Talk:Bhumibol Adulyadej/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Page location

This question is probably going to show my knowledge of Thai royalty up, but why isn't this page at Rama IX of Thailand rather than Bhumibol Adulyadej? That's the standard used everywhere else for monarchs (c.f. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Rainier III of Monaco, Wilhelm II of Germany, Albert II of Belgium, &c.)...
James F. (talk) 18:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, the page from the Ministry of Forign Affairs, Kingdom of Thailand, describing the Thai Monarchy uses King Bhumibol Adulyadej or King Bhumibol five times, and Rama zero times (naught for my british freinds). If His Magesty's Royal Government calls His Magesty the King Bhumibol in english, who is wikipedia to disagree. I think Rama is used more as a title than as a name in english. Gentgeen 11:38, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Note, I support moving the article back. -gent
I also think the article should be moved back, and will do so - I've always heared King Bhumibol... john k 04:25, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Some information from a 29 y.o. Thai - your information on this page is incorrect in many part.

When a primeminister was formerly an army officer, it does not necessary reflect that he must have tied to military regime. Though I'm not really sure what "regime" really meant, I have a sense that it's not entirely controled by military, like in Myanmar. Though I was too young to remember any regime in the past, but I'm sure that the telecast in 1992 was not a confrontation. (The way you put your sentense, it seems like H.M. the King had confronted Gen. Suchinda, where in fact, he provide a peaceful resolution for both Gen. Suchinda and Gen. Chamlong to end their stand-off.)

On the other side of the story, King Bhumiphol had initiate vast array of developmental project aimed at the back bone of the country, the agricultural sector.His Royal Initiative Project help the hill tribes in the north of Thailand to stop growing opium, and change to better-valued vegetable, coffee, etc. Also, His Royal Initiative project include many land reforms, irrgation systems, flood relieved, and emergency provision.

These are just a few things regarding H.M. The King, apart from political issued that came to me at the moment

Anupong T.


Back to the question re Rama IX again. Although all the nine kings in the current dynasty are often referred to as 'Rama nth'; the truth is, apart from Rama VI, none of them has ever been known in Thai as 'Rama'. The names 'Rama nth' are used to loosely (and technically speaking quite mistakenly) translate the word 'Ratchakal ti nth' -- literally 'the nth reign (of the dynasty)'. King Mongkutklao, the sixth king in the dynasty, did style himself as 'Phra Ram ti hok' (lit: 'King Rama VI'), and signed his name as 'Ramraj' (lit: 'Rama Rex'); this implies that he intended the previous kings to be called Rama I - Rama V. This has never been popular. Hardly anybody call any of the king 'Phra Ram ti nth'; even for Rama VI himself, he is referred to these days as 'Ratchakal ti hok' (lit: the sixth reign) or 'Phra Mongkutklao' (lit: 'King Mongkutklao'). Jakris 01:31, 4 Mar 2005 UTC.

If you use the same standard as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, we have to title this article Bhumibol Adulyadej. Although 'Rama nth' is used very often, it's very informal. H.M. King Bhumibol Adulyadej has never been officially named as Rama IX. Rama IX of Thailand is just the easy way to call him. As Jakris said, Thais use 'Ratchakal ti nth' to refer to their king in Chakri Dynasty UNOFFICIALLY. Thais informally call H.M. King Bhumibol Adulyadej as 'Ratchakal ti Kao (lit: The ninth reign). And I disagree that "Hardly anybody call any of the king 'Phra Ram ti nth'", it's not hardly, it's NOBODY. Nobody in Thailand call their kings 'Phra Ram ti nth' , except for the road's name. So I agree that we should title this article as Bhumibol Adulyadej, or even Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, but not Rama IX of Thailand.

I agree that Rama IX is not a good place for the article. Yet Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand (to have it same as for Elizabeth II) would be nonsense, as there is no other King named Bhumibol Adulyadej - but there are several monarchs named Elisabeth, thus it needs the disambiguation. King Bhumibol Adulyadej would be a possiblity, but that'd be inconstistant. Bhumibol Adulyadej, King of Thailand again is unnecessary long. I've started a general discussion on Thai royal names at the Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles), to have a consistant naming policy. andy 16:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here, somebody might be able to use this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1256718.htm?&

Political issue, Military regimes, etc.

I'd say I do not agree with the view expressed about the king and the military regimes here.

Firstly, can I just say that I do not consider Prem Tinasulanont's and Chatchai Choonhavan's governments as military regimes. Yes, they both have been soldiers, but Chatchai left the army to be a politician long before he became Prime Minister and he took his PM office by means of a proper general election (ironically, he was removed from the office by a coup). As for Gen. Prem, he was invited to be the head of government by leaders of the government parties, as was commonly practice in those days. Most of the ministers in the cabinets of both Prem and Chatchai were civilians. The rest were retired/resigned soldiers. I do not think their governments would be more like a military regime than, say, the British government under the first Duke of Wellington; or more recently, the inclusion of Collin Powell into the US government.

That said, it is probably not relevant anyway. I do not think the king would be in a position to endorse or disapprove of any government. This would be particularly true in the time of military dictatorship following a coup (e.g. at the time of Kriangsak Chamanand). I do not think by saying to the coup leader 'No, I will not endorse you. Please step down and hold a general election', the bloke will oblige.

Another issue was about the televised event involving the king and Suchinda Kraprayul. As somebody else has previously raised, the confrontation was not between the king and the general. Rather, the televised picture was that of Gen. Suchinda Kraprayul ("military regime") on one side, confronting Maj. Gen. Chamlong Srimuang (also a retired soldier, but this time leading the pro-democracy demonstration) on the other, with the king arbitrating between them. This resulted in resigning of Suchinda.

I propose the sentence referring to the "military regimes" of both Prem and Chatchai be removed. As for Kriangsak's government, this was effectively a military regime, although I am not sure how much the king could do about this -- perhaps leave it as is for the moment. And perhaps the sentence about Gen Suchinda should also be revised. /Jakris 19:40 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Example of proposed romanisation in thai style guide

(สว่างวัฒน, Sàwà:ng Wáttháná)

Thanks. Your fix looks nice. Interestingly, the Queen's name was written as "Savang Vadhana" on many official sites like that of the Prince Mahidol Award Foundation eventhough this spelling follows neither the sound nor the Thai spelling! I had to presume that this might be the way she actually spelled her name. (My presumption only :) ) --Jakris 01:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Early life

In fact, were he born just a few years earlier, before his uncle King Prajadhipok passed a law allowing children of a prince and a commoner to be called Phra Ong Chao (a prince of a lesser status than Chao Fa), he would even have been called Mom Chao (the most junior class of the Thai 'princes'), similar to his older brother and sister.

I don't think we should include the the above paragraph in his early life section since it is unrelated. The discussion on Phra Ong Chao or Mom Chao is included in the article on Thai royal and noble titles. If there is no comments, I will remove this paragraph in a few day. -dhanakorn May 03 2005


Suggestion

  • I'd like someone to write an article about the Law on Succession. I can provide/translate the related article if needed. For example,
  • According to the above Thai Constitution, if the King names his successor (which he MUST follow the Law on Succession B.E. 2647 which forbids a princess to inherit the throne) then the named prince will inherit the throne. However, if the King does not name his successor, the privy council will submit the name of the successor to the National Assembly and ask for approval. In this case (when the King does not name his successor) the privy council may submit a name of a princess.

Interesting... Has the King named a successor? — KayEss | talk 08:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes -- HRH Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn. --Jakris 17:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Bhumibol Adulyadej → King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand – the naming of the article needs to be consistent for monarchs and properly reflect their status. Antares911 18:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Historical names and titles. The new name would not be consistent it should be "Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand" or "Bhumibol number Adulyadej of Thailand" Philip Baird Shearer 17:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

None of the recent kings of Thailand "have" a number, except with the informal name Rama. "of Thailand" is not necessary - while there are many monarchs with the western names like Edward, the names of the King of Thailand are unique, thus the disambiguation with the country name is not necessary. andy 18:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose of course - Wikipedia does not use 'king' or 'queen' with names. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 23:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • yes it does look up Qianlong Emperor and Meiji Emperor, as well Empress Michiko of Japan. we need new rules to reflect non-european names and titles and move away from this eurocentric viewpoint. i´ve posted a discussion on this current mess, anyone feel free to join in [1] Antares911 23:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Japanese pages and Chinese pages were changed, initially unilaterally, by one user a year ago. It all went hideously wrong. He broke links all over the place and ended up regretting the renaming. A specific convention was worked out for Japanese names. However it is the general rule that as this wikipedia is the English language wikipedia, then unless there are solid reasons to do otherwise, the version used is the version recognised by English speakers, not the version used in the native language. The correct location of the page should be Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 23:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    having the country added to the title can be done. it certainly helps with the search function. look up Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. she is not listed as Elizabeth II, even though she could too.
  • Oppose The Japanese and Chinese emperors are named in a different way - the Qianlong Emperor was not named "Qianlong," so the comparison is a false one. As to "of Thailand," this would not be against policy, but nevertheless, it seems rather unnecessary - even for western monarchs like Elizabeth II who don't have anybody else with the same name and ordinal to compete with them, it makes sense to disambiguate because the name "Elizabeth" is one might find in many western countries, and one doesn't necessarily know that there has only been one. For "Bhumibol Adulyadej" there is no real potential confusion. I don't feel terribly strongly about it one way or the other, though. King should definitely not be in the title, though. john k 23:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Fair point. The of Thailand would only be of use in terms of making it clear that one is discussing a monarch. But King should definitely not be in the title. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 23:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Also, Antares's argument is self-contradictory. Any argument for including "King" would have to say that conventions should be adapted to deal with non-European monarchs. Any argument for including "of Thailand" would be that we should follow conventions to the letter for non-European monarchs. You can't have it both ways. john k 23:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Stupid question, perhaps, but I've never quite understood why we don't call him "Rama IX of Thailand", or whatever... James F. (talk) 10:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • There's a long discussion of why we don't do that in the first section of this page. Gentgeen 21:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)

Full name

"His ceremonial name, according to the ancient tradition, is: พระบาทสมเด็จพระปรมินทรมหาภูมิพลอดุลยเดช มหิตลาธิเบศรามาธิบดี จักรีนฤบดินทร์ สยามินทราธิราช บรมนาถบพิตร Phrabat Somdej Phra Paramindra Maha Bhumibol Adulyadej Mahitaladhibet Ramadhibodi Chakrinarubodindara Sayamindaradhiraj Boromanatbophit."

Could we get an English translation of this? Adam 00:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


I don't sure because this level of Thai is very difficult.Phrabat Somdej Phra Paramindra Maha Bhumibol Adulyadej Mahitaladhibet Ramadhibodi Chakrinarubodindara Sayamindaradhiraj Boromanatbophit means King Bhumibol adulyadej, who was born in royal family of Mahidol, king of Chakri dynasty, the king of Thailand.

Tip: The word Phrabat means Feet, according to traditional custom, we are worthless to speak with the king we should speak to the dust under the king's feet (in fact, the king hear it).--Pudtipong Nawasornyuttana 06:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The Great?

