isaan (Northeastern Thai or Lao) 34.2%, northern Thai 18.8%, southern Thai 13.3%. However, these figures add up to 100%. What about Malays, Khmer, "hill tribes" and other minorities? It seems to me that she just took the numbers of inhabitants of the respective regions regardless of their ethnicities. (Which is rather inexact, as not all inhabitants of Isan are of Lao descent: the majority of inhabitants of Khorat province are not and there is a strong Khmer element in Buriram and Surin provinces).

The McCargo and Krisadawan paper discusses the identity of Isan people nuancedly. They do not consider them either (Central) Thai or Lao, but describe the special Isan identity which has some Thai, some Lao and some distinct Isan elements. You cannot simplify the complex findings of this paper by concluding that Isan are not ethnically Thais. Northern and Southern Thais have these special regional identities, too (but this is not the subject of this paper).

So, you can either argue (following Levinson) that the four major regional T(h)ai-speaking groups of Thailand form one big ethnicity (=Thai), or you can argue (like West) that there are four different ethnicities. But you cannot claim that central, northern and southern Thais are all Thai, while northeastern Thais are not Thai. This would be inconsistent. --RJFF (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree West is inconsistent. Therefore, it is unreliable and should not be used for the so-called 'Thai' ethnicity - one main problem is that Thai is also used in a similar way to 'British' by Thais.
The McCargo and Krisadawan paper states on its first page that the Lao Isan see themselves as Lao, with a reference. This is reliable.
Thai sources can be unreliable here: the assertion that all Thais are Thai came about legislatively through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_cultural_mandates - specifically Mandate Number 1, in Thailand's hyper-nationalist period. It is quite possible that the Lao Isan are separate ethnically while others are not: how peoples and their languages become part of a country over a great deal of time determines their ethnicity. The Welsh were incorporated into England hundreds of years ago but are still ethnically Welsh. However, the Danish who invaded England as Vikings are not seen as ethnically Danish any more.
The best available data is ethnolinguistic, from Ethnologue. I will probably add data for numbers and the descriptions used by the people of themselves from Ethnologue over the next few days. Please not that Ethnologue is not just an encyclopedia of languages. It is an encyclopedia of a) languages and b) ethnic identity, using language as the primary identity marker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcdparllo (talk • contribs) 01:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Why not use "Tai" as the umbrella term? --101.108.125.151 (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
1) No problem with this; yes, around 75% of all Thais (using adjective meaning Thai citizens) are from the Tai ethnic group. 2) Amended my comment above from "Thai sources are unreliable here:" to read "Thai sources can be unreliable here:" - over-generalization - apologies.(Jcdparllo (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC))
I disagree. First, Ethnologue is not "the best available data". It is acceptable, but not "the best available". It has been criticised for having many errors and for not properly differentiating between languages and dialects. And second, I disagree with defining ethnicity solely by linguistic aspects. While language is an important defining point of ethnicity, it is only one of several. There are some examples of separate ethnic groups using the same language, and – conversely – ethnic groups that use more than one language. SIL International (the publisher of "ethnologue") has also been criticised for essentially being a missionary organisation (see SIL International#Criticism). So, while I do not claim that "ethnologue" is completely unreliable, I warn against focussing on its finding too strongly. Instead we should try and find sources written by actual experts on South East Asian peoples and cultures discussing the contentious relation of Thai groups. I think it is uncontroversial to say that there are cultural and linguistic differences between Central, Northern, Southern and Northeastern Thais (Isan), just as it is uncontroversial to say that these four groups are closely related and have - to a certain degree - a shared identity. The contentious point is just: are they four ethnicities belonging to one family or are they four sub-groups of one ethnos. It would be incorrect to treat them as four completely distinct ethnic groups (like Malays or the "hill tribes") just as it would be incorrect to treat them as one, undifferentiated, monolithic entity. --RJFF (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
To RJFF: 1) I completely agree with your criticism of Ethnologue in terms of its lack of differentiation. For example, it differentiates between Northern, Southern, Central and Northeastern Thai based solely (as far as I can tell) on the Thai four-region Monthon system - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monthon#List_of_monthons and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_Thailand. I am having serious difficulty finding any scientific evidence for regional ethnicities based along these divisions. 2) I am therefore saying that Ethnologue is the best available data only for ethnicities on this page, but I agree that it should be also used with care. For numbers of population of ethnic groups, if you can find a better source, please show me on this page. 3) I agree that SIL data should also be used with care because of the missionary issue. My understanding is that they see themselves as guests in a country and therefore primarily use the host country's own ethnic descriptors - a position that is scientifically untenable. 4) I have no problem with accepting the limitations of linguistic data. For example, decades of cultural mandates mandating Lao people in Northeast Thailand to speak and use Thai in official contexts has created a Thai overlay on a fundamentally Lao ethnos. Just because some Northeast Thai Lao speak Thai then does not make them ethnically Thai. 6) I am not an expert on the Thai ethnicity. I do know something about Lao ethnicity. Disregarding encyclopedias, which I think we can both agree can be misleading, I agree with your position on finding expert sources. I can find literally hundreds of references discussing the Lao ethnic group in Northeast Thailand. Even restricting these sources to only PhD dissertations from reputable, international universities; peer-reviewed internationally indexed journals, and books by acknowledged experts in the field, there are several dozen available references which describe a fundamentally Lao ethnos which has been subjected to, generally speaking, unsuccessful attempts at mandatory cultural assimilation. These can roughly be categorized into the following areas (and I do not attempt a taxonomy here) - anthropology, cuisine, culture, dress, ethnography, ethnolinguistics, ethnomusicology, history, linguistics, myth and ritual. Let us begin with 'A' for anthropology. One of Northeast Thailand's greatest living anthropologists and ethnographers is Prof. Charles F. Keyes. His webpage is here: http://jsis.washington.edu/faculty/keyes.shtml. Prof. Keyes was one of the original Cornell team sent into Thailand (following the World War II Cornell-Thailand Project) during the Cold War period in order to better understand Thailand. But, we might as well begin at the beginning - with his Cornell University PhD thesis. See this reference http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/29544 for background reading. Please note that this reference is only an MA reference and does not meet the strict criteria I have set for acceptable scientific sources. However, it was given access to some primary sources of Charles F. Keyes and the Cornell-Thailand Project and provides essential background reading. The full reference for the Ph.d. dissertation I would like to direct your attention to is here Keyes, Charles F. (1966). Peasant and nation: A Thai-Lao village in a Thai state. Cornell University Ph.D thesis. ASIN = B005M3BU7M. http://www.amazon.com/PEASANT-AND-NATION-THAI-LAO-VILLAGE/dp/B005M3BU7M. It contains an anthropological investigation of the nature of the political and bureaucratic mechanisms of the Thai state that have been overlayed on the Lao ethnos. Many of Prof. Keyes' key publications from 1966 onwards focus on this issue. I understand that his most recent work on the issue is this Keyes, Charles F. (2013). Finding their voice: Northeastern Villagers and the Thai State. Silkworm Books. ISBN = 978-6162150746. http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Their-Voice-Northeastern-Villagers/dp/6162150747. Now, the question is this: Are these works of Prof. Keyes (and all those relevant ones in between), which I believe are indicative of a Lao ethnos with a Thai socio-political overlay, understood in the same way by you? Jcdparllo (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

