Talk:Bhumibol Adulyadej

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Bhumibol Adulyadej is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Talk:Bhumibol Adulyadej/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] 60th Anniv

From the article "After a brief interregnum during his 60th Anniversary Celebrations, King Bhumibol was again invoked in the political stage, when Prime Minister Thaksin publically claimed that a "charismatic" individual "outside the constitution" was trying to overthrow his government. This provoked speculation by many, including several members of the royal family,[9] that Thaksin was referring to King Bhumibol. Sondhi Limthongkul calling for the public to take a stand and choose between the King and Thaksin.[9]" Since there is no absolute proof to whom Thaksin is refering to, I believe we should refrain from claiming that he was refering to the king. This paragraph should appear in Thaksin's or Sondhi's article rather than this one.underexpose 01:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • My perspective is that the King's name is being invoked in the controversy (the press is clear about their speculations), and like the Temple of the Emerald Buddha controversy, this is involving the King in the situation whether he likes it or not. I do agree, though, that allowing the controversy to mature a bit would shed some light on how it should be covered in the article. Patiwat 11:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

People editing this article need to grasp the fact that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It does not need to include every day-to-day in-and-out of Thai politics. In this case, Thaksin did not name the King, I gather he has denied that he was refering to the King, and most people think he was refering to General Prem. Unless there are further developments, it should not be included. Adam 12:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Personally, I think that the English translation of Thaksin's reference (in here or elsewhere, if any) to an undisclosed individual as 'charismatic' is a NOT exactly right. I'm thinking of some other words which could convey the right meaning. I have consulted a Thai-English Dictionary and found out some ,which are "popularity, merit,virtue,prestige,influence, grandeur" All of which is not exactly equivalent to the Thai word that Thaksin used but at least it sounds closer to the original word than 'charismatic'.(Thaksin used the word "บารมี" pronounced as Barami). The 2 major differences between "Charismatic" and "บารมี" is that charisma is a quality you are born with or you simply have it which either attracts or is disgusted by people which means it could be both positive and negative value.However, "บารมี" is purely different. "บารมี" is a quality that doesn't come from birth or something which you can 'just have it'. You have to work hard and do a lot of good deeds in order to attain the status of being someone who has "บารมี". As someone with the "บารมี" you can influence people's ideas and actions through your words or other forms of message. "บารมี" is a form of power which you can exercise when you have to. Therefore, the latter can be earned through the course of life, though not an easy task, while the former (charisma) cannot. In addition, the "บารมี" is used only in positive context. It is used to describe someone who is no ordinary. I'm writing all these just to explain to English-educated people here and out there who don't understand why the Thais insisted and believed that Thaksin's referrence to'charismatic individual'(as in here) is actually a reference to the King. It is VERY OBVIOUS if you understand Thai language well. Rachmaninoff
    • I agree with your observations. However, the english language press in Thailand is exclusively translating that term as "charismatic". They also note speculation (never citing sources) that Thaksin was referring, not to the King, but to Prem. ~~
  • It is not surprising that the press had made such a tentative suggestion that Thaksin was referring to ,the president of privy council, General Prem, while promptly leaving question as to whether Thaksin actually meant someone 'higher' than Prem. That was the trick! Since that particular 'individual' is still being left undisclosed, it was probably safer to make such a wider speculation. Moreover, although Thaksin's intention was understood or interpreted as a negative remark to the King by many, there was no solid proof that he directly mentioned the King in his given speech (unless meticulously being tried in the court to examine the true intention)so the press stood a chance of getting the several-billion-bahts lawsuit from Thaksin had they headlined the news as something like 'Thaksin Accuses the King for excessive interferring of national affair'. This is sensitive matter, so hardly any press would do it. Still, the pointing towards Prem has some significance to which Thaksin was not in a position to say anything about Gen.Prem, who is known to be His Majesty's chosen 'representative'in the first place! Therefore, any actions of Gen.Prem is closely related and linked to the King. His public speeches represent the King's messages! If Thaksin was really criticizing Gen.Prem. It would mean that he was criticizing the King too. That's why until now he still dare not admit who exactly he was referring to. Rachmaninoff
    • Given your thoughts as stated above, how would you suggest modifying the article? Maybe replacing "speculation by many ... that Thaksin was referring to King Bhumibol" with "speculation by many ... that Thaksin was referring to King Bhumibol or Prem Tinsulanonda"? Or, like underexpose and Adam, would you suggest deleting it until the situation crystalizes (if ever)? Patiwat 12:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a biographical article about the King, not an article about Thaksin or a chronicle of Thai politics. We already have a spin-off article on the 2005-2006 political crisis, which it sounds as though this episode is a continuation of. Unless it can be shown that Thaksin named the King, or was unambiguously referring to the King, the episode does not belong in this article. Even if he did name the King, in the context of a 60-year reign it hardly merits extensive treatment. After all, the King himself hasn't said a word about this matter so far as I know. I have already carried out radical surgery on this article once as editors were filling it too full of current news commentary, and I will do so again if this tendency reappears. Adam 13:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Adam. Thaksin's recent action may interconnected with King Bhumibol; as many group of people try to draw supports by populizing King's name. However, this is an article about King Bhumibol, not Thaksin. This paragraph should be moved to Thaksin's or 2005-2006 political crisis'. Also, I removed the photo of Sondhi as I believe it is irrevalant to this article. Please keep this article stricly about King Bhumibol. Thanks, underexpose 02:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In 2005-2006 political crisis article, it has the photograph of the woman, wearing the yellow clothes. The topics is about the king. So, it is unsuitable to put that picture, although her shirt has the passage "We will fight for our King." But the picture didn't involve with the main article about the King's biography. Worapon B. 11:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I believe the photo should be included in the section on the 2005-2006 political crisis, to illustrate the King's direct and indirect involvement in the political crisis. Whether the King approved of it or not, his name and image were used by both sides in the political conflict. In no time in previous Thai political history has the King's name been politically invoked to this degree. In previous political conflicts (e.g., 1973), the King's portrait was raised by protestors both as a show of respect and to prevent the police from attacking them. But in this conflict, the King has been invoked as a direct rationale for the protests - thus the wearing of yellow shirts with "We Love the King + Liberate the Nation" slogans, and the appropriateness of including the photos in the Political Crisis section. Please note that this issue has been discussed several times before on the archived Discussion page. Patiwat 16:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have received no argument to the above reasoning over the past week, and thus have replaced the photograph. Patiwat 16:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Sondhi Limthongkul in the article