It seems that every other Thai monarch is known as "the Great". Would a consensus of non Thai historians agree this title is warranted in each case? If not, does the title not have quite the same gravitas as in other cultures or are we observing an example of national vanity? Dainamo

Wrong, there're about 9 kings, I think, with the title "the Great" from seven hundred years of history. Suredeath

He has been officially given the title so it needs to be included. He is certainly regarded as "great" my most Thais. Adam 00:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

There are only 9 kings with title "the Great"

1. King Sri Indradhit the Great, the 1st reign of Sukhotai.

2. King Ramkamheang the Great, the 3rd reign of Sukhotai.

3. King Mangrai the Great, the founder of Lanna.

4. King Naresuan the Great, the 19th reign of Ayutthaya.

5. King Narai the Great, the 28th reign of Ayutthaya.

6. King Taksin the Great, the only reign of Thonburi.

7. King Buddha Yodfa Chulalok the Great, the 1st reign of Bangkok.

8. King Chulalongkorn the Great, the 5th reign of Bangkok.

9. King Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great, the current reign.

--Pudtipong Nawasornyuttana 02:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually there are seven ref (six + one) since King Sri Indradhit is not the Great and King Mengrai is not counted as the Thai king (at that time).--manop 21:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Is he Hindu or Buddhist?

Just wondering? --Dangerous-Boy

He is of course officially a Buddhist, but Thai Buddhism has strong Hindu undercurrents and most Thais would not see this as an either/or question. One sees Hindu icons everywhere in Thailand happily coexisting with Buddhist ones. Adam 12:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Photo

A newer photo would be good. The old photo should be somewhere in the page but it would be good if we could have a recent photo, which IMHO should be the main photo. I guess the problem might be finding one with a suitable license? Perhaps someone from Thailand could help. I guess taking a photo might be difficult since it's usually quite hard to take good photos of heads of state but maybe someone should try and convince someone in in Thai government to release a photo under suitable copyright? Nil Einne 13:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I see he used to preside over convocations in public university. Perhaps someone would have a photo from here that might be suitable? Preferbly one you took yourself since you probably are not able to license any professionally taken photo for wikipedia (generally, you only get the license to the print, perhaps a license to reproduce it but you probably don't get a complete unhindered license for the photo) Nil Einne 14:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Private photos will be quite impossible. Security at royal-hosted convocations is extremely strict, with bans on personal cameras, phones, and even jewelry. Enforced by metal detectors.Patiwat 07:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Education

Can someone review the education section of this article. At the moment the article implies that Bhumibol Adulyadej was studying at the University of Lausanne in 1935. This seems unlikely as he was only eight years old in that year. I suspect the chronology is out of sequence and that the article should say simply that he was given the title Chao Fa by his brother, King Ananda Mahidol, in 1935. Was Ananda Mahidol crowned immediately on his ascension to the throne or was his coronation (if it is so called) later? The Ananda Mahidol article indicates that he did not visit Thailand for the first time until he was 13 (1938) and then not again until 1945, so it is possible that coronation did not happen until 1945. This would fit better with an 18 year old Bhumibol Adulyadej being at University? DavidCane 02:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ananda Mahidol died before his coronation, so it did not happen. Gentgeen 07:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

suggested link from an anon

An anon posted this, at the same time deleting the top section of this talk page. If you want to know who, look in the page history. Gentgeen 07:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

One more link for King Bhumibol Adulyadej! That is http://bangkokpost.com/60yrsthrone/, it is telling the early days of the King for celebrating the 60th Anniversary of the Throne.

POV?

Ok, I'll be the first to confess that I don't know the slightest thing about Thai history, but I have an issue with what seems to me to be a POV by some writers. Granted that the King is universally revered and respected, but is the first source (the Bangkok Post link) really objective, given that it's written to celebrate the King's birthday [after all, would someone cite Harriet Miers' birthday-card endorsements of Prez Bush on Wikipedia]? I'll leave it to more informed minds to debate this... Nicolasdz 07:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Anything that comes out of Thailand is always positive of the King. Truth is, the King is really liked (revered like a demi-God) by all in Thailand. It is difficult for anyone who is Thai or any foreigner that has lived for many years in Thailand to speak in any way critical of the King himself. The love for the King almost becomes contagious; or at the very least one (a foreigner) learns not to criticize him. Discussing topics that are critical of the King is tricky, as such topics are never discussed openly in Thailand in any way or form. Thus, most what we are left with are rumours that cannot be substantiated. I am afraid that any article about the King will most of time sound very positive -afterall, the Thais really love him. The King brings all Thais together. I have never seen any country where all the population at large love their head of state -still have to find someone who will criticize the King. --Anagnorisis 08:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Respect for the Thai king is not universal. Don't forget that less than 20 years ago, there was a large and sustained communist insurgency in Thailand. It was not just the dictatorship they wanted to overthrow. The reasons you don't see anybody disrespecting the king these days is 1) It is illegal. Despite what the King said during his new years address, people have been thrown in jail and prosecuted for lese majesty. Repeat a rumor about the Crown Prince in a taxi, and the taxi will drive you right to a police station (it has happened). Make a foul remark about the King in a plane bound for Bangkok, and you'll be arrested at the airport (this has also happened). Perform a satirical play about the Crown Prince and you'll be brutally raped or murdered (as happened in 1976). 2) Decades of military dictatorships have reconstructed the monarchy as an institution for veneration, a focus for nationalism. It is no coincidence at the Privy Council is stacked with generals. The mainstream of Thai society (especially the rural population and the so-called Bangkok middle-class) were the most vulnerable to this brainwashing. 3) The communists were killed, exiled, or brought back to the mainstream of politics.
  • I don't know where you get this idea. People talked about the crown prince's scandal all the time, even if it's not in public. I doubt any taxi driver will drive someone to a police station. Making a foul remark about the King will most likely land you a few beating, but arresting is a bit farfetch, even if it's the law. The respect is genuine, not because it was enforced. Your argument is just that, it happened in 1976 where military dictatorship reigned. It has no bearing on what's happening now. Sure, the people may not have the kinda of veneration for the rest of the royal family, but the King is a real deal. Suredeath 20:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the point the anonymous poster was trying to make was that, although respect for the king is currently widespread, it is not universal, and it has not always been the case. It is a matter of fact that people have been charged and arrested for lese-majesty. People have been arrested coming of planes and promptly deported for making nasty in-flight comments. Read some of the radical Thai newspapers during the 70s - the criticism of the king is quite shocking to someone raised in the 80s and 90s. Ask a radical southern muslim (just don't call him "Thai") how he feels about crawling before the king and calling himself "slave of the buddha".
      • "The respect is genuine, not because it was enforced. Your argument is just that, it happened in 1976 where military dictatorship reigned. It has no bearing on what's happening now."130.126.130.178 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As a regular visitor to Thailand (and a republican) I can confirm that. I do think the cult of the king in Thailand is rather unhealthy, and I hope it ends after the current king's death, but its current power and universality cannot be denied. Nor can it be denied that Bhumibol has been a very good king as kings go, and at times like the present, when the elected leader of the country is such a shameless crook, the king's popularity grows even greater. Adam 10:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that our article mentions an American biography of the king which is censored because it is not quite as reverential as is preferred in Thailand. So I guess you could read that one to get another side of the story. AxelBoldt 21:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal life

Perhaps the "Personal life" section should be up near Marriage & Children? Normally these things both fall under the "Personal life" section in articles talking about celebrities, but this may be a different situation, since neither his marriage nor his children are personal issues because of his royalty. -MescalineBanana 03:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Crown Property Bureau

I would like to add a new section shortly describing the Crown Property Bureau. The CPB manages the assets of the King and the royal family. Through the CPB, the King owns a large portion of Thailand's real estate and a significant stake in many companies. You can't open the business section of a newspaper and not see a reference to the CPB.Patiwat 18:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It could be mentioned, but this is a biographical article, so you can't go into a lot of detail. If you think it is an important topic, you can start a new article on the CPB and link to it from here. Does the King run the CPB himself, or is it actually run by the government? Adam 23:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It must be said that the King is a massively wealthy man, owning a significant portion of Thailand and controlling a large chunk of the economy. As such, I think mention of these facts is certainly required in a biographical article. To answer you question, the King's assets are his own, and are distinct from the assets of the government of Thailand. Assets owned by the Crown are owned by the King, not the government (i.e., "The Crown" is not a synonym for the Government like in the UK). The CPB is run by Chirayu Isarangkun na Ayutthaya, also of royal lineage.Patiwat 05:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
These assets are owned by the King personally, not by "the Crown" as a legal entity controlled by the state? If that is so it certainly should be mentioned. Was Chirayu Isarangkun na Ayutthaya appointed by the King personally or by the government? Adam 06:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been wondering for quite a while why someone hasn't started an entry on the CPB yet. The importance of the CPB in the Thai economy is enough that I believe it merits its own article. It's principal subsidiaries, Siam Commercial Bank and Siam Cement (this one is still a stub) also merit their own entries. I should point out that the Finance Minister also serves as the ex-officio chairman of the CPB's board, so there certainly is some relationship with the government. Nevertheless, the CPB is professionally managed, and I think it should be emphasized that His Majesty does not involve himself in the day-to-day affairs of the CPB. Tettyan 06:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it should have its own article. --Anagnorisis 07:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur: the CPB should have it's own article, and a reference to the CPB article should be included in the King's article. I'll edit down some of the misc details of the CPB section of the King's article in anticipation for the full CPB article.Patiwat 08:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Updating materials on the censored biography

The information on the censored biography seems to be out of date. The publication date listed on the censored Yale University Press site is given as April 24 2006, not July 2006. The Bangkokrecorder.com link is dead. I will replace it with a link to the Yaledailynews.com article, which quotes Kowit Wattana, National Police Chief, as saying the same thing.

Popular national referendum to name him "the Great"?

The article states "On May 5, 1987, he received, by popular national referendum, the honorary epithet the Great." Now, I was a little kid at the time, but I don't recall there ever being a situation where people were called out to the voting booths to vote, "yes" or "no", whether they wanted to give their king the suffix "the Great". It seems shocking that the people were asked to vote on such an issue. I mean, what if they voted "no"? Can anybody confirm that there was or was not a referendum, and make an article edit as neccesary?Patiwat 09:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That part was added by User:Gentgeen long time ago [2]. With a quick google I could only find two pages which state that he received that title "from the primeminister" on that date, but don't mention if a referendum was held before. However given his popularity I don't think there was any risk of a significant number of people vote "no" on that issue. andy 12:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Speculation aside, lets just edit out the "by popular natioanl referendum" text out, and replace it with "from the Prime Minister".Patiwat 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Went to school at Mater Dei? An all girls school?

The article says that the King went to school at Mater Dei before his mother brought him to Switzerland. Isn't Mater Dei an all girls school at the corner of Chidlom and Phloenchit run by the Ursulines? Could someone confirm this or correct this?

I don't know, but there are numerous examples of boys going to all-girl schools. It usually happens if the boys school is full or if for some reason a boy needs to be kept isolated from other boys. (Pierce Brosnan, AFAIK, went to an all-girls school at least for one term.) I could understand a decision to send a prince to an all-girls school if in the local culture women were subservient and it was decided best to keep the prince out of contact with other boys, perhaps to highlight his unique status or for fear that boys would not show him due respect. There are tons of precedents for that. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There's information here at [3]

"Although Mater Dei was an all-girls school, it enrolled boys from Kindergarten to Primary 2 as well. It was an honour for the school that one of those students was Prince Anandha Mahidol who enrolled in 1930 and was given 273 as his student ID number. Two years later, Prince Bhumipol Adulyadej, our present King, also enrolled and was given 449 as his student ID number."

