Talk:Thailand: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 69.208.228.193 - "→Ummm racial slur?: new section" |
|||
(890 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{British English}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Southeast Asia|class=B}} |
|||
{{Article history |
|||
{{WP:Countries|B}} |
|||
|action1 = FAC |
|||
{{FAOL|Thailand|th:ประเทศไทย}} |
|||
|action1date = 2019-08-24 |
|||
{{FAOL|Indonesian|id:Thailand}} |
|||
|action1link = Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thailand/archive1 |
|||
{{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} |
|||
|action1result = failed |
|||
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Geography|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}} |
|||
|action1oldid = 912057322 |
|||
''For coordinating the editing of Thailand-related topics please visit [[Wikipedia:Thailand-related topics notice board]]'' |
|||
---- |
|||
{{Archive box|[[/Archive 1]] March 2003 - August 2006}} |
|||
==Problem with Thailand== |
|||
Someone needs to revert this section to its previous save. Last I checked Thailand wasn't a fantasy story about robots named ANA. - Apokriphos |
|||
|otd1date=2005-12-10|otd1oldid=30731698 |
|||
== Demographic Section needs to be looked at == |
|||
|otd2date=2006-12-10|otd2oldid=93105992 |
|||
I am not sure what to make of the demographic section. The Thai People entry says that tai people are the dominent ethnic group in Thailand, while the demographic section in the page says it's the Lao people. So which one is it? |
|||
|otd3date=2007-12-10|otd3oldid=176572801 |
|||
|otd4date=2008-12-10|otd4oldid=256989559 |
|||
|otd5date=2009-12-10|otd5oldid=330897923 |
|||
|otd6date=2010-12-10|otd6oldid=401690566 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Old peer review|ID=1202053149|reviewedname=Thailand|date=4 February 2024|archive=1}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Thailand|importance=top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Southeast Asia|importance=top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Countries}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|||
|counter = 3 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|||
|algo = old(90d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Thailand/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
== History rewrite == |
|||
: Tai people include Lao, Central Thai, and many other groups. I agree that this section needs to be revised. The first part of it is simply inaccurate. Ethic Lao/Isan do NOT make up over half the population of the nation. The demographics article says that native speakers of Isan or Lao is 34.2% of the population. They outnumber native speakers of central Thai by only 0.5%, not to mention the facts that Lao-speakers typically also speak Central Thai, while Central Thai speakers do not speak Lao. It is simply misleading to say "Thailand's population is dominated by ethnic Lao." --[[User:Vincecny|Vincecny]] 16:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I suggest rewriting the History section (but feel free to replace with a more appropriate template). |
|||
I agree with Vincencny. Kuson |
|||
# Newer additions seem to focus too much on genetic studies. Some of the text is more appropriate to be incorporated to Demographic article. The concept of intermixing of various ethnic groups is worth mentioning though. |
|||
I have just fixed the section. Now it is shorter and more in line with the Demographics of Thailand article. The previous version was not only misleading, but also simply inaccurate at several parts. Besides the Lao-Tai thing as discussed above, I also revised the Chinese