Could somebody please explain why a picture of Sondhi Limthongkul (without any source info) was recently added to the article by an anonymous editor? The text accompanying the photo doesn't really say anything useful. The article does mention Sondhi, but I don't see how his photo adds any value. For now, I will assume the addition was made in good faith, but I really want to see an explanation. Patiwat 17:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This should have been put in the Crisis of 2005-2006 section, at leas it'd relate to the text. But, as you said, the problem is the lack of a source. We need to take this out in 1-2 days if a source isn't found as this would kill a thorough GA review. Rlevse 17:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Power and Pardon procedure

From the article: "The King has the constitutional prerogative to pardon criminals. The 2006 pardon of several convicted paedophiles, including an Australian rapist and child pornographer, has caused controversy." I am not an expert in Thailand's pardon procedure. However, ABC News reported that he was among 25,000 pardoned or given a reduced sentence to celebrate King's 60th anniversary. This led me to wonder if the King actually made a decision on all 25,000 of them; or there are such an officials who make a decision on who should be pardoned, under royal power. This article currently left readers with the impression that the King personally pardoned a paedophiles that stirred up a big controvercy. Could anyone clarify about how the royal pardon procedure works in Thailand? Or should we note that he was among 25,000 pardoned/reduced? underexpose 16:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The politics and diplomacy of royal pardons for foreign inmates is described in detail by a former US Ambassador to Thailand in http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/library/oralhistory/clohproject/Thailand.pdf. The ambassador describes a very personal process, involving audiences in which the gave detailed advice and council regarding pardons and Prisoner Exchange Treaties. This suggests the King's active involvement in royal pardons, although the process might be different for prisoners who are not foreigners. Patiwat 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Technically, the Privy Council screens petitions for a royal pardon. However, the King been known to take an active role in the process, sometimes vetoing/rejecting petitions - and this applies to locals, not just foreigners. It seems he does not take his job lightly; a royal pardon is not a rubber stamp. Patiwat 19:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations and clarity for the death of King Ananda

The article currently notes that King Ananda was killed "in what was officially described as an accidental shooting". This lacks any references, doesn't describe who the official source was, and is ambiguous as to who's accident it was. I'm not suggesting that a lot of space be devoted to this very complex and controversial topic; I'm merely suggesting that one sentence be rewritten and a reference found. Patiwat 15:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is generally accepted history, that Pridi speaking for a group of top princes and his cabinet announced that it was an accident (implying accidental suicide) the night after Ananda's death, related to his alleged stomach upset. However, that was not the conclusion of the council subsequently fromed to review the case -- they insisted he coud not have filled himself, accident or whatever, leaving open the conclusion of murder (accidental fratricide could not be considered it seems). And then of course years later three people were executed. I saw things in the 1990s from the palace which called it a "mystery" and "an accident" without explanation -- seeming to absolve those executed. I think this is too detailed but you can reference "The Devil's Discus" by Rayne Kruger. But he concludes it was deliberate suicide.Phand 04:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This matter is gone into in detail by Stevenson, and I have summarised his discussion at Ananda Mahidol. Adam 06:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The initial radio broadcast of Ananda's death (which surmised that it was an accident) was made without any investigation or official interogation - I therefore don't think it deserves to be called an official conclusion. Especially since, as Phand noted, subsequent investigations found that the shooting could not have been by accident. I don't think we need to go into too much detail in this article. But the unsolved or mysterious nature of the death should be more clearly aknowledged. The way it reads right now makes the King's accession to the throne appear completely without controversy or crisis. I'd suggest rewritting that sentence as "Bhumibol acceded to the throne following the death of his brother King Ananda Mahidol on 9 June 1946. Ananda was shot in his bedroom, under circumstances which today remain in mystery." Any thoughts or alternative wordings? Patiwat 04:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"remain a mystery" is more grammatical. (Of course the reason it is still a mystery is the complete ban on discussion of this matter in Thailand.) Adam 05:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I like what Patiwat suggests. However, "was shot" to me suggests that he was shot by somebody else. And while there is no conclussion on whether he was shot by someone else or he shot himself, I suggest saying something like "Ananda's death resulted from a gunshot injury, while in his room and under circumstances that to this day remain a mistery." or something else along these lines. Anagnorisis 06:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call, Anagnorisis. I'll edit that to "Ananda's death resulted from a gunshot to the head, while in his bedroom and under circumstances that to this day remain a mystery". Patiwat 12:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Article reads as follows: "Bhumibol acceded to the throne following the death of his brother King Ananda Mahidol on June 9, 1946. Ananda's death resulted from a gunshot to the head, while in his bedroom in the Baromphiman Palace in the Grand Palace under circumstances that to this day remain a mystery.[1][2] While he was hospitalized in Lausanne, Mom Rajawongse Sirikit frequently visited him. The last sentence seems to me to appear out of context all of a sudden. Maybe it should be in another paragraph where it is first mentioned why he was in the hospital in the first place. Anagnorisis 19:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks again, Anagnorisis. I forgot a slash in the closing ref tag. Have corrected the error. Patiwat 02:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable status of some images/photos

This issue was raised in the archived discussion page, and nobody ever responded to it. Some images used in the article have questionable licenses. They are 1) the coronation portraits ("Portrait bhumibol sirikit.jpg") and 2) the Thai Coat of Arms ("Thailand coa.png"). These images are not under the public domain, nor have they been released under a free license. As such, these images may be deleted at any time. Could somebody please replace these images with public domain or freely licensed versions. Patiwat 02:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Political conflicts

It seems to me that recent edits make the Political Conflict's section very long. Though I agree that many information within the section merits to be included in this article, however, I believe that it contain too many little detail. I think we should weight the importance of many issue throughout his life and spread it out. underexpose 21:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The editors' consensus was that the last paragraph on the "charismatic individual" issue didn't warrant mention at this time. I have deleted it. If it turns out to explode into significance later, we can always add it back in. Patiwat 00:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