Contents box

The Contents box is so squeezed on my screen, beside the infobox, that the ratio of its dimensions is about one to seven. I think this typographically unacceptable. To fix it [4], I added

"<!-- Blank lines make Contents to begin below infobox: --> <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> <br><br><br><br><br><br><br>"

First, the bot reverted this within 60 seconds. Fine, the bot can't distinguish vandalism and non-vandalism. I reversed the bot.

Then, this revert was done:
"07:44, 6 April 2006 Ahoerstemeier m (no <br> please, it looks very ugly)"

This, I submit, is like a judge throwing my case out without hearing its merits because the legal brief was not submitted in a typeface acceptable to the court, and also without declaring that indeed any particular typeface is acceptable.

So, 1) Does anyone care to argue that the Contents box is OK as is (do we have to get into comparing square inches of white space between the two presentations?), and
2) does Ahoerstemeier or anyone else have a method to teach, which can accomplish the same or a superior result in a manner more esthetically acceptable (even though the purportedly "ugly" <br> codes were commented, split into two fully-visible lines, and in any event are never visible in the final product?
--67-21-48-122 13:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted because the text is displayed on many different screen resolutions, with or without the contents box, thus any hard-coded display alignment is a bad idea. With my settings of 1280x1024 there is absolutely no need for half a screen of empty space - with a 800x600 display the infobox may be to wide to give it an appealing display. And who knows, maybe there'll be a switch to hide infoboxes someday, same as in the German wikipedia the navigational boxes can be shrinked to a single line. And then this empty space is very ugly for sure. BTW: if anything, then a <br clear=all> is the way to do it, not with a hand-counted number of <br>. I don't find it yet, but there must be an official policy to discourage the use of <br>/nowiki> to adjust display. ~~~~


Try Help:Edit summary. 1) I think it looks fine the way it is. I use a 1024 x 768 display and a 320 x 320 display. The appearance of the contents box is standardized across Wikipedia. Just look at Thaksin Shinawatra or Elizabeth II for instance. If you have issues with how Wikipedia looks, there are forums for that. 2) I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Sorry. Could you rephrase your statement? Patiwat 07:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is designated successor in the "The King and the people" section?

Why is "The King's designated successor is Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn." noted in the "The King and the people" section? It has nothing to do with the people. The article on Queen Elizabeth II doesn't mention her to-be-successor in the article body at all. Her heir apparent is mentioned only in the infobox (which is already the case in King Bhumibol's article). If nobody has a good reason for why this fact should be in the "The King and the people" section I will delete it. Patiwat 05:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because the people like the King a lot, would miss him when he is gone, and do not like Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn as much, preferring his sister Maha Chakri Sirindhorn. I do not know, but maybe it is because of this reason. Anagnorisis 14:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That might be true, but unless you have a citation for what you said, it shouldn't appear in the article. In itself, without that comment you just made, the fact that the Crown Prince is the King's successor is irelevant to "The King and the people" section. Patiwat 20:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Unless I have a citation? You asked a question about the layout (why things are in certain sections), not about the content (you are not disputing the text). I gave what may be an answer to your question. Each person may have a view on this. But my answer to your question is not part of the article. So, ... I do not understand what you are talking about citations etc. It is not a matter of verifying what is said in the article. Or was it? You asked a question about format, not about content. The same type of question as to why we may put a picture further up or further down (ok, this is an exageration, but it is to ilustrate the point). Let me explain myself further because I am not very eloquent; my possible explanation is not something that is in the article (thus no need for a citation); my explanation attempts to give an answer to why the article's layout is what is. It is just one opinion. The article's own layout does not need to be explained with citations from outside sources. In summary, asking for citations explaining why a sentence is in a certain section does not make much sense. Now as to it being irrelevant without my explanation? I do not think so. That piece of information is relevant to the article; that it might be more appropriate to have it in one secxtion or the other is another matter (not about it being relevant or not). My explanation is just one possible reason as to the why you asked. Some may agree with me and others not. Maybe whoever put it there had another rationale for it. On the other hand, yes, maybe that is not the best section where that sentence should go. :) Anagnorisis 23:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I might have caused a misunderstanding. For clarity, let me restate my position: The statement "The King's designated successor is Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn" in itself does not belong in the "The King and the people" section. That information is already in the info box. It might "fit" somewhere else in the article, but no in the "the people" section - where, I don't know. The only reason why that statement might belong in "the people" section would be (as explained by User:Anagnorisis) is if it were accompanied by a comparison of the popularity of the Crown Prince and the King. And that comparison would need a citation to back it up. Patiwat 07:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Biographies

The current section on biographies needs quite a bit of work. Disputed sentences in bold. Criticism in italics.

"Until the book is published; however, it can't be decided if the book is factual or it's "Anna and the King of Siam" all over again."

"Anna and the King of Siam" has no relevance here, and the tone of the sentence is not neutral. The first half of the sentence already gets the point across that any criticisms should be deferred. The second half should be deleted. Patiwat 06:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"As quoted by Yale University Press Senior Editor John Kulka, the book is "interpretive biography." Therefore, it is not unlikely that the author and reviewers lack deep insight of Thai culture to comprehend causes and effects of King's actions for the country."

This is irrelevant speculation. There is no reason why an interpretive biography should not be insightful. This sentence simply does not belong in this article. Patiwat 06:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Another biography book, The Revolutionary King (ISBN 1841194514), was also written by a westerner and published in 2001. The main difference is the author, William Stevenson, had access to the Royal Court and was allowed contact to the Royal Family. This book shows intimate knowledge of the author and involves more personal aspects of the King. Still, the book has been banned on the ground of historical inaccuracy and unfounded conspiracy theory.

Although Stevenson spent hundreds of hours with the King researching the book, which was actually proposed by Bhumibol, Thai distributors will not sell The Revolutionary King and the Royal Household Bureau has warned the Thai media about even referring to the volume in print. The book has been criticized by Thais for factual inaccuracies and for being disrespectful by referring to the King throughout by his family nickname "Lek," or little brother. Stevenson's theory that the King's brother was killed by a Japanese spy has also been dismissed by Thai historians. "The King said from the beginning the book would be dangerous for him and for me," says Stevenson.[6]"

First of all, this entire section on Stevenson's biography should be in a separate paragraph from the Handley biography. Second, the paragraph is copied word-for-word from a Time magazine article, and needs some editing to make it fit a wikipedia biographical article. Let me suggest "William Stevenson published the biography The Revolutionary King (ISBN 1841194514) in 2001. The idea for the book was suggested by Bhumibol, and Stevenson had access to the Royal Court and the Royal Family. Some have noted that the book displays intimate knowledge about personal aspects of the King. However, the book has been banned in Thailand and the Royal Household Bureau has warned the Thai media about even referring to the volume in print. The book has been criticized for factual inaccuracies, disrespecting the King (it refers to Bumibhol by his family nickname "Lek"), and proposing a controversial theory explaining the death of the King's brother. "The King said from the beginning the book would be dangerous for him and for me," says Stevenson." Patiwat 06:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Patiwat, I agree with all your comments above. Anagnorisis 14:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way ... if we are to talk about citations, and if we want to be strict about it, the last sentences of your paragraph above, and which you incorporated in the text, would need some citations. Do not get me wrong, I agree with what you say, but unless we give a source for things like: "The book has been criticized for factual inaccuracies, disrespecting the King (it refers to Bumibhol by his family nickname "Lek"), and proposing a controversial theory explaining the death of the King's brother." someone could come and ask to remove it. One other thing, how do we know that "the idea for the book was suggested by Bhumbibol"? Can we cite the king himself saying that he suggested the book? Or would it be more accurate to say that Stevenson claims the king suggested it? In any case, we may need another citation there. Anagnorisis 00:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Those statements were all from the cited Time magazine article. I could put a citation at the end of every single sentence. Or I could put a citation at the end of the paragraph - which is what I did. Time is a reasonably reputable source. As far as I know, nobody has come out disputing Stevenson and claiming that he wasn't telling the truth in the article. But if you have some other source that claims that the content of the Time article was incorrect, then please make note of that in the article. Patiwat 07:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have another source. And I didn't dispute what you said. Did I? I guess I wasn't clear. I just said that part needed a citation. The one you give at the end gives the impression that is only for the part beeing quoted. If they all come from the same source than clarify it. A citation for each sentence? Up to you, but that may be overkill. What I certainly didn't say was that there was anyone disputing anything. To say that a citation is needed is not the same as disputing a fact. The one thing that I am still not clear (I cannot figure it from the text) is who says that the King suggested the biography? Nowehere it reads clearly who say the King suggested it. Was it Time or Stevenson? Or is Time saying that Stevenson says it? In thatcase it may just need a bit of rewriting and pointing also that all info in the paragraph comes from the same source. Now it is stated as a mater of fact. There is a subtle but important diference there. Anagnorisis 08:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe when I have time I will put those references in proper clear format. In the meantime we still need improving the writing as it is still confusing as per above comment who says the king suggested the bio. Anagnorisis 08:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, those statements were all from the cited Time magazine article. That entire paragraph. I put a single reference at the end of the paragraph. But since there seems to be some confusion, I also put another identical reference at the beginning of the paragraph. Patiwat 21:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Patiwat, you fail to understand that it is not a matter of saying it here. Clarity doesn't come from you saying in the discussion page the source for a whole paragraph. The article still doesn't say who claims the king made that suggestion. And you can not ask people to go read the Time article to figure it themselves. In the article it has to be clear who said it. Saying it comes from Time still doesn't say who claims that? Does the Time article quote the King? Or does it quote Stevenson? or is the reporter himself claiming that without source? Do you understand the difference now? It is about making the article selfcontained in terms of having the proper references. Just providing a link to a website is not proper referencing. Nowehere in the article it says what the source is. The reference has to be clear and IN the article. Links along the article to outside websites are discouraged in wikipedia (not that you cannot put them) being preferred at the bottom of the article. The way you keep doing is still not right. But do not worry, I will sort it out for you when I have more time. Regards. Anagnorisis 06:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


I fixed it.:) Patiwat, I hope now you will understand what it is I was saying all along. It wasn't clear who was saying the King had suggested the book be written. Now it is clear. Second, the formats of the references was not right; Wikipedia prefers not to have links to outside sources along the article; and now the references are described before sending readers out. We digressed into discussing the second point, but initially I was raising the first one. Anyway, now it is how I meant it should be. Cheers. :)

Could you provide me a link to where in the Wiki style guides it is recommended that links to outside sources should not be in the article, and that references should be described in the text before sending people out? I'm not questioning whether this is a guideline or not - I just want to understand it in a bit more detail. The "Citing sources" page doesn't seem to say anything about this. Most of the articles that I have co-edited have used lots of external references, and do not say "An article in XXX newspaper has claimed that...". I always thought that if it was a reputable source and there were no no conflicting sources, then the information could be stated as a matter of fact, along with a link to the reference. Patiwat 20:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Patiwat, the format I used I am certain is not the best. But I am positive it is more in line with recommendations. Maybe language for this is not exactly the explanation I gave you, but the end result is the same: to explain the link. To verify this, please read the same page you say doesn't say anything about it. It does say it. [[5]]. Either you didn't read it or didn't understand what it said. The improvements I made can be improved further. Also read this: [[6]]. You will find things in those links like: "It is particularly important in the case of online newspaper articles to include byline, headline, newspaper, and date of publication, because many newspapers keep stories online only for a certain period before transferring them to the archives. With a full citation, readers will be able to find the article easily even if the link doesn't work.! There is more, but I am certain you prefer to read those things yourself. Again, what I did can be improved. Cheers. Anagnorisis 23:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is appearing on your knees before the King "extraordinary"?