HDI Ranking

"The country was ranked second in the 2014 United Nations Human Development Index (HDI)"

This leads to believe Thailand is second overall (which is far from true), while the cited source clearly says it's second in ASEAN.

129.253.54.24 (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2014

Thailand ranks second regarding HDI among the ASEAN countries, not second world wide, according to the cited source. Also the index was for 2013. The last sentence in the second to last para in the summary should read: Among the ten ASEAN countries, the country was ranked second in the 2013 United Nations Human Development Index (HDI), which measures quality of life according to areas such as life expectancy and income. Simong1981 (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 16:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Done. Technical 13, that response wasn't very helpful. The requester had concisely phrased his request, clearly stating that it was for clarification of an ambiguous/misleading statement, in order to reflect the facts given in the current source. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Apologies; I missed the part concerning the year. The linked news item does say 2014, so I haven't changed it. The UNDP website has the latest reports from 2013, but the news article may have been referring to this document. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

0.4%

Unemployment is said to be 0.4%, but I am not sure that there is any dole in Thailand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.95.123.216 (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

2428 BE

The article Wat Rajabopit School has a date of 2428 BE for the founding of the school. How is that translated into an AD/CE year?--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

See Thai solar calendar, simply subtract 543. But since it was before 1940, and the actual date was March 2, it was 1886 instead of 1885 as one would get by the simple rule. I have filled the Wikidata item d:Q13027188 for this school as much as I could from the Thai language article. andy (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Constitution abolition

The 2007 constitution was abolished in part, not in whole. The second chapter concerning the king remains in force. On 22 May 2014, the junta issued the announcement no. 5 which said:

"๑. รัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย พุทธศักราช ๒๕๕๐ สิ้นสุดลงชั่วคราว เว้นหมวด ๒ พระมหากษัตริย์"

The clause can literally be translated as follows:

"1. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, Buddhist Era 2550 (2007), except Chapter 2: The King, shall provisionally come to an end."

The junta later issued the announcement no. 11 to replace that clause with the following:

"๑. รัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย พุทธศักราช ๒๕๕๐ สิ้นสุดลง ยกเว้นหมวด ๒"

A literal translation:

"1. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, Buddhist Era 2550 (2007), except Chapter 2, shall come to an end."

See further information here: Prayuth opts to hold reins: Junta tears up charter, eyes big role for Senate.

When the monarchy chapter is still in force, the monarch's roles are still defined by the constitution. The term "constitutional monarchy" is still applicable at the current time.