Congratulations! Your article passed and is now listed as a good article. It is very interesting, neutral in tone and well-referenced. My only suggestion for improvement is to work on the style of the article. Thai culture is unfamiliar to many and a little more explaination and spacing out or moving to footnotes Thai phrases would help a lot. --CTSWyneken(talk) 01:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats to us all. Thanks to the GA reviewer too. Would everyone like a go at a Peer Review and then Featured Article candidacy?Rlevse 01:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Good job, guys and gals. The only thing that's nagging me before this article goes to FA status is the questionable status of some of the photos. Patiwat 07:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Could you list them? Do they need fair use rationales?Rlevse 10:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1) The coronation portraits of the King and Queen and 2) the Thai Coat of Arms. Patiwat 16:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The coronation one will likely be fine with some fair use expounding. The coat of arms is more of problem as it's under two file names in wikicommons and has deprecated tags that need updating.Rlevse 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding fair use, the government has shown signs in the past of aggressively protecting royal-related IP, e.g., preventing the marketing of non-official yellow 60th Anniversary t-shirts. Patiwat 00:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
You're saying the tag on that is not valid? That site they got it from could be in legal hot water then. THis is a problem for the article too, unfortunately, I'm not an image use expert.Rlevse 01:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The original uploader didn't specify where the image was from. I'm not an expert on such matters either. But the picture doesn't seem to fall under any of the "fair use blanket categories" listed under Wikipedia:Fair use#Images. Patiwat 04:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an expert either, nor do I play one on TV. Perhaps the tag could be changed to {{seal}}, which would fall under fair use. Further, the fair-use rationale could be spelled out on the image's summary page, and it should be okay. -Wisekwai 05:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thailand_coa.png is not Thailand's coat of arms. Pull out your passports and your official documents and compare. The real Tra Khrut should have sharp wing tips - the wingtips of Thailand_coa.png‎ are blunt. The real Khrut should have 7 external wing-tips per side - there are 9 wingtips in Thailand_coa.png‎. The real Khrut should be wearing wearing what looks like a high belt which connects to its necklace - the one in Thailand_coa.png‎ is only wearing a necklace. The fingertips of the real Khrut should be pointed directly at the apex of its Monthien (hat) at 45 and 225 degree angles - the one in Thailand_coa.png‎ has fingers that are horizontal. The tail design is distinctly different. Patiwat 18:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The source attributed to Thailand_coa.png is a pay site (vector-images.com), and it seems that the bitmap demo image was copied from the site without requesting a free license. This image should be immediately pulled from Wikipedia. It is inaccurate and in probable violation of licensing terms. Patiwat 18:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there a suitable image on wiki to use in it's place?Rlevse 18:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I just put a Fair Use rationale on the coronation photo. For the coa one, I say either replace it with one of unquestioned status or just get rid of it altogether.Rlevse 18:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed there isn't a footnote until the section section; there should be 1-2 footnotes in the intro and early life sections. I guarantee this'd get noticed on a FAC.Rlevse 19:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)...took care of this, we just need to settle the issue of the coa picture prior to FAC IMHO.Rlevse 21:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have an image of the coat of arms of Thailand, but I do not think that the image is available under a free license. It should therefore not be used in Wikipedia.Patiwat 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the coronation photo should be used in this article. Its value is marginal, since this article already has a free license image of the King. Free license images of the Queen are also available. Given that the work is copyrighted and unlicensed, I don't think it should be in the article. Patiwat 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, then remove the coronation photo. But what to do with the infobox if we remove the garuda image?Rlevse 21:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The garuda is problematic. The garuda (not the Coat of Arms) was incorrectly used in over a dozen articles dealing with Thailand, the Thai Royal Family, and the Thai government. I'd suggest either replacing the garuda with an accurate COA for which we have a free license, or else replacing it with the flag of Thailand. Patiwat 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The flag is less of a problem that the COA. I just removed the coronation photo and replaced teh COA in the template.Rlevse 23:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
(Bump) I replaced the flag with Image:Thai Garuda emblem.png. It's fair use from the Royal Thai Government Gazette, but at least that answers the accuracy issue. Copyright violation of the older Garuda image doesn't seem to be an issue, since discussion at commons:Template talk:Vector-Images.com seems to confirm that it's allowed. (A lot of other countries' coat of arms are taken from there as well.) Paul C 13:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor issues