The "The King and politics" section currently states that "The King summoned General Kraprayoon and the leader of the pro-democracy movement, Major General Chamlong Srimuang, to a televised audience. In an extraordinary scene, both men appeared on their knees before their king." Why is crawling on your knees before the King considered "extrarodinary"? It has been the protocol for royal audiences, with some exceptions, since Sarit Dhanarajata revived the practice (King Chulalongkorn had banned it). Nothing extraordinary about crawling. Patiwat 09:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, and it some centuries since English-speaking people did any crawling before monarchs. The idea that generals and prime ministers in a modern state still crawl before a heriditary head of state will seem extraordinary to most readers of this article. Nevertheless, the phrase can probably be deleted. Adam 10:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Although both of you are right: nothing extraordinary as per Thai standards, but extraordinary to western readers. However, that sentence being in the article is an example that ilustrates the systemic byas of wikipedia. There is aproject to counter that. You can help: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. And yes, the sentence should be removed. Anagnorisis 17:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The English Wiki is naturally and rightly written from the point of view of, and for the information of, English-speaking people. Things which seem natural and proper to Thais do not so seem to English-speakers (and no doubt vice versa), and need to be put in context and explained to them. The question is, was this event "extraordinary" in a Thai context, or what it standard practice? In either case it ought to be made clear. Adam 05:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Naturally and rightly? LOL. One thing is to incur in sistemic bias unwillingly, but another one is to aplaud and praise it!! Adam, you are wrong and obviously .... (well, .... how to say it without sounding harsh or offensive?). Besides, you are also wrong aboutwhat you call english-speakers. English is spoken by more people outside anglo-saxon countries (which is what I assume you have in mind) that inside. And wikipedia is not written for people from the handful of anglo-saxon countries you may be thinking about. I think you need to read a lot more about the objectives of the project. But before we get into that, just read this: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Lets continue this after you read about systemic bias in wikipedia, and why the consensus is that we should try to correct it. Cheers Anagnorisis 05:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think someone misread the whole passage here. What's extraordinary isn't that they knelt, it's that the two archenemies were together in front of the king... Kneeling bit was just another adjective. Suredeath 11:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be 2 extraordinaries here. 1) From the western perspective, that two grown men crawled and knelt in front of the King, and 2) from the political perspective, that two political enemies were summoned together. The way the sentence was reverted, it isn't clear which point is extraordinary. Both of these points should be noted. May I suggest "The King summoned General Suchinda and the leader of the pro-democracy movement, Major General Chamlong, to a televised audience. At the height of the crisis, the sight of both men appearing together, on their knees (as per royal protocol), was surprising to many." Patiwat 17:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That clarifies the matter well. I would suggest "in accordance with" rather than "as per" which is a nasty Anglo-Latinism. Adam 00:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the latest version. It was indeed an extraordinary scene for many reasons; one of them being that the King himself was doing something he rarely has done so openly: to get directly involved in a political conflict. Anagnorisis 00:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I've noted it in the article. Patiwat 19:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Anagnorisis ignores, IMHO, the one part of this that *was* utterly jaw-dropping: It happened live on television. By way of comparison, consider the impact if the President were to fire a Cabinet secretary while live on TV, literally turn to him and fire him. –Penta 14:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The King and Politics: Thai Political Crisis of 2005-2006

I suspect this will remain a controversial topic for some time, so I would like to keep any mention of the Thaksin/Sondhi/Temasek/Royal Powers Political Crisis of 2005-2006 as factual as possible, and give as little "explanation" or "analysis" as possible. I have no doubt in my mind whether it should be included in the "King and Politics" section. It was the first time in Thai history that lese majesty was used so often by both sides of the debate as a political weapon (it had traditionally been used only by the authorities), a direct claim was made that an elected PM usurped King Bhumibol's authority, and that public groups have petitioned King Bhumibol to intercede in politics. Whether the King actually interceded or not is a controversial topic - let the facts speak for themselves. Patiwat 20:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll add the citations later. Patiwat 20:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe better to leave that discussion for the articles that discuss those events (there are already articles about them in wikipedia); maybe just mention the interest of the parties in getting him involved (however, it is interesting that Thaksin announced his resignation after coming from an audience with the King). 04:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The more detailed contents are in articles linked from the Bhumibol page. But since the section is called "The King and Politics" and the introduction to that section notes that he gets involved in politics only rarely, I think it is important to note the some summary details of 2006, where he was definately involved in politics. Patiwat 04:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added some structure to this King and Politics section. Whereas before, the pre-1992 material was all jumbled up, I have clearly divided the King's Plaek (Por) Pibulsonkhram-era political involvement from the Sarit Thanarat-era political involvement. Links are made to those respective dictators if you want to learn more about the overall political context. Patiwat 10:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I added some words of summary on Sarit and the King, basically that Sarit legitimized his military dictatorship by exalting the monarchy. Lest some over-enthusiastic royalist think I'm a communist, let me note that this is a fairly common view among modern Thai political scientists in Thailand. The Bangkok Post itself wrote "As prime minister during 1958-63, Field Marshal Sarit reconstituted the monarchy by re-ordering the Thai social hierarchy. Instead of channelling citizen loyalty to the concept of the state and the constitution, Field Marshal Sarit redirected the focus to the institution of the monarchy, restoring the king to the apex of the moral, social, and political order. The close association with the monarchy lent political legitimacy to Field Marshal Sarit and the military government. A new symbiotic relationship was thereby established, allowing the monarchy to be reconstructed and to flourish to this day. The genesis of the current monarch's immense authority, prestige and popularity thus goes back to the periods during, prior to, and in the aftermath of World War Two."[7] David Wyatt, in his book Thailand, A Short History wrote "Instead of placing primary emphasis on loyalty to an abstract state or constitution, which he considered had not worked, Sarit focussed primary attention upon the monarch as both the focus of loyalty for the citizen and the source of legitimacy for the government.... Sarit restored the monarchy to an active role in Thai society, reviving public ceremonies that had been neglected since 1932, encouraging the king to appear in public, and making a major public show of allegiance to King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The king personally awarded all university degrees, for example, and made frequent tours of the provinces. The close links forged between the monarchy, the military and the Thai state have continued to this day."

Some edits were made to the "The King and Politics: Thai Political Crisis of 2005-2006" section which obscures the events. It mentions Sondhi without mentioning who he is or why he was the target of lese majesty charges. It completely ignores the use of the King by the anti-Thaksin protestors. Never before in Thai history, not even during 1973 and 1976, have slogans like "We Love the King" and "We Will Fight for the King" ever been used for political gain. The article about the King and Politics, and it is critical that this be mentioned. Patiwat 21:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The current edits mentions that the Royal Household Bureau designed the positioning of chairs, but doesn't mention what was so controversial about the positioning of the chairs in the first place. I have returned the explanation of why the chairs were an issue. Patiwat 22:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous editor has moved the King's rejection of petitions for a royally appointed replacement into the paragraph that discusses Thaksin's resignation. It has previously been in the paragraph concerning petitions for the royally appointed replacement. Doesn't it make better sense to include it there? The King received many petitions from socially respected (and some not so respected) organizations. The King responds to them. It is one topic. I'm reverting, because the editor gave no rationale at all. If you disagree, please discuss or explain your rationale. Patiwat 22:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous editor has just reverted my edits without leaving any comments. I'll repeat my objections again, and ask the anonymous editor not to get into an edit war without even explaining him/her-self. 1) The King received many petitions for him to appoint a replacement PM. The King replies by saying that such demands are undemocratic. Why shouldn't these two facts be noted in the same paragraph? 2) Public accusations are made that Thaksin sat in the same chair as the King, thus usurping the royal powers. The Government claims that the chair arrangement for the ceremony came from the the Royal Household Bureau. Why is the second fact noted but not the first fact? Patiwat 02:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record, here is exactly what the King said in response to the petitioners: "ข้าพเจ้ามีความเดือดร้อนมาก ที่เอะอะอะไรก็ขอพระราชทานนายกพระราชทาน ซึ่งไม่ใช่การปกครองประชาธิปไตย...จะขอนายกพระราชทานไม่ใช่เรื่องการปกครองแบบประชาธิปไตย เป็นการปกครองแบบ ขอโทษ แบบมั่ว แบบไม่มีเหตุมีผล" (http://www.manager.co.th/Home/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9490000054995) That is a crystal clear rebuke to the petitioners, and deserves to be noted right alongside the details of the petition. Patiwat 04:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added in a new section on the King's role in the current unprecedented wave of judicial activism, e.g., the courts invalidating the elections and demanding the resignation of the independent EC. I've tried to keep things as factual as possible, and nearly every sentence has a cited reference. Patiwat 11:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:From anti-Thaksin demonstration.jpg Somehow I feel that this image doesn't quite fit in the article. Many view Sondhi's slogan as using the King's name as a rallying banner for his own goals, and having the image here seems to create the illusion that the protestors are affiliated with the crown. --Paul C 23:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I didn't like that picture there. Thought was off topic. Anagnorisis 00:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the picture either. But like it or not, Sondhi did use the King's name as a rallying cry against Thaksin. Wearing yellow and proclaiming their love of the Kind did create the illusion that they were affiliated with the Crown. I'm not trying to be judgemental or anything here, but the section is about "The King and Politics". And the King was a factor in Thaksin's political downfall, even if he didn't want to be. The picture just illustrates the facts stated in the article. Patiwat 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Given the lack of rebuttal, I have returned the image. However, I have noted Paul C's concerns in the article. It now clearly states that the palace had no comment, for or against, the protestors. Patiwat 11:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Was burning King's picture "sacrilegious" or just badly disrespectful?

The article notes the "sacrilegious acts towards the King's image" that took place during the 2003 Phnom Penh riots. This was, of course, horribly disrespectful towards the King. But was it sacrilegious? Sacrilege is a term used only on religious topics, and the King has never claimed to be a Devaraja or God-King or anything more than the titular head of Thai Buddhism. The King's authority is not religious, but based on constitutional authority. Disrespect towards him is in bad taste, illegal in Thailand, but not sacrilegious. Patiwat 20:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. What you say makes sense. Anagnorisis 04:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who modified the whole 2003 Phanom Penh Riot section on this article a while back, which was seriously lacking in detail at the time. The Thai protestors at the Cambodian embassy were infuriated, it almost became an international conflict (I knew, I WAS there) but was only mentioned for one sentence in Wikipedia. And why so much infuriating? That was because the King's image was "badly disrespect." In my opinion, had Cambodians only burned Thai embassy, there might only be a peaceful protest. To give foreigners more understanding on what happened, I thought "sacrilegious" was the exact word. Burning pictures and flags might be just rude for foreigners, but for most Thais, doing that to the King's image just crosses the line. And not only they burn His image, they had STOMPED on it! (most Thai TVs decided to censored that out, however) All of these combined disrespectful actions can be wrapped into one short word - sacrilegious.

From Wiktionary:

sacrilegious

  1. committing sacrilege
  2. acting or speaking very disrespectfully toward what is held to be sacred

Patiwat, you may see the King as a normal human being, but most Thais hold the King to be sacred (including me, to some extent.) Therefore I think "sacrilegious" is the right word to explain what Thais felt about the situation. DTRY 18:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - Nice update on the King and politics section, especially the current political crisis. I was waiting for someone to write about it (since my English skills are somewhat limited.) I hope this will acknowledge foreigners that King Bhumibol himself fully supports democracy, unlike, say -- Gyanendra.