--Aristitleism (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The sources Aristitleism gives (and everything else I've read) demonstrate that there still is a constitution, even if it only serves to define the state as a "constitutional monarchy" and nothing else. However "military dictatorship" has loaded connotations the don't seem to apply in this situation, not to mention the fact that the military dictatorship WP article is not very good and is tagged with an WP:OR notice at its top. Military junta is more accurate, more neutral and links to a less questionable article. So "constitutional monarchy under military junta" seems the best description for the infobox, at least until Prayuth's longterm plans become more clear.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 05:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree on the dictatorship point and sorry for causing inconvenience. Anyway, let me correct something. Some foreign media agencies, such as CNN, must have been lost in translation. They said section 2 remains in force. But, in fact, it's chapter (หมวด muat) 2 that remains force, not section (มาตรา mattra) 2. Chapter 2 of the 2007 constitution contains 18 sections and these sections detail certain roles of the monarch, privy council, succession to the throne, regency, etc. Section 2 (form of government) was actually abolished. --Aristitleism (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree, and thank you, Aristitleism. --RJFF (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. But, in fact, I didn't do anything that deserves your thanks and I have to say sorry if I have made you feel inconvenient or offended. --Aristitleism (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic composition

Where do the percentage figures of the T(h)ai sub-groups come from (Central 30%, Isan 22%, Northern 9%, Southern 7%)? I can find them nowhere in the references. It would surprise me if such exact figures would exist, as Thai authorities do not acknowledge these regional groups as separate ethnicities and do not survey their shares of the population in census. --RJFF (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Middle power

The concept of middle power is not very well known, so the sentence "Its large population and growing economic influence have made it a middle power in the region and around the world" in the lead is somewhat odd-sounding. Further, I cannot verify it (no preview on Google Books for the source), and said source - "Middle Power Statecraft: Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Asia Pacific" - doesn't list Thailand in its title. Can anyone provide a verification that this book indeed names Thailand as a middle power? And on that note, probably half of the South East Asian countries qualify as a middle power, so really, is it important? We can say, more clearly and less controversially, it is one of the larger, most populous and richer SEA countries instead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Form of government

It would be right to say that the monarchy in Thailand is purely figurative, and does not have any power or role in the government at all. This should be more clarified in the article. Wagner Johns (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Nazi imagery in Thailand article

I just stubbed Nazi imagery in Thailand and am having trouble with the categories and talk banners. It seems more like a fashion thing than a Nazi belief thing. A little help would be great. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Please give a correct/ proper title to your section Wagner Johns (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Thailand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2015

Can you adding semi-protected template? 42.112.89.177 (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Thailand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding a missing citation

Under 2013–14_Thai_political_crisis, "Martial law was declared formally ended on 1 April 2015." needed citation. Found the original document declaring the end of martial law in the government web archives. http://library2.parliament.go.th/giventake/content_ncpo/ncpo-annouce010458.pdf

Good enough reference? mathu (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

i remember that 50% of Thailand friendly to the US at WW2, 50% friendly to the Japan

source: discovery 123.203.117.93 (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Thailand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2016

In the demographics part of the article, there is a racist use of the word migrants and expats, with the word expats used to define the foreigners from Western countries and the more demeaning word migrants defined for the people coming from non-western countries. Either refer to all as expats or all to migrants. This is supported by the fact that many minorities from non-western countries are more affluent than their western counterparts. 109.175.191.6 (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Done Agree with your assertion. Per WP:NPOV, terms and explanations should be neutral. The use of "expat" when compared to other immigrant groups is not neutral and assumes the reader is a member of the country emigrated from. Also WP:BIAS EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Views on new constitution

The statment that the new constituion is 'seen as positive' is entirely unevidenced. We can't of course know what Thais as a whole think - because they are not permitted to say - but the evidence tends to suggest deep disagreement about the whole basis of the draft, essentially because it does contains many non or anti democratic elements, see for example:

http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/conflict-in-thailand-over-new-constitution/3244774.html

(and if you read 'The Economist' article quoted, it concluded that the draft is NOT liked and that fundamental differences of view remain between the army and the people about whether and how far Thailand should be a genuine functioning democracy.

I have suggested a more objective formulation.

Unraed (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)unraed

@Unraed: Any information put on the page must be sourced with a reliable source. Wordpress blogs are not reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that a blog cannot be a reliable source, especially it is as in this case not an individual's but that of a respected political rights group. But I have, in any case, given another soucre, the Bangkok Post, which I assume EvergreenFir regards as a reliable source, and it will be seen that it says exacty the same things as the blog does.Unraed (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)unraed
Wordpress is 99.9% of the time not reliable. But the Bangkok Press article was good. I cleaned up the references. If you're confused/unsure about the why the blog is not a reliable source, check out WP:RS or ask on WP:RSN. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources

All aboard for a scary trip down South — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.212.192.145 (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

HDI

| HDI_change = decreaseLephill (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

2008 Thai political crisis/Airport protests

For those looking for this info - See 2008 Thai political crisis/Airport protests.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Thai_political_crisis 

Tummantoy (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2016

สวัสดีครับผม ไทยและ บทความ มีข้อผิดพลาด ในภาพ ของธง ไม่ได้ ขนาด ที่ว่า อย่างเป็นทางการ หนึ่ง

198.52.13.15 (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Hi @198.52.13.15: Your request is not in English and I can't answer it. st170etalk 12:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Kudpung for clearing that up! st170etalk 13:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thailand/Archive_2&oldid=1142542107"