Some remaining things that trouble me (shouldn't block the FA review): Patiwat 04:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • What "ancient tradition" is behind the ceremonial name of the King?
  • Anybody mind if I delte this "ancient tradition" reference? Patiwat 18:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm still not convinced that the "ป.ร." in "ภูมิพลอดุลยเดช ป.ร." stands for Rex/King.
  • Given that the King is titular head of many organizations, I'd like to see a list of the key ones, as well as a link to a comrehensive list of organizations.
  • Do we have a source for the fact that he is also the only monarch to hold a patent? This assertation is actually a bit more troubling than the rest... Patiwat 22:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this claim is a misrepresentation. Searches on the US PTO website show no patents with inventor or assignee named Bhumibol, Mahidol, or Adulyadej. Maybe he only applied for patents in Thailand? I personally find this doubtful - I've worked in intellectual property issues before, and have found that a patent applied for in only one country isn't very effective; thus most professional inventors and innovating companies and universities usually apply for patents in many countries at once. But if he did just get a Thai patent, would it be more accurate to claim that he is the only monarch to hold a Thai patent? I'd suggest that this claim be deleted. Patiwat 23:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I just found and added 3 refs for the patents. I rm'd the line about falling in love, though that is likely. Rlevse 23:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The 3 references confirm that he received a European patent for the invention of the super-sandwich rainmaking technology. But they do not claim that he is the only monarch to hold a patent. I am therefore adding back the citation-needed tag to the first part of the sentence in question. Patiwat 22:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Rlevse, you reverted the citation needed tag. Did you find something backing the claim that the King is the only monarch to have a patent? Patiwat 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I got distracted and forgot to go back and add them in. Most google hits on this are wikipedia copiers. He certainly seems to be the only Thai monarch with a patent. If he's the only world monarch with a patent is less certain, but possible. I'll add the refs and maybe reword it in a moment.Rlevse 18:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The article seems a bit short to me for FAC -especially in the case of the biography of someone who has been King of a country 60 years. In other words, I would like it to both expand and go deeper. Though I like the thought of it becoming FA. Anagnorisis 05:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The section on "Royal powers" only mentions his constitutional powers based on the current 1997 Constitution. Previous constitutions gave him different powers, e.g., he didn't always have a Privy Council that he could appoint by himself, he didn't always have the right to veto legislation. The section should contain more historical perspective. Patiwat 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is already 45K, which is getting into the range where someone will object because it's too long and say make a subarticle. Anagnorisis, if you havea specific areas to add, please do so or bring them up here. For Patiwat, I'm not familiar with those three items enough to answer them.Rlevse 10:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Anagnorisis, are there any areas in particular that you think need expansion? I think that as a whole, the article is substantial, balanced, and doesn't go overboard with detail. That being said, I wouldn't mind it if the "60th Anniversary celebrations" section was shortened down a bit (the 50th Anniversary and 72nd Birthday celebrations were just as significant in terms of pomp and aren't mentioned at all) and the "Biographies" section were shortened down (and the contents and perspectives of the biographies integrated into the article body). I hesitate to expand the "Political conflicts" and "Royal powers" sections to include other major incidents, not because they aren't politically significant and directly involved the King, but because the article is already at the threshold of being too long. Patiwat 22:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Patiwat, altough I agree with you regarding the article being substantial, and balanced, and not going overboard in detail, I think that view is biased (we both know a bit more about the King than the ocasional wikipedia reader). I would probably like expanding the areas we tend to read less about him. That is, early life, his family life (as a child, husband, and father), other private life (hobbies, interests, etc.); politics from long ago -how things came to be the way they are (evolution of his relevance as King -we both know that prior to the early 70s he didn't have as much relevance as he has today); issues regarding sucession (why it is such a hot topic who will be his replacement); more on his work for the poor and explaining why he is so much loved by all, etc etc. Still, I said I would like the article to expand more into these areas, I didn't say I opposed it becoming FA if this didn't happen. Cheers. Anagnorisis 01:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Anagnorisis, I think your suggestions are very reasonable. I'll probably be able to add a bit of detail on his interests without overburdening the article. His family life is a bit problematic - his "personal issues" with his wife and children might be better dealt with in their respective articles, if at all. Politics is a slippery slope - the conflicts between the royalists, Democrat Party, army, and Pridi during the the from the 40s to the 70s were extremely complex. The King's role in the Pibunsongkhram->Sarit transition (which I talk about very briefly in the article) is really only the tip of the iceburg. I think the succession section already covers who will technicaly be his successor - any more, and we risk getting into issues of relative popularity and rumors about "personal issues". There are very few real facts. Patiwat 19:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Patiwat, I cannot disagree with you. Everything you say makes a lot of sense. Yes, I agree it is difficult to expand those areas. However, you and I understand why they are such touchy topics, but most likely that will escape the average reader. Perhaps without going into details, we could at least explain a bit why they are subjects that are difficult to discuss openly in Thailand, and thus why saying more would amount to gossip. Well, lets see if we can do anything at all regarding those issues. Cheers. Anagnorisis 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sticking to the hardest of hard facts. Here's what I have regarding succession, outside of what the article already covers. I'd appreciate your suggestions on which facts to include, and also what additional commentary might be appropriate. Patiwat 19:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In a 1981 press conference, the Queen noted of the Crown Prince: "He is a good student, a good boy, but women find him interesting and he finds women even more interesting.... If the people of Thailand do not approve of the behavior of my son, then he would either have to change his behavior or resign from the royal family." I guess "mom knows best" and if it comes from the mouth of the Queen, it can't be lese majeste.
  • The Crown Prince has many potential heirs. The Crown Prince's first official wife was Ong Soam, with whom he had a daughter in 1978. He had 4 boys with Mom Benz in 1979, 1981, 1983, and 1985, and finally a daughter in 1987. He divorced On Soam in 1993 in the Family Court. He married Mom Benz in 1994 in the palace, however, she was not given royal title. Then "something" happened in May 1996. His eldest daughter with Mom Benz was "returned" to Thailand, and has lately received a high royal rank. He claimed to have married Srirasmi in 2001 in the palace, and they had a son in 2005.
  • On his 59th birthday speech, the King hinted at abdication: "In our lifetime, we just perform our duties. When we retire, somebody else will replace us." The palace noted that the King might join the monkhood.
  • Phra Thep has never married.
As noted above, I had added some material about the King's interest in firearms in his youth. Patiwat 00:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, I think the Biography section isn't directly relevenat to the King and any facts and perspectives of the biographers should be incorporated into the article body. I have therefore removed the "blurb" for The King Never Smiles and replaced it with a short summary of the book.

Now that user:Silence has joined the editing team, I am sure the article will improve a lot in matters of style. He is very good and experienced copyeditor that has helped many FAC along the path to FA status. Anagnorisis 19:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Political conflicts" -> "Role in Thai politics" ?

I don't think the section name "Political conflicts" reflects what the section is really about: the King's role in Thai politics over the decades. The word "conflicts" seems to imply that the section is about the King's conflicts with politicians or his involvment in the conflicts of politicians. This might have been true a lot of the time, but isn't neccesarily a neutral name for the section. I'd suggest changing it to "Role in Thai politics". Any thoughts? Patiwat 21:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Anagnorisis 23:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lets talk through any disagreements

Over the past couple of days, there are appears to have been a rash of large scale edits and reverts, and some accusations of sockpuppetry. Could we all please chill out and use this Discussion page to air out any differences in opinion? The main issues being reverted seem to deal with style (whether to use "King Bhumibol" or "Bhumibol" in the article body), and the wholesale deletion of several sections, including the King's role in politics, the King's constitutional powers, the King's wealth, and a few other issues. Lets just talk about these issues explicitely rather than trying to infer rationalles from the edit history. Patiwat 03:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Tuleeprabaht was blocked for contiuously breaking the 3RR. Now another incarnation is making the same edits. Perhaps this page will need to be semi-protected until the vandals tire down. Anagnorisis 08:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Patiwat. Also, this article is up for FAC and one of the requirements is that it be STABLE and these edit disagreements are not helping. Work things out here please, on the talk page. The current version (09:53, August 17, 2006) is essentially the one that one was submitted for FAC and it would be great if it stay that way until the FAC is over. Keep in mind that even if FA is achieved, FA status can be lost if the FA deteriorates in quality. Rlevse 09:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A large part of the disagreement seems to be whether to refer to the King as "Bhumibol" or "King Bhumibol". The article uses both, as well as "The King". The Manual of Style notes the controversy surrounding the issue. Most articles are inconsistent, using all three forms (e.g., Victoria of the United Kingdom). I have absolutely no personal preference for any one of these for the article, but I'd prefer if we were consistent. Patiwat 15:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't care as long as it's stable and consistent, and agreed upon.Rlevse 18:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, articles must be stable to be FAs. But that means void of edit wars and the like; it doesn't mean the article cannot keep improving along the way. What I mean is that we should not refrain from improving the article by adding information that is agreed should be included as a result of the exchanges between editors in the discussion pages and that occur while the article is reviewed as FAC. Cheers. Anagnorisis 20:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Improvements are fine. I was mainly referring to the vandals, sockpuppetts (which was proven by an admin), edit wars.Rlevse 21:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be enormous edit version since the falling of the current caretaker government popularity "Thaksin Shinawatra". By my rough estimate, over 500+ versions have been edited (and majority by ‘Patiwat’) since the December 2005 version. When compare with the December 2005 version, the current version seems to be very much politically motivated. The most frequent contributor is user name 'Patiwat' which makes me wondering whether Patiwat is under the falling regime payroll or try to insert some of his political idea to defame the King? Giving the fact that the last Thai election is only one party election which was totally undemocratic way and it seems to be the same opinion with the King that the last Thai election was unjustified and need to be invalid. I guess it's true that the King has a lot of influence in Thai politics. However, these special influences have saved Thai fragile democracy from political turmoil and slowly nurture the Thai democracy system in the past long record. When I checked the info on the user 'Patiwat' the most frequent contributor to this article (from Dec 2005 - current), Patiwat's statements stated that "No, I don't love Thaksin. In fact, I have more valid reasons for hating him than most Thai people. But I love democracy more than I hate Thaksin. And I have nothing but scorn for an elite that belittles the plight of the poor. I'd rather have a corrupt democracy over an efficient aristocracy any day." I think for the sake of the validity of Wikepedia, I'd appreciate it very much if the user'Patiwat' could state his motive to edit this particular article daily. Plus, is there any financial support for the current caretaker government of doing so. I could imagine that one would do daily edit, multiple times a day without paid. This really makes you wonder how bias is this current version of this article from political motive. And is Wikepedia the right venue for anyone to take over and express their own polical view point? Why not write your own blog instead. Thanks, Jim Thompson (ex-expat)