DTRY, I disagree with you in a couple of minor details. It may be mostly a matter of semantics ... but nonetheles. First, when you say "it almost became an internationally conflict ..." It didn't almost become one. It actually became one: one between Thailand and Cambodia. Thailand for one, closed its borders with Cambodia (I know, I was there). Now, a conflict between two countries is an international conflict; but perhaps you were thinking of several countries. I do not know. In any casi it was an international conlfict. Second you say "most Thais hold the King to be sacred". I do not think Thais hold the King to be sacred (they know he is not). However they do respect him, love him, and venerate him in a way similar to him being sacred. Small difference, but still a correction. Cheers. Anagnorisis 20:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Some of this debate doesn't belong in this article. The article on the 2003 Phnom Penh riots is quite detailed and pretty neutral. That being said, a comment like "had Cambodians only burned Thai embassy, there might only be a peaceful protest" lacks some historical context. In all of WWII, neither the Axis nor Allies burned the opposing sides' embassies. I know of no other war in this century where an embassy was intentionally and specifically destroyed (Tehran and city-wide carpet bombings don't count). The sacking and burning of an embassy is technically an act of war. While 2 C-130s touched down to airlift the Thai citizens of Phanom Phen, 2 were in the sky, filled with heavily armed commandos. F-16s were flying at the border. The Chakri Narubej and its carrier battle group was ready off the coast at Trat. The Vietnamese military was equally on alert. 3 countries almost went to war, and with all due respect to the King, it wasn't because some rioters stomping his photo. Patiwat 10:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Many Thais respect the current King on a personal level, due to his works and also the exultation that the elevation the state has given him since Sarit. But he is not holy, nor did his immediate ancestors claim to be holy. The last Thai King who claimed to be holy was beaten to death inside a sack. No Chakri King has made himself the Sangkharaja. Peoples respect does not make a man holy. He is not the Dalai Lama, nor a Japanese Emperor pre-WWII, nor a Khmer Devaraja, nor a Sinhalese God-King, nor a Pharaoh, nor a Mahdi - all of these monarchs claimed to be either decended/incarnated from gods, to be a god, or to be God himself. Sacrilegious is the correct term for disrespect to these monarchs. But the Thai royal institution has not claimed holiness, and it would be incorrect and confusing to use the term "sacrilegious". Patiwat 10:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

After the above debate, is there concensus yet that "sacrilegious" should be replaced with "disrespectful"? Patiwat 03:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Anagnorisis 00:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Fine, fine. Perhaps I have an inaccurate understanding of "sacred" and "sacrilegious" then. But...

Peoples respect does not make a man holy.

Hmm... I thought holiness comes from the views of the people. In other words, it's in the eye of the beholder. For example, Buddhists hold the Buddha to be sacred, but Muslims don't (Taliban blowing up the Bamiyan Buddha comes to mind.) Catholics hold the Pope to be sacred, Protestants don't. For atheists, nothing is sacred or holy.

As for King Bhumibol, there are people who actually worship the grounds He walks on. There are old people who thank Him for their own healthy and long lives. There are people who keep His pictures/amulets as a good luck charm (along with pictures/amulets of king Rama V and Buddha.) Although He never claims Himself to be sacred or holy, He is held to be sacred by many Thais nevertheless. That's why I think sacrilegious is the accurate word -- to make foreigners know how Thais felt at that moment.

Again, it's up to the interpretation of the word "sacred" then. DTRY 12:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Then please write a section entitled "The Holy King". Patiwat 22:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I could not tell if this is sarcasm or not. Any way, what's the big deal. Just take the word off if you must. People get the idea. Frankly, "highly revered" is good enough Suredeath 01:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it wasn't sarcasm. How may kings in this modern age literally have the ground they walk on worshiped, are held to be the source of long and healthy lives, etc. - despite never claiming to be holy? If those facts are true, and can be backed up with citations, then by all means you should include a section titled "The Holy King". Patiwat 03:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright Patiwat, go ahead and include the section "The Holy King" in here. I believe it will be more popular topic than this current one since in the HEARTS of most Thais, the King is both holy and sacred, say a 'living saint', regardless of whether he really is or not.(Logically and sensibly, he is not...it's understood!!) The word used there is just to vividly express the exact feelings of how it is felt to the Thais when the Cambodians did what you called "disrespectful acts" to the King's image. That's all. Anyway, 'The Holy King' is a pretty sacarstic idea which amazingly sounds interesting. Do it! LOL. Oh yeah,DTRY,I agree with you. (Fuszcher)

  • No royal disrespect or sarcasm intended, but I don't think the Thai King is holy. So I don't feel comfortable writing a section called "The Holy King". If many Thai people feel he is holy, then let them write that section. You've got plenty of content to use - as noted above: 1) No Chakri king has never claimed holiness, 2) But since the time of Sarit, R.9 has been closely linked to R.5, who many Thais believe to be holy, 3) People worship the grounds R.9 walks on, 4) There are old people who thank him for their own healthy and long lives, 5) There are people who keep his pictures/amulets as a good luck charm, alongside along with pictures/amulets of king R.5 and Buddha, 6) Some Wikipedia editors insist on calling him "Him" instead of "him". Somebody else be bold; I'd rather not. Patiwat 21:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

What about a trivia section at the bottom with general info of minor interest on matters related to the King? Like the number of white elephants the King owns (by law any white elephant found belongs to the King). I do not know, that is just an example .... but other things like that. Thoughts? Anagnorisis 04:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds OK with me. If people think that some trivia is significant and would better fit within the main body of the article, we could always make the change later. Patiwat 09:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I think small things like that -which would normally not appear in a short article, but would in a book or long biography- may give a better perspective to those that have never gone to Thailand (most readers here) about the special role and interaction the King has with his subjects. However, being trivia, I would put it at the bottom of the article. Anagnorisis 20:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The King and Politics: The Jaruvan Controversy

I have added a section on the controversy surrounding the King's constitutional powers as relates to the Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka case. In summary: the SAC nominated 3 candidates to the Senate for the position of Auditor General. The Senate voted on Jaruvan and submitted a nomination to the King. The King signed the decree. The Constitution Court later decided that the SAC should only have submitted 1 name to the Senate, and disqualified Jaruvan's nomination. Jaruvan refused to aknowledge the Constitution Court's ruling, claiming the King's decree of appointment could not be rescinded. Later, when the Senate appointed a replacement, the King refused to sign the nomination. Eventually, the King's principle private secretary wrote a letter to the SAC, and the SAC reinstated Jaruvan.

I believe this controversy illustrates two points 1) The King effectively has veto power over any laws or decrees that are presented to him. However, this veto power has practically never been used, except in the veto of Jaruvan's replacement. 2) The highest court in the Kingdom does not have the power to contradict post-facto a royal decree. I believe these are significant points relating to the King's role in politics, which explains why I have described the Jaruvan controversy in some detail in the article. For an even more detailed description of events, see the Jaruvan Maintaka article. Patiwat 03:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • A short note on the historical significance of the Kings' withholding of Royal Assent. Under the British Westminster System (a great influence on the legal basis of the Thai constitutional monarchy), the last time the Royal Assent was withheld was in the reign of Queen Anne in 1708. For the Thai King to withhold royal assent is a monumentous event in political/legal terms. Patiwat 04:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

King's Privy Council

Most of the English language lists of the King's Privy Council on the net are outdated. The most up to date one I have found is as of March 2006 from the Thai language wikipedia (http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B5). Patiwat 23:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Entering monkhood after death of grandmother

The article currently states that the King entered the monkhood after the death of his grandmother, as is customary. I'm trying to read this from the perspective of a non-Thai, and think that I might be confused about what, in particular, is customary. Is it customary to enter the monkhood only after the death of grandmothers? Or grandparents? Or is it just customary to enter the monkhood, period? The way the article is worded now doesn't make this particularly clear. The answer, by the way, is all three. Most Thai Buddhists enter the monkhood at some time in their lives, often before getting married or after a parent/grandparent passes away. The King's paternal grandfather (King Chulalongkorn) had passed away a long time ago, and his maternal grandparents were commoners and are effectively ignored. In addition, entering the monkhood to do penance for his grandmother invoked a public link between Bhumibol and King Chulalongkorn, the most loved of all Chakri Kings, which was pretty important given that in 1956, the public's admiration of the King wasn't nearly as high as it is today. I'd suggest changing the wording to "Following the death of his grandmother Queen Savang Vadhana (สว่างวัฒนา, Sawang Watthana Phra Phanvasa Areekajao), the King entered a 15 day monkhood (22 October - 5 November 1956), as is customary at the death of elder relatives." Patiwat 02:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the king's novitiate was directly inspired by his grandmother's death. As a traditional rite of passage for Thai boys, it was something necessary for someone of his position and, indeed, it was noted at the time that his brother Ananda had never entered the monkhood. Bhumibol's time as a novice was meticulously planned as a ritual of his own life and likely considered well before Savang's death. It is possible her death was given as one reason, but I don't think it was the main reason this came about. --Phand 22:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)phand

  • I was rephrasing what an original editor had asserted. It would be great if someone could clear this up, and add a citation. Patiwat 09:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is heir apparent?

An anonymous editor just placed the name of Princess Sirindhorn next to the name of the Crown Prince as heir apparent. Hugh?!? So do we technically have two heir apparents, or is this vandalism? Could somebody clear this up and note a citation? Patiwat 22:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Obvioulsy it must be an error by someone who is missinformed and doesn't know the meaning of "heir apparent." There can only be one heir apparent. Talking of two doesn't make any sense; there can never be two people who are both first in the order of succession to any throne. Anagnorisis 00:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Prince Vajiralongkorn was made heir apparent when he turned 20, which also gave him the title "Siam Mongkut Ratchakuman". Maybe the confusion is because his sister Crown Princess Sirindhorn is also titled "Siam Mongkut Ratchakumari"? As far as I understand, being a Crown Prince/Princess doesn't automatically make that person heir apparent, does it? Patiwat 20:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sirindhorn was given the title in 1977 when the prince was the sole qualified heir ('son of the king' in the constitution) and so the dynasty lacked an alternate. The constitution was later changed to allow for a 'daughter of the king' to succeed, but in the absence of a son. Effectively it signalled her as unofficially second in line to the throne. She was not an equal alternate as the constitution still favored a male, as apparently does the palace law on succession to which the constitution defers. (And the constitution appears to allow the king himself to decide without reference to these principles if he pleases.) While English media in Thailand liberally, and seemingly without the palace's objection, calls her "Crown Princess", I think this is assumed more than anything, especially now the the prince has his own sons. As "Crown Prince" or "Crown Princess" implies first in line to the throne, I think including her as that is in error. At best she is a "possible and potential alternate", popular sentiment notwithstanding. Phand 02:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That is a good explanation for a topic that has many people (including Thais) confused. Especially the basis for Prince Vajiralongkorn having precedence over Princess Sirindhorn. Could you please include this in the Bhumibol, Vajiralonkorn, and Sirindhorn articles, please. Patiwat 07:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that this topic can be quite confusing, even for Thais, I'd suggest creating a new sub-section 3.5 "Future succession". Please comment on the text that follows: "King Bhumibol's only son, Prince Vajiralongkorn, was given the title "Somdej Phra Boroma Orasadhiraj Chao Fah Maha Vajiralongkorn Sayam Makutrajakuman" on 28th December 1972, making him the Crown Prince and Heir Apparent to the throne. In 1977, Princess Sirindhorn was given an equivalent title, "Sayam Makutrajakumari". The constitution was later ammended to allow for a "daughter of the king" to succeed to the throne, but only in the absence of a male heir apparent. Although this effectively signalled Princess Sirindhorn as unofficially second in line to the throne., it did not give her equal status in terms of royal succession to the Prince."

  • This seems fair to me (correct sp for 'amended' and no period after 'throne'); perhaps we could also include a line like "Moreover, the prince would appear to be first in line to succeed based on the fact that he has several sons and daughters who can sustain the dynasty while the princess is unmarried and childless." Phand 22:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That might be true in the court of public opinion, but the fact that he has several sons and daughters is technically irrelevant to his status as heir apparent. Patiwat 08:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, no need to include it ... but in fact both the 1925 law on succession and the modern constitution emphasize children of the king to succeed, specifically sons. This is the traditional principle for centuries, precisely followed or not. Moreover, in monarchies world wide a key, perhaps the key principle for sustaining family-based monarchies. Neither law nor tradition can be ignored in this case, because Sirindhorn's accession would raise far more complications. (And, as you know, in the court of public opinion the favorite is Sirindhorn).Phand 21:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I never realized the 1925 law was had a bias to sons. If that is the case, then maybe you should include something in the article that specifically mentions (or even better, quotes) the relevant clauses in the Palace Law, and then follow with something like "Princess Sirindhorn is aged XX and has never married, while Prince Vajiralongkorn has numerous children, including a legitimate male son. Patiwat 08:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The reference in this new add to a paper by an election commissioner calls him "Gothom Aryan" which I corrected to "Gothom Arya". But then I found the author's name on the paper itself is "Gothom Aryan". Perhaps then this is a different person and not the well-known election commissioner "Arya" (or perhaps Dr Gothom changed his spelling)?Phand 18:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It is the same person. It seems he spells it both ways. Patiwat 11:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Execuse me...Patiwat, you are the confused one. Crown Princess Sirindhorn's official title was never "Siam Mongkut Ratchakumari" like you've stated. It is "Siam Boromaratchakumari". Therefore, the meaning of her official style surely does not confuse anyone to mistake her as an heir apparent. The elements of this word are Siam + Boroma + Ratcha+ Kumari which approximately equivalents to English as Siam+Royal+King+Daughter or simply "Siam's King's Royal Daughter"!! LOL (Fuszcher)

  • This was corrected in the article some time ago. Several other people also misunderstood this issue, probably because her title is often (mis)translated as Crown Princess. Patiwat 22:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • To correct an lingering confusion on this issue, I have noted in the article that the Princess's official title is NOT Crown Princess - even though the English-language press translates it that way. The official Kanchanapisek network website lists her as simply HRH Princess Sirindhorn. Patiwat 22:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Move "60th Anniversary Celebrations" section to its own article?

I'd like to suggest that the "60th Anniversary Celebrations" section be moved to its own article, with a short summary and link shown in the main biographical article. Any thoughts? Patiwat 06:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd like to reiterate my suggestion. I have created a new article on Bhumibol Adulyadej's 60th Anniversary Celebrations and would like to suggest that further details of the celebrations be added to that article. This article should contain no more than a short summary of events as well as a link to the Celebration article. The article is getting long enough, and especially after the Celebrations are all over, most of this material will be in appropriate to the autobiographical article. Patiwat 22:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks for starting the article. I've summarized the stuff in the King's main article, and I've wikilinked references to the new 60th anniversary article from the Current events in Southeast Asia page. Wisekwai 03:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Questionable license status of some images

Some images used in the article have questionable licenses. They are 1) the coronation portraits ("Portrait bhumibol sirikit.jpg"), the 2) the royal standard ("Thai King Standard.png"), and the 3) 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. I don't want that to occur. Could somebody please replace these images with public domain or freely licensed versions. Patiwat 22:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Even more images of the King are being posted which I do not believe are freely licensed or in the public domain. These pictures can be deleted at any time, so could somebody please replace them with appropriate freely licensed images? Patiwat 05:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tone of the article

Is it just me, or has the tone of the article changed from being objective, fact-based, and straight-forward, to being ชเลีย, sycophantic, and overly dramatic? The King is worthy of much praise, but is an encyclopedia the appropriate media for that praise? This is starting to read more like a TV show or a book for children than an encyclopedia. Examples: "Through his benignancy and countless rural development projects, the King has won the hearts of all Thai people, who not only view the monarchy in a semi-religious light but also appreciate his arduous, sincere attempts to relieve Thailand's rural poor." or "Always seen with a camera in his hand, he had sedulous attempts to truly understand the people and set about giving immediate help to relieve their miseries." or "The fact that King Bhumibol is at the very heart and soul of all Thai people of all religions is recently demonstrated in the phenomenal event on June 9, 2006. People from all walks of life, being carried away by overwhelming emotion and elated bliss, shed tears when their most revered king, who is now 78 years old, waved his frail hand and smiled solemnly to the people." or "Although he has become less active due to his health problems, the love and respect for His Majesty has not evanesced from Thai people's hearts." or "His dedication and shown sincerity to the people and the country over the past sixty years has earned him the apothiosized position, at an almost unprecedented level in every living Thai's heart.". Not even the articles on Jesus or Allah or the Virgin Mary or Mother Theresa are written of in such a flattering matter! I believe that entire "King and the People" section should either be re-written or reverted.

You are quite right, this article has become a total disgrace since I last looked at it (at the time I added some photos early this year). I have started removing the huge amounts of eulogistic guff that someone has asserted. That the King is widely admired and indeed revered in Thailand is not in dispute, and the article has always said that, with proper referencing. But to assert as a matter of fact that he is some sort of saint, and to do it for paragraph after paragraph, is unencyclopaedic and unacceptable. There is also much too much recent Thai political history, which is not the topic of this article. Adam 07:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, folks for clearing this up. I thought I was going nuts when I was reading some of the stuff. Living in Thailand, I have to say I find myself getting caught up in it and it's hard to distance myself from it all. But Wikipedia needs to stay objective, and that's where other folks come in. Thanks again. - Wisekwai 12:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Adam, your edits so far seem reasonable. Thanks. Patiwat 14:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Adam, your continued edits seem reasonable; however, I take exception to this sentence in the introduction: "Critics (mostly outside Thailand) attribute this status to the suppression of criticism of the monarchy." This sentence doesn't seem to be supported in the body of the article. Are you referred to Paul Handley's biography, which hasn't even been published yet? Or criticism that occured during the 70's in the heady days of the student movement? Or the mysterious "Finland Plan" plotters that Sondhi claims want to overthrow the King? Please clarify. Patiwat 10:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The article itself says that two biographies of Bhumibol have been banned. I have read Stephenson and it is actually mostly pro-Bhumibol, so one can imagine what would happen to a genuinely critical book. I gather also that the Economist article which I quoted at the Maha Vajiralongkorn article was banned. Also Thailand enforces the law of lese majeste (abolished long ago in European countries), as the article also makes clear. I think this meets any reasonable definition of suppression of criticism. I don't deny that Bhumibol is genuinely popular, and on the whole deservedly so, but he has also been the beneficiary of a state-sponsored monarchist cult, reinforced by the suppression of all criticism, for the past 40 years. Adam 11:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Bhumibol and past military regimes

The statement that Bhumibol supported the military regimes before 1973 is supported by all the references I have. He was content to serve as a figurehead monarch under Pibul, Sarit and Thanom. He didn't like Pibul very much but he didn't dismiss him, abdicate or in any other overt way oppose him. He worked closely with Sarit, and then with Thanom - in the context of the Cold War he thought military rule was better than weak civilian government and the risk of communism (and he may have been right), though no doubt he tried to moderate the military regime's actions. Having supported the return to democracy in 1973, he was disappointed by the Pramoj brothers (as was everyone) and did not oppose the 1976 coup - as was shown by his support for Thanin and his close relationship with Prem. It was only in the 1980s that he decided that there could be no more military regimes. No doubt all this history has been erased from the Thai collective memory, which chooses to regard Bhumibol as a saint rather than a complex political figure, but those are the facts. Adam 14:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your information. But I think it is inappropriate to draw such a strong, unprovable conclusion. That X works closely with Y doesn't necessarily mean that X supports Y. The statement about the King supporting military regimes can be appended to the lower section, if you are very confident, but please don't put it in the introduction for the sake of neutrality. (Also, the monarchy was infirm at the time.) Your revisions of other parts are nice and reflect your insight into the issues. I also agree that this is not a Thai political topic, and your revision is appreciated. Thanks very much again for your consideration. Lucasian

When a head of state agrees to recognise a coup d'etat by swearing in and accepting the new regime, as Bhumibol did with Thanom in 1958 and again with Thanin in 1976, he must be said to be supporting it. I'm not making any moral or political judgments about Bhumibol's past actions. As I said above, his support for military regimes may well have been justified in the conditions of the times. And as you say, he was young and the monarchy was weaker than it later became. But if Bhumibol had refused to accept the 1976 coup or swear in Thanin, what might have happened? Maybe democracy would have survived. These facts can't be ignored just because people now want to see Bhumibol as a lifelong champion of democracy. This just isn't true. Adam 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

--If he had refused to accept the coup at the time, the result might have been fatal. I'm not pro-monarchy, but I think neither of us has enough evidence to assert what went on in his mind and claim his position (either genuine supporting position or possibly suppressed opposition). The fact that he agreed to accept the regime could be properly mentioned, but the conclusion that he "supported them" is too narrow and fails to consider certain situational aspects. For example, the fact that he appointed Thaksin as a PM doesn't lead to the conclusion that he supports Thaksin. Most of the time, he just signed whatever presented to him given that they're not outrageously detrimental. Also, there were a few military cabals at the time, so it's equivocal to merely say "military regimes". He might not have been a lifelong champion of democracy, but he has always tried to keep his intervention at the minimum after all. Your rewording or moving this sentence to the lower section would be greatly appreciated. Lucasian

The reasons he supported these various regimes is immaterial - as I have said several times now, he might have been correct to do so, or he might have had no choice as you say. That's not the point. The point is that he did support them, not in the sense that he liked them (I don't know if he did or not), but in the sense that he gave them his official support as head of state. That is a fact, it is a relevant fact, and the article should state it as such. Adam 15:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

--Thanks for your clarification. Your explanation in this discussion board is very clear, and well-grounded, but if you had specifically said "signed as the head of the state, appointed, etc." as you explained here, the article page would have been much more neutral. The term "supports" could mean many things: "Give moral or psychological aid to, Support materially or financially, Be behind, Adopt as a belief, etc." These are just samples of the meanings from Princeton's wordnet dictionary. It seems like none of these are what you meant (I hope). Probably you could write more specifically rather than an equivocal statement as such. (Please note that it's normal for a consitutional monarch to sign as an approval for every Prime Minister though. And this signature in fact means nothing. That's what's immaterial. He might have thought the benefits of compromising outweighted the costs considering the risk of communism and the like. Anyhow, he didn't overtly support the military regimes as much as to be worth mentioning in the introductory paragraph. ) Lucasian

--Also, these reasons are just small parts of the reasons why he's so revered in Thailand. So the article shouldn't say "For these reasons". The issue of his being the champion of democracy or not seems not even to be relevant to the homage living Thai people paid to him. More likely, as accounted in many books and by Thai people, he's phenomenally revered because of his dedication and for his idealized self-sufficiency philosophy. I'm not saying that he's a god-like figure, but his saint-like image in Thai people's eyes is close to being a fact (though hard to believe, I know), while his actually being saint-like is of course dismissed.