Nobody needs to justify to anyone why one makes edits in Wikipedia. Thus, I strongly suggest to Patiwat that he ignores requests for him his motives for doing what he does. Given that we are to assume good faith, we should do so until we see vandalic behavior. Even if some (many are) politically motivated, things would tend to find a balance due to the presence of other editors that would push for a NPOV. Jim, if you disagree with specific edits made by Patiwat, discuss them here. Discuss the specifics related to the article; not Patiwat himself. This is about the article, not about specific editors. Also, remember this is not a forum. Cheers. Anagnorisis 05:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • User:JThompson, you claim that my edits have defamed the subject of the article. This a serious allegation in Wikipedia, especially since the subject of the article is still a living person. I will assume good faith on your part in making this accusation, and would like to request that you specify where exactly where and how I have defamed the subject. I stand by my edit record. If I have defamed the King in my edits, I request that the Wikipedia administrators to immediately and permanently remove such defamations from the edit record. Patiwat 21:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with user Anagnorisis that if such edit is a verifiable fact, one doesn't need to stated her/his motivation. However, Jim does make a good point about article's balance. One could not deny the King's involvement in politics over 6 decades but there is other stuff worth mentioning too. Recently there are an active edits on the King and politics, almost on a daily basis. It's length is growing up to almost half of the overall content. Should this section keep expanding, I think we may want to create a new article dedicate to King Bhumibol and Thai politics. underexpose 01:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Thats a valid point. I agree that the section on politics and the King shouldn't be getting any larger. Patiwat 02:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where does Cambodian embassy incident go?

The Cambodian embassy riot incident doesn't seem to go so well with the "Royal powers" section. It concerns his popularity, not his royal powers. But I'm not sure where it should go. Any suggestions? Patiwat 02:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Intrepid" and "Tito"

The article mentions his literary works, but not his translations of "Intrepid" and "Tito". Should this be added as well? Patiwat 22:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Anagnorisis 22:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm pretty sure when the private life section began, it was there. Wonder why it was taken out. Suredeath 05:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding GFDL'ed photo

  • Good news, guys and gals. Maharaj Devraj has generously scanned and GFDL'ed Mahidols-1938.jpg, a photograph taken in 1938 showing King Ananda Mahidol, Prince Bhumibol, and there grandmother Savang Vadhana. The photograph was taken by Prince Rangsit Prayoonsak, uncle of the Kings and an ancestor of Devraj Rangsit. The photograph was published in the book First Trip Abroad (Priyananda Rangsit, ed.) along with many others of great historical value. The photo is a welcome contribution to Wikipedia and definitely should be used in the article. Much thanks to Maharaj Devraj! Patiwat 21:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

.... thinking more about the pictures .... I do not know, but I am not convinced about having the picture of the protester with the yellow shirt. I do not see much relevance between that picture and a biographic article about the king. The picture shows an indistinctive girl wearing a yellow shirt. She could be anyone among thpusands. What information to the reader conveys that picture? It is just one more person going to a political march against the prime minister. I see it as a stretch to tie that picture to the life of the king. I would remove it. Anagnorisis 05:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The photo caption seems to have been changed since the photo was first added to the article. I believe the caption originally said "A protestor wears the sloan 'We will fight for the King' during an anti-Thaksin protest." The rationale for the photo was that the King was being invoked by the protestors. Use of the King as a partisan rallying point in this manner was quite unprecedented in Thai politics. This illustrates the discussion in the article of the King's indirect role in the 2005-2006 political crisis. 24.193.105.76 04:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Still, my point stands. There is no specific info conveyed by the girl in relation to what you say. It is a picture of a girl standing and smiling to the camera. The same picture could have a thousand different captions. Nothing in the picture points towards the king. The same picture could be of a girl on a holiday trip somewhere. And as this is the english wikipedia, we have to take what we are told the slogan in the shirt says, as we cannot read Thai. The same picture could be in an article about animals saying "A protestor wears the sloan 'Be nice to animals, kiss a rugby player'" and we would take it at face value as there isn't any real info conveyed by the graphic content itself. Anagnorisis 05:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have two issues with the photo. 1) The photo is not relevant to the article. I think the photograph is relevenat to the article. Following from your analogy, if the subject of the article was highly influential with the public and had played a large role in animal rights movement, would it not be appropriate to include a picture of an animal rights protestor at the site of a large protest wearing a t-shirt saying "We fight for so-and-so in order to defend animal rights"? I think that would be extremely appropriate. 2) The slogan was in Thai. You got me there. Most of the signs, slogans, and t-shirts of the protestors were in Thai. That's why a caption is needed. That being said, I don't think any reasonable bilingual editor would question my translation of "เราจะสู้เืพื่อในหลวง" as "We will fight for the King". Patiwat 18:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You are right in what you say. But do we need a picture of just "a person" with something printed that we cannot read to learn that many people protested invoking the king? At least if the pciture showed a big crowd ..... What I mean is that the picture by itself doesn't tells us anything. A person standing is a person standing, no matter the abstract drawings (I say drawings as we do not read thai) in the shirt show. The caption in a picture is suppossed to help reinforce the information content conveyed by the graphics of the picture. Here we just have to rely on the caption as there is basically no information in the picture by itself. Well, that is not true ... perhaps is the caption said "Cute young girls supporters of the King protested ...." then the picture would help corroborate the information that "cute young girls ..." You see where I am getting at? ;-) Anyway, this is not a biggie, though I still think the pic doesn't convey any info by itself for a biographic article. As its stands now, the pic is more about showing the reader the shirt itself. Now, do not get me wrong, I do like the girl's looks. She does "beautify" the article. ;-) Anagnorisis 19:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the attractiveness of the protestor is that relevant. Ideally, I would be illustrating the degree of the King's indirect role in the protests by showing an image of thousands of anti-Thaksin protestors in a sea of yellow in front of government house, with a big banner saying "We fight for the King." I don't have that, and I haven't seen one up on the Commons. The image of a single protestor wearing the slogan in royal-yellow seemed to me to be a good second-best solution. Patiwat 02:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Do I see a straw man? ;-). My point was not about the attractiveness. Actually with that I was kind of mocking the thing. Instead I was ..... nah, forget about it. Leave the picture of "a girl with a yellow shirt and drawings." ;-) Anagnorisis 05:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyight?