PS I will no longer edit this page because, as much as I want the information to be impartial and unopinionated, I think it's not worth my time to engage in a quibble. The virtue of wikipedia is that people can cooperate, not to promote defensiveness of certain wordings. Thanks you all for your patience. Lucasian

It is not "normal" for constitutional monarchs to swear in military juntas which have seized power by force from elected governments amid much bloodshed, which is what happened in 1976. It is the duty of a constitutional monarch to uphold the constitution, and Bhumibol failed to carry out that duty. By swearing in Thanin Kraivixien Bhumibol showed that he supported the coup - he didn't have to, he could have abdicated, or threatened to abdicate, in which case, given his prestige, events might have gone very differently. Adam 15:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Adam, I think I agree with you here. The King has given support, whether active or passive, to particular military regimes, and he has been selective about it. He wasn't forced to do so. He did not, for instance, support the two Young Turk coups in the 80's, despite the rebels seizing Bangkok. Patiwat 23:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course - because by the 1980s he had decided that further military regimes were no longer acceptable. He recognised that both Thai society and the regional environment had changed greatly since the earlier period of his reign. What a mature society and economy needs is a stable democracy. He deserves credit for that decision, and the article gives him credit. But that does not obscure the facts about the earlier periods. Adam 03:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think his support or lack off prior to the mid 70s is irrelevant. He basically didn't have much choice. At that time the king didn't have the power he has now. He had to follow. Only since the mid 70s he started to have access to real wealth, which allowed him to start a lot of projects that have since been of benefit to the poor. And by doing so he gained power (the love of the people). A monarch without wealth is a monarch without power. The king got real power (and love) in the last 30 years. Before he was just another king in another country.


+ I think there is pretty strong evidence in the historical literature that Bhumibol/the palace stiffly opposed Pibul, and the benign support for Suchinda and the military compared to open criticism of Chatichai in the year to the 1991 coup are public record. That said, if these are disputed they shouldn't be specific in the test. Instead, one can say, for instance, that "Bhumibol's reign was marked by persistent political instability, with many successful military coups and abrogations of the constitution during which the palace increased its power. It is debated whether or not Bhumibol actually supported these coups." Phand 20:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Patiwat 02:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, where and by whom is it "debated"? Certainly not in Thailand, where serious public discussion of recent political history is very rare and any suggestion that the King is or ever has been anything less than a paragon of virtuous behaviour is unspeakable and apparently unthinkable. In any case, the facts speak for themselves. In 1976 the army staged a very bloody coup against a democratically elected government. Did the King abdicate? Did he threaten to abdicate? Did he denounce the coup? Did he flee the capital? Did he lift a finger to stop the army and militias massacring the students? No in all cases. Instead he immediately swore in Thanin Kraivixian as Prime Minister, in total disregard of the Constitution he was supposed to uphold. His support for this coup is a matter of public record and cannot be "debated." I have also never seen any evidence that he opposed in any serious way the Sarit-Thanom regime before about 1971, ie for most of its tenure. I agree that "the Palace" disliked Phibun's regime (hardly surprising given what happened in 1932), but I doubt the very young Poomipon had much to do with this personally. Adam 06:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Adam, some of your points demonstrate the reason why, in this page (rather than, say, a separate page on the 1976 massacre) a shorter and more neutral approach is better. First, scholarly literature and newspaper accounts do discuss the king's role in many events, though with some circumspection. And they come out with different interpretations. The fact that you and I disagree about the king and Pibul is an example. You give the king the benefit of the doubt then, but then don't when you get to the Sarit and Thanom regimes. And, by your taking that only to 1971, I infer that you accept the account of the king's intervention against Thanom in 1973, when details of that episode lead some people to believe that the king defended Thanom all the way until the shooting started and perhaps even afterward. As for 1976, one respected version that takes a different view from yours is the Chai Anan-Morrell work. And while I agree with your central conclusion, I don't think he had any choice to abdicate. Could he have controlled the military? Many defenders say Bhumibol has never been able to control the military, hence his ambiguous stance during coups. (I should also point out that the 1976 coup was not bloody. There was a massacre at Thammasat, but the coup itself was bloodless.) the Chai-Anan Morrell work suggests several coups were being plotted by different groups and perhaps the more moderate took power. Some argue that the Thanin appointment was the king's way of keeping some power over the coup group -- and in fact Thanin snubbed them on a number of occasions. (Whether he was better or worse is another issue.) I am only making these points to show you that there is debate, as repressed as it might be. But these issues can be sorted out in history books rather than try and make this Wikipedia page the end-all of arguments and a full biography in itself. I made the point that his reign is marked by many coups -- hardly a record of stability. That is papered over sometimes, but not debated. Phand 15:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion arose from a single sentence in the opening paragraph: "He is widely credited with facilitating Thailand's transition to democracy in the 1990s, although in earlier periods of his reign he supported military regimes." I acknowledge some of the points you make, but I don't think anything has been said which invalidates that sentence. The more complex issues you raise should be canvassed at appropriate places in the article, or in other articles. Adam 16:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I came into this debate a little late, but in fact there is a lot at fault with the original sentence as well. For he did not uniformly support (or benignly endorse) military regimes prior to the 1990s; nor is he really "widely credited" with facilitating democracy in the 1990s. IMHO "Democracy" in Thailand has evolved steadily since 1932 and the 1990s only saw a furthering of this process rather than any radical change. The attempts to rewrite the constitution in the 1990s were a difficult struggle that did not enjoy particular palace support. (And many scholars and historians would privately take very strong issue with your earlier contention that "It was only in the 1980s that he decided that there could be no more military regimes." Prem held power more by the force of the army behind him, for one.) The conclusion then is that it is not really possible to define Bhumibol as a non-democrat back then and nowadays a democrat. The point in all this discussion is to get beyond the differences and get something acceptable. Phand 16:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The sentence does not say he unformly supported earlier military regimes, it just says he supported them. Given his position as head of state, that is a conclusion I am entitled to draw from the lack of public, citable evidence that he opposed them. The sentence we are discussing is a formulation based on my reading of Thai history. If you have some evidence to the contrary, please produce it. Unfortunately the private opinions of even an army of historians are of no use to us. We need opinions and facts on the public record. Adam 16:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Adam, despite your proud contributions to Wikipedia, you have no more claim to asserting what is right regarding Thai history than anyone else. If you want pure unadulterated facts, then --"Bhumibol is a constitutional king and the Thai constitution says he is above politics. Constitutional kings in this day and age are generally figureheads." YOu and I might know that is not the story, but "based on my reading of Thai history" is no standard, and sounds dictatorial. I can -- but am not going to bother -- give you a long list of citations to show your errors. And I can give others to support you. That's why a more neutral statement would ensure these arguements, and constant bias-based changes, do not continue on this page in the future. Your insistence on both citations and your own reading of history is a little contradictory. Phand 18:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-Thaksin" t-shirts???

I have to disagree with the writing of the section "Crisis of 2005-2006", although I cannot offer an alternative version myself, sorry. But it is not fair to say that people who support King Bhumibol are against Prime Minister Thaksin! For sure millions of Thais are both pro-King and pro-Thaksin. I live in Thailand and it is perfectly clear to me that the yellow t-shirts worn by people to show support to the King are completely unrelated to their opinion towards the Prime Minister. I find incorrect as well to say that the anti-Thaksin rallies were motivated by the ceremony at the temple, as a more important trigger was the selling of the (US$1.88 billion) Thai-communications-company shares to a foreign government my Prime Minister Thaksin (and avoiding to pay taxes for the transaction). Any ideas to correct this?

At the time the photo was taken, at a Sondhi rally, the yellow T-shirts were primarily a symbol of the "anti-" movement. That has since changed, with yellow shirts being more closely identified with the monarch. So the photo is really out of context here and should perhaps me removed from this page. There are other images available that can be used to illustrate the yellow shirts and their relation to the king. Wisekwai 11:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
"We Love The King" t-shirts became a symbol of the anti-Thaksin movement during the early part of 2006 - one of the first times in Thai history that the love for the King also carried a partisan political message. This makes it very relevant to the "Crisis of 2005-2006" section, in which it appears. If it appeared in the "60th Anniversary Celebrations" then it would be out of context; but the caption makes it very clear that the t-shirts were all about politics and not about the recent celebrations.
Wisekwai and anonymous, the article has no mention of yellow t-shirts in any other context other than the anti-Thaksin protests. Therefore, might it be useful to add a mention of nation-wide the popularity of yellow t-shirts in the "60th Anniversary Celebrations"? And also clarify, as Wisekwai noted, that the t-shirts now carry a dual message.

Early Life (Vandalism)

Was it true that the King was born in Tokyo, Japan? I thought he was born in the United States. I saw User:Sleepingrobot change it to Tokyo, Japan. He also changed University of Harvard to University of Tokyo. I think it's vandalism. I guess User:Sleepingrobot is part of the radical right of Japan or.. So I changed it back.

Thai transliteration

Can someone explain why, if his name is pronounced (roughly) Poomipon Adunyadet it is transliterated as Bhumibol Adulyadej? Adam 17:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Good luck understanding the matter. After a few years in Thailand I still haven't figured these things. Another mistery similar to the case of what sounds as "Praram" in Thai being transliterated as "Rama."

Thai is derived heavily from Sanskrit, one of the classical languages of India. It therefore became fashionable for some time to use the same transliteration scheme as Sanskrit. Thus, ภ=Bh, พ=B (even though ภ and พ have both been pronounced IPA:pʰ for decades or even centuries), ุล=L (even though at the end of a word it is pronounced IPA:n), and ช=J (even though this consonent is usually pronounced "ch" (IPA:tɕʰ) and at the end of a word is pronounced "t" (IPA:tʰ)). The royal family insists on using this method; other names that are transliterated this way include Vejjajiva and Durakij Pundit University (I think they use this system because they don't want to be called the Bandit University). Of course, this system falls appart when the name in question is a compound of Khmer-Sanskrit or Thai-Sanskrit, leading to weird hybrids like Vajiralongkorn (which I think should technically be Vajiralongkara), Sirindhorn (Sirindhara), Walailak (Valayalakshana). I think this is all very silly; the Royal Institute transliteration method is much more consistent. Patiwat 02:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Then Wikiedia should take a lead and transliterate Thai names phonetically. It's time Wikipedians realised that we are now the largest encyclopaedia in the world and can exercise leadership on these things. If we write Poomipon Adunyadet others will follow. Adam 09:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree if this means replacing the existing transliterations. If Bhumibol Adulyadej chooses to spell his name that way, then that is what we should name the article - noting of course the IPA, Royal Institute, or any other transliteration schemes in common usage. The problem is, nobody uses the Royal Institute transliteration to the King's name, because his Sanskrit transliteration is so widely used. I fear that showing the Royal Institute scheme would further confuse readers. Let them just use the IPA or listen to the .ogg file. Patiwat 14:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

After so many years, finally I find out an answer. All Thais I have asked so far, didn't know .... and no, the were not low class uneducated people. Thanks Patiwat. Anagnorisis 03:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Patiwat is indeed a font of knowledge and wisdom on all things Thai. Adam 05:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've always found the Sanskrit transliteration quite snobbish. It isn't about how educated people are or about their class - Sanskrit transliteration hasn't been used by any mainstream government or educational institution for decades. It isn't taught as part of the basic curriculum in schools or universities - I only learned about it in a university-level Indian art history class. Which makes the government's transliteration of Suwannaphum airport as 'Suvarnabhumi' even more confusing.