The 1938 photo is only good news if it's free of copyright. Is Maharaj Devraj the copyright holder? I have lots of photos of the Royal Family in various sources, but virtually all published material is copyright. Also the recent AP photo of the King cannot possibly be public domain. Adam 04:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I've raised this issue with Maharaj Devraj on my discussion page, and he clarified that indeed he did have the right to offer the picture under GFDL. The photo is a family heirloom. The book that the photographs were published in was written by his relative, who granted him the right to offer the photograph under GFDL. Patiwat 18:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Much of Prince Rangsit's vintage films and photo collections have been given (by his son) to the care of the Thai National Archives, however much of it also remains with his descendents (so I'm not sure about the public domain thing as usually when the images are used on Tv credit is given to the national archive And the Family). English source's relating to Prince Rangsit's role in Thai history remains rather limited, which is the main reason why the copyright holder was willing to contribute his images for educational purposes in the public domain through wikipedia. Regards Maharaj Devraj 05:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] You guys forgot to mention about these facts too

The editors of this article seem to have very detailed knowledge and superfluous efforts at writing and updating on the King. Why don't you guys compile the right eye incident along with the spinal surgery into a section called, "Health", which I'm sure you could insert a few extra affronts about the King in the process. But for the recent spinal microsurgery at Siriraj hospital it baffled me that you guys didn't denounce him for having caused the traffic congestion around the Phran Nok area during the period of his hospitalization (the denouning part should immediately follows whatever fact was being portrayed, like the rest of your styling). Oh, almost forgetting, yet another fact: the King likes to eat shark fin soup. It was blatantly mentioned in a local Thai magazine, but I have yet to cite the source, however, don't forget to link it with Green Peace and Friends of the Earth entries as well. Oh, and one more fact that you guys seem to have blatantly missed out for this excellent article: Up until recent years, it was a customary practice for the King and members of his immediate family to collect petty cash donations directly from bystanders: The King would go hastily from one person to the next, fetching 10 Baht, 20 Baht, and (some) 100 Baht bank notes from hands of poor bystanders waiting to greet him outside the function halls. Finally, I can't believe that you guys missed out on this one: you mentioned about the rain making project initiated by the King, if you're a little bit of a scientist, you would have known that the process has been subjected to criticisms by environmentalists, as it sometimes, is considered as "Stealing Moisture" from neighboring countries, don't forget to add this one too. I'm sure that this will help to portray more facts and information about the King, making this article even more complete, detailed, updated, and accurate, which will make it even more valid of a candidate as a featured article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.113.13.3 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, I'm not sure whether this really qualifies as trolling. Perhaps one could find some meaning or valid point under that sarcasm or whatever it is. Paul C 20:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Paul C. I'd like to remind the editors that Wikipedia policy is not to feed a troll (which means not rv'ing him/her either). That being said, I don't yet believe that the anonymous editor is a troll and, within all that sarcasm, has some potentially valid points. Patiwat 22:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Does the King deserve some privacy regarding his health? Of course. But when every newspaper and television channel in Thailand publicizes his major surgeries, I don't think this should be regarded as a private issue.
  • Should traffic associated with royal motorcades and tours be mentioned? I don't think so. This is a security issue, as the recent car-bomb made very clear.
  • Should the King's culinary habits be mentioned in the article? Only if they are very public information. I have never heard of the fact that the King likes sharks fin soup - to me this seems like trivia. The King has stated in public that, unlike many Thais, he likes brown rice. Again, this seems like trivia, which belongs at the border-line of an encylopedia article.
  • Should his association with Green Peace and Friends of the Earth be mentioned? I never realized that the King was ever associated with these organizations. Wasn't his pro-dam stance make him not-as-popular-as-he-could-have-been with some environmentalists?
  • Should the royal charities and the methods they use for fund raising be mentioned? Well, there is a link to the Chaipattana Foundation and quite a bit of info on the royal projects. I think that specific issues related to fund raising (e.g., the Prem-era scandal regarding the sale of royaly-bestowed titles, the identify of big donators) should be discussed in seperate linked articles.
  • Should the article include general criticism of rain-making? No - general criticism belongs in the article on rainmaking. But if a respected and knowledgable individual makes a public criticism of a specific royally-mandated rainmaking policy, then that might be included in the article (if there is a reference, of course).Patiwat 22:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The troll/not troll should get an account and sign his entries. Stop hiding.Rlevse 23:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you guys failed to read well what he said. When the editor starts saying things like "Oh, and please do not be a loser and a pimp and delete my comment again or else I'll use my every available resources (which I'm sure exceeds the pimps working on this article) to make sure that this article is down the drain in no time." to me he is a troll. Regardless of what he had said before and why his comment was deleted the first time, the moment he says what I quoted above and starts insulting the other editors and threatening the article, he makes himself deserving of having his whole comment excluded from the discussion. [5] Good for him that he smarted up and didn't say the same things when he came back and posted for a 3rd time. Anagnorisis 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
That is a valid point - however, slow reverts, not immediate reverts, are the suggested course of action according to policy. Otherwise, we'd only be aggravating him/her. Besides, I have a feeling that this anonymous editor isn't new to this article. Patiwat 17:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Those 'valid points' aren't valid. Just saying. Shark fin soup and the 'petty cash donation' just gave him away. You guys tried to hard to be fair. Suredeath 09:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulation on FA status

I notice it has already achieved FA status. Congratulations to those editors who have worked hard on this article. Patiwat and Rlevse come to mind first, but congratulations to all. Anagnorisis 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulation! cheers, underexpose 20:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks guys! Rlevse
Thanks, Anagnorisis. All of the editors really deserve the credit. Cheers! Patiwat 23:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The King and the Constitution

The king's official powers are defined by the Constitution of Thailand. However, the monarchy's constitutional powers were anything but static. The powers have fluctuated wildly depending on how palace-friendly and democracy-friendly the ruling government was, from the heights of the 1949 Constitution, which gave the King nearly complete control over the legislature, to the lows of the 1932 Temporary Charter, which made the monarch just a figure-head, to the ambiguity of the 1957 Charter, which gave Sarit absolute power, but made him an instrument of the throne. Your thoughts on Constitution of Thailand and suggestions on how some elements might contribute to Bhumibol Adulyadej would be most appreciated. Patiwat 05:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A section with a few paragraphs summary the flow of change and why they occurred; but this is outside my area of expertise to do myself. Rlevse 11:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cult in touch with the Common

From my perspective, current Wikipedia articles on Thailand's royal family reflect only current events and fail utterly to explain their role in contending with communism, fascism, elitism, racism and the more rapacious sort of capitalism, especially when contrasted with surrounding countries and Thailand's own past. A recent version of the opening paragraph of the article on King Bhumibol commented on his name at birth as "reflecting the fact that his mother was a commoner." No where is it mentioned that Their Majesties address the people of Thailand in common language, so plainly spoken that even I can understand it, rather than the artificial royal language in use since King Ramathibodi I. The second paragraph said, "Bhumibol was brought back to Thailand in 1928, after Prince Mahidol finished his medical study at Harvard University,” without a hint that the 'medical study' was in keeping with a family tradition of service to the nation. In mentioning the young Bhumibol's own studies scattered over the next 3 paragraphs, it said he "major[ed] in French literature, Latin, and Greek…, was studying science…, [and] switched over his field of study to Law and Political Science, to prepare him more effectively for his new position as ruler." Scattered as they are, these observations obscure the fact a “ruler”, who as constitutional figurehead was not destined to rule, was getting a very republican education, indeed. Several versions of the article have stated, “Bhumibol is immensely popular in Thailand, and is revered as a semi-divine figure by many Thais. Critics, mostly outside Thailand, attribute this status to the suppression of criticism of the monarchy.” Plus the image label, “Many public images of Bhumibol, such as this one outside the Danish Embassy, show him as many years younger than his current age, contributing to his cult-like status,” as if something rotten in Denmark were contributing to a conspiracy. This displays utter ignorance of the fact that veneration of a monarch is NOT “cult-like” but an actual, veritable cult due to the very nature of monarchy. This article and others on the royal family should, IMO, make it clear just how they have used their cultic status to advance interests of common people. King Ramathibodi had goods reasons to adopt a cult venerating his person as divine, but the present royal family, not just the King, have reversed this to give the king a common touch. Since there are obviously some of His Majesty’s family contributing as editors, I wish one of them would come up with an image of the king with a drop of sweat about to drip from his nose. This is one of the most popular pictures of the king ever made, and I have seen it enlarged to the point where the drop of sweat was the size of a VW bug. Lee 06:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)PawYiLee

See "Royal Projects" section for starters. Rlevse 09:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
OK sez Lee, That's a start. I also see someone added Images of Bhumibol dominate the skyline at Chatuchak Park" where the the left-facing image shows the famous drop of sweat, about the size of a bus, I imagine. Lee 06:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)pawyilee
True, the mention that the photo was taken in front of the Danish embassy is not relevant to the article at all, and in your case, gets people thinking if that detail is trying to communicate something it is not. I have reworded the caption. Now if that photo were taken in front of the Finland Embassy .... :-) Patiwat 04:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Lee:

  • It is is not the function of Wikipedia to write royal hagiography.
  • I added the photo taken outside the Danish Embassy. I attached no particular significance to that; it's just where the image happened to be.
  • By all means add the "drop of sweat" photo if you can demonstrate that it is not copyright. Adam 04:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Could these image taken recently be useful? One clearly show how modern Thailand (mcDo) is merged with traditional Monarchy

Enlarge
Enlarge

[edit] Meaning of his ceremonial name?

Although the article mentions King Bhumibol's complete ceremonial name, it does not elaborate at all on it. Since I don't speak a word of Thai I'm curious - what is the meaning of this long name? Do these words designate a function (similar to the "keeper of the faith, head of the Commonwealth" etc.. of Queen Elizabeth II for example) or are they honorary names - such as names of ancient Kings? Or something yet different? 128.2.229.114 17:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

พระบาทสมเด็จพระปรมินทร มหาภูมิพลอดุลยเดช มหิตลาธิเบศรามาธิบดี จักรีนฤบดินทร์ สยามินทราธิราช บรมนาถบพิตร
พระบาท สมเด็จ พระปรมินทร: Holy feet of excellent truth (when addressing the King, it is customary to refer to lie prostrate and refer to him as "The feet over my head". This was supposed to be a great honor, to put the highest part of your body, your head, under the lowest part of his, his feet)
มหา ภูมิพล อดุลยเดช: Great strength of the land, incomparable power (this is his personal name)
มหิตลาธิเบศ รามาธิบดี: Son of Mahidol, Rama the ruler
จักรี นฤบดินทร์: Chakri King ("King" here is an archaic term that derives from the God Indra)
สยามินทราธิราช: King of Siam (a compound term that includes "Siam", "Indra", and "Raja" - which also means King. It used to be the way the earlier Chakri kings signed their name.)
บรม นาถ บพิตร: Greatest pillar ... (Not sure what บพิตร means. นาถ means something you can rely on, and was added to the Queens name after she became Regent while the King was in the monestary.)
-- Patiwat 21:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crisis of 2005-2006 --> "It is a mess"

Am I correct that this is quoted in many media as meaning that the political situation at that time was a mess? The way I read his statement is that asking the king to intervene in politics is a mess. Does anyone have more information regarding this. Maybe the complete original statement in Thai? Thai people maybe? Any information about his actual words about the current coup? It is said he supports the coup, but I'd like some more info, his actual words,? He announced on tv, a speach, what? How did the "Associated Press" get this statement from him?

  • The Court was supposed to decide on the ruckus created by April Election. For some stupid reason, someone suggest the King has the right and should intervene. When asked, the King basically said that's stupid, it's undemocratic, it's "MUA" or a total mess, you're the court, you're public servant, sort this problem out. That's unofficially a royal decree there. The next day, the Court's attitude and guts totally changed regarding the handle of political turmoil in Thailand (at least in my opinion). The term he used is มั่ว 'Mua', a somewhat commoner's speech and a bit rude, but quite appropriate at the timeSuredeath 13:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typo

Songkhla is spelled wrong in the article...it's spelled without the "h".