There is also the additional problem that Thais can't seem to agree on how to pronounce their own language. Is it Suriwong or Suliwong? Sukhumvit or Sukhumwit? I listen carefully, I even ask Thai friends to say these names slowly and clearly for me, and I still hear both variants. Adam 06:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should spell a name the way it is most widely known, in this case, Bhumibol Adulyadej; as for Sanskrit transliteration, I believe it's simply a result of guidelines not existing early enough. How Thais can't pronounce their own language is another issue of the decadent state of our language nowadays (at least this applies to Suriwong; Sukhumvit is probably a result of the person(s) in question trying to pronounce it "in English"). Paul C 17:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The correct pronunciation of the 'r' in Suriwong should be like the Spanish - with a distinct flapping of the tounge. This is often mispronounced though, especially among young children. For the standard in pronunciation, watch the announcers of the major evening news programs or government radio news speakers. They are quite strict about their pronunciation.
  • Yes, the correct pronunciation of the 'r' ,in any Thai words, is similar to the musical 'trill' on the tongue which requires speakers to flap their tongues up and down in their mouths rapidly in order to achieve the right sound. Rachmaninoff

Need references

There are no refs in this until the second paragraph of "Political conflicts". Can anyone provide some? We'll need them to get to FA status, which I think this article has the potential for. Rlevse 18:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the entire "Royal projects" section lacks references. I am currently rewritting it based on the excellent work of Chanida Chitbundid's MA thesis at Thammasat University titled "The Royally-initiated Projects: The Making of Royal Hegemony (B.E. 2494-2546)" located at http://socio.tu.ac.th/For%20Web%20(soc-anth)/2546_ANTH.htm#%C1%B9.46-06_

peerreviewer script output

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Wim, I'll get to this over the next day or two. You must be watching my edits or something. Rlevse 21:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Did my run through with it.Rlevse 22:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

King's powers under Constitution

The "Royal powers" section begins "Despite Thailand's successful transition to parliametary democracy, Bhumibol retained enormous powers, partly because of his immense popularity and partly because of the lack of definition of his powers in the Thai Constitution." This is quite misleading and very politically loaded, as the King's powers are defined under Chapter II ("The King") of the Constitution. The King is not an extra-constitutional individual. I'm going to reword this to make it ""Despite Thailand's successful transition to parliametary democracy, Bhumibol retained enormous powers, partly because of his immense popularity and partly because his powers - although clearly defined in the Thai Constitution - are often subject to conflicting interpretations." Patiwat 05:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This change is correct -- the powers have been consistently defined throughout all the post '32 constitutions. However, "clearly" might be an overstatement. Phand 22:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Clearly" debatable :-) I personally think the Constitution makes his powers very clear, on paper at least. The only thing not clearly defined is succession, where the Constitution defers to the pre-'32 Palace Law on Succession of B.E. 2467. I realize, though, that Section 7 ("Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State.") is problematic, as it has been used to justify extra-constitutional royal actions, e.g., his support of Jaruvan.

I think the constitution is more clear than this -- it basically says that the succession goes on the 2467 law but also the king can make his own decision. That's why they wrote into it that the king could (fairly unilaterally) amend the succession law. In the absence of anything clear from those processes, the privy council takes over and tells the cabinet and the parliament. What might not be so clear is where the constitution says (I think) that in the absence of a prince a princess can be named. The definition of "absence" here is not entirely clear. Phand 18:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Practically speaking, do you think that the "Succession to the throne" section needs any further refinement? My interpretation has always been that if, God forbid, the King were to pass away, the Prince would automatically get the throne; if the King and the Prince were to pass away, the President of the Privy Council would be regent pro tempore and would defer to the Palace Law, which would make Princess S. the monarch. 24.193.105.76 14:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor issues

Some other issues about the article are noted below: Patiwat 07:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Does any official Thai government website refer to the King as the "Ninth Rama"? I know some websites use it, but it just seems wrong. Ninth Rama doesn't equal Rama IX.
  • Is "princes" gender neutral? e.g., is "King Ananda Mahidol then elevated his brother and sister to the Chao Fa status (the most senior class of the Thai princes) in 1935". correct?
  • What does the ป.ร. in his signature stand for?
  • If several lines is spent explaining his Bronze Wolf scouting award, shouldn't at least as much space be given to his UNDP award? Is such space for the Bronze Wolf scouting award even neccesary, given that zero space is devoted to his scouting accomplishments?
  • Over time, should the space devoted to his 60th Anniversary Celebrations be trimmed down, and eventually eliminated? I mean, the article doesn't mention at all the significant celebrations that occured at his 50th Anniversary Celebrations, nor his 72nd Birthday Celebrations.
  • As noted by others, several sections have no citations at all.

There might also be a mention of how and when he lost his right eye. (Is the quote "in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" banned in Thailand?) Adam 08:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Partly covered in the article already, although - like the entire section - without a citation. The King as a young man liked racing fast cars. Lost one of his eyes in an accident. Gained his wife, though. This matter is uniformly ignored in the official adoring histories. l HouPatiwat 17:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Found some citations and some interesting details regarding the accident. Patiwat 05:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree the UNDP award info should be beefed up, but someone who is familiar with it should add it. I'll gladly add more details on Scouting when I find them. I don't think 60th anniv info should be cut, but rather the other celebrations added. Rlevse 18:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A few comments:

  • I've never seen an official reference to the "ninth rama"; I think it is used casually in the Stevenson book or perhaps "The Devil's Discus". Should not be used here.
    • Done. Patiwat 18:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think "princes" is clearly enough gender neutral, if at all. Should add "and princesses".
    • Done. Patiwat 18:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • ป.ร.-- is that not Phra Ram?
    • Nope. ป.ร. is Por Ror, not Phor Ror. Patiwat 10:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Over 60 years the king has been granted countless honors from global organizations. In 1997 he also reportedly became the record holder for university degrees (honorary) (Bangkok Post 3 Dec 1997). So the scouting honor hardly stands out. I imgaine too that he is just the titular head of scouting in Thailand as he and the queen are for many many organizations, like the Thai Red Cross. This signifies patronage rather than active involvement.
    • I'll give Rlevse the benefit of the doubt that he can dig up details of the King's personal significant involvement in the Scouting movement. Patiwat 10:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Rlevse, I see that you've added the fact that King Bhumibol is the head of the Thai Scouts. I hope you'll be able to dig up something meatier than that regarding his activities in the scouting movement. Because if he was just a figure-head leader, I don't think it would be so relevant to the biographical article to devote that much space to the award and the logistics involved. Maybe you could list out his Jamboree activities, or whatever things previous awardees had performed in order to merit their award? Patiwat 05:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • All of the in-depth coverage of recent events is overblown (and interpretations preliminary IMHO) since he has been on the throne 60 years. The 60th anniversary should be noted, but I odn't know why it should be detailed beyond a sentence explaining how massive it was. I don't know why previous anniversaries/celebrations need be mentioned. They are superseded by the most recent.
  • He lost use of his right eye when his Fiat collided with a truck on 4 Oct. 1948, if someone wants to add this. If he or his sister Galyani's husband was driving the car is not clear.
    • Got a source for that? Patiwat 10:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Even suggesting the quote "in the kingdom of the blind" is deliberately provocative and offensive to many and has no place here. Phand 22:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a line I would try out in Thailand. But now I am home again I can be flippant without fear of being sent to the Tower. I'm sure Phand will enjoy my forthcoming article Cult of Thai monarchy, coming soon. Adam 00:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • It isn't a particularly sensitive quote, not is it a well known one. Since the loss of the King's eye isn't common knowledge (try doing a google search on it), most people wont know what you are talking about. Patiwat 10:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It gets 80,000 google hits. Adam 11:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Searching for "Bhumibol accident eye" got me 561 hits. The first 10 pages of hits either refer back to Wikipedia content, or are not relevant, e.g., the Queer Eye Korea blog. Patiwat 16:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The UNDP Award was included with the 60th annivesary article when that section was broken out into a separate article. It could be moved back. Furthermore, perhaps there could be a word or two about the 79-year-old monarch's health. The Royasehold Bureau announced on July 9 that the King had fallen on June 24 at Chitralada Palace and fractured a rib. (The Nation) - Wisekwai 14:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd say add in more awards if he has them. Rlevse 14:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding Bhumibol and jazz, the article notes regarding his compositions: "They can be listened to." What is this supposed to mean? Patiwat 15:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Does this mean that they are good? I personally think they are good easy listening jazz, but that's just me. Trying to judge musical quality by sales would be tough too, since royal works are usually bought in bulk and then distributed to schools and libraries. Anybody willing to expand the section on his musical contributions? 24.193.105.76 16:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why his sailing hobby merits its own section, and it is somewhat repetitive. It is also hyperbolic: the king is not an "accomplished boat designer and builder". He did not design those boats -- all are international one-designs and were popular as kit boats back in that period. His making modifications while constructing them do not add up to "accomplished boat designer".Phand 16:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I might be biased because I like sailing. But he is more than just a hobbyist - he won a gold metal at an international competition - at least that deserves significant mention. And to sail a dinghy from Hua Hin to Sattahip, in the dark, with only one eye, that also should be mentioned. I've never sailed a Moth (or a Mod), so maybe I'm not the best person to judge whether his modifications to Moth kits deserve much mention. Phand, any citations on the claim that his designs were modifications of existing kits rather than bottom-up designs? I guess the second paragraph can be shortened down a bit. 24.193.105.76 17:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The section headed Crown Property Bureau should be retitled to something like "The king's wealth" or such, because the king's / royal family's assets are not all held in or managed by the Crown Property Bureau. The section should be edited to say that the king's and palace's properties are managed privately, by the Privy Purse and by the Crown Property Bureau. Phand 16:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • What is the "Privy Purse" in Thai? 24.193.105.76 17:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Shin Corp deal and the King

A recent anonymous editor noted (regarding the Emerald Bhudda controversy): "This mini crisis, along with Thaksin's reluctance to face a joint session of parliament on the issue of the Prime Ministes's family's sale of Shin Corporation shares to Singapore's Temasek, led Thaksin to finally dissolved the parliament in February 2006 and call for a new round of election." No citation was given. I later added a citation-needed tag after the second comma, because it wasn't so clear to me that Thaksin's reluctance to face a joint session of parliament had any direct role in his dissolution of the House. Later on, Rlevse added a citation to http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-southeastasia.asp?parentid=37821. However, the article does not make any mention of a joint session of parliament, nor does it mention the dissolution of the House. I am thus going to replace Rlevse's citation with a citation-needed tag. Note though, that I do not believe that this sentence is very relevant at all to the King's role in the political conflict. The King was indirectly involved in the Emerald Bhudda controversy and very directly involved in the Jaruvan controversy. His public involvement in the Shin Corp deal is via SCB's indirect minority ownership of Shin Corp, and nothing more than that. I personally think the noted sentence should be deleted. Patiwat 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is getting close to being reviewed for Good Article status. The citations need to be put in place or the text needs to come out within a few days.Rlevse 18:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, we could still use more refs in the eariler sections. Rlevse 18:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence noted above, as well as other sentences containing the citation-needed tag. They have been replaced with a short sentence describing what happened, backed by two references. Patiwat 17:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)