The Thai alphabet has several cases of alternate spellings in English and this is one of them. Rlevse 20:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some stuff that was removed during the recent vandalism wars

I'm adding back some long-standing content that seems to have been removed during the recent vandalism wars. Patiwat 21:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA of name

Add syllable division marks (look like periods/full stops) between each syllable in the two names.

Also is a space character within the brackets (used here to indicate two different words) officially allowed in IPA -- or should the first and last names appear in separate brackets?

[edit] Please Add this Section on Transliteration of Name (Article Currently Locked)

Please add this section somewhere in the article.

Note that this is my layman's understanding of the situation. Regarding my paragraph 2 especially, anyone who is an expert on issues of religious and royal Thai spelling and pronunciation, please correct if needed.


SECTION TITLE: Transliteration of the Monarch's Name

The strikingly unphonetic transliteration of the monarch's name found most typically in use, Bhumibol Adulyadej, is due to a complex phenomenon. The Thai writing system derives originally from the ancient Brahmi script used to write Sanskrit, and therefore Thai letters can, in the abstract, be viewed as also having the pronunciation of their Sanskrit equivalents.

While the monarch's name is always pronounced in its Thai form, the Sanskrit-derived transliteration Bhumibol Adulyadej is favored as a type of respectful formalism.

Using the official transliteration system of the Thai government, the Royal Thai General System of Transcription, the monarch's name would be rendered as Phumiphon Adunyaded -- much more comprehensible to the English speaker, except for the use of "ph" to represent an aspirated P (IPA [pʰ]) and not a fricative (IPA [f]) as in English.


Done. TheMadBaron 10:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
We should not give so much background; an entire section is uncalled for. Don't forget that this isn't just about the King - it applies to every single Wikipedia article on a Thai person. If you really want to add a section on "Transliteration of XXX's name", you would also have to do it for every other article on a Thai person as well. I think it is sufficient to note:
(Thai: ภูมิพลอดุลยเดช; IPA: [pʰu:mipʰon adunjadeːd]; Royal Institute: Phumiphon Adunyadet; listen (help·info))
Patiwat 23:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The King's security during the night of September 19, 2006

Shouldn't there be any mentioning about the incidents during the night of September 19 (the day of the coup) with regards to the King? I've heard that the King had been in many dangerous situations in his life including a time when a bomb planted by Souther insurgents went off near his podium some decades ago. The Manager group have reported that on the night of September 19 was a time of grave danger for the King: It was the war--a race--between Mr. Thaksin's side and the King's side. News had it that Mr. Thaksin's side under the leadership of Gen. Ruaengroj Mahasaranond was planning to mobilise the troop in order to declare a state of emergency and also surround the palace in the process. It was said that they would then physically force the King to abdicate the throne in order to change the ruling system into a republic and hence assign Mr. Thaksin as the first President. If what Manager speculates is true, I would like to know why Mr. Thaksin would like to do that? Does he have a personal problem with the King or something? But I have heard that Mr. Thaksin hasn't been very nice to the King--not approving budget for new royal airplane, blocking budgets for royally initiated projects etc.--125.24.237.150 21:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Innocent Onlooker.

This level of detail belongs in the article about the coup, not in his bio. Rlevse 21:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
And I highly doubt the story. More likely just the Thaksin's opposition rhetoric. I don't think Thaksin was at all innocent, but some of his enemies gave him some of the most ludicrous, unfounded charges. And at the time (and even now) the King's position is beyond anyone grasp in Thailand. Thaksin simply do not have the power to force an abdication, the King is just too popular. It would be a political suicide and a death wishSuredeath 06:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The King was with Prem, a key backer of the coup, on the night of 19 September. See the chronology on the coup article.
  • Thaksin vs. the King conspiracy theories are covered in the "Finland Plot" article. Patiwat 03:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Longest Serving Head of State?

The article on Malietoa Tanumafili II of Samoa indicates he is the longest serving head of state in the world. Is there something I am missing that would make King Bhumibol the longest? Malietoa Tanumafili II is also listed as #1 in List of longest reigning current monarchs. --Mishalak 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

moved to bottom, where new questions go. Samoa is not a soverign nation, Thailand is, so the Samoan may be a monarch, but he's not a head of state. Rlevse 22:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Technically the Samoa monrach is the longest serving monrach, as Samoa is not a monrachy, its monrach is not recognised as a head of states. Heads of states are only recognised in the ranking system. Therefore, King Bhumibol is the longest reinging monrach in the world currently. --Terence Ong (C | R) 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

If I am not mistaken, it has already over a month since the latest episode of heavy vandalism by unregistered users. Shouldn't we give it a try and have the semi-protection removed and see how it goes? Anagnorisis 04:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The last time we unprotected it, the anonymous bad editors immeditately went to work again. Rlevse 11:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, eventually we will have to give it a try. If not now, in 3 months, or 2 years, or 5. I hope we won't needto keep it semi-protected for eternity. Vandals eventually get bored and give up. So I hope ;-). Cheers. Anagnorisis 11:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't have to deal with them at all. I have no sympathy for them and think wiki's policies towards vandals are hopelessly weak. I also strongly oppose anonymous editing. This article seems better and better. Rlevse 12:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting article. However as it stands now wikipedia does allow for editing by anonimous users. While it is so, there is no reason for some few pages alone to remain protected or semi-protected for very longuninterrupted periods. All protected pages are un-protected after some time; and if the vandals return they can always get protected again. Keeping them protected for eternity goes against the general style of wikipedia (with the exception of the main page). I do not like vandals, but I also dislike that protected tag -mind you, I did myself ask and got this article to be semi-protected a few months back when some idiot kept vandalizing it. Could he be the same guy from last time? Anagnorisis 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it was the same guy. I'm not an admin, nor would I want to be, so I did not protect the page and can not unprotect it. Ask any admin you know to remove it. We'll see if the vandals come back. Rlevse 20:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Short section on lèse majesté (as applied to King Bhumibol)

I have added a short section on lèse majesté, as it has been applied to King Bhumibol. I have often been asked questions about this, and was a bit surprised to see that no mention in the article of lèse majesté in formal modern use with the current King. I've used several examples that I believe are illustrative: lèse majesté as censorship (Sulak Sivaraksa), lèse majesté to prevent misunderstands among foreigners (the French guy), and lèse majesté as a political tool (Thaksin/Sondhi). Patiwat 12:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/h/u/Talk%7EBhumibol_Adulyadej_c371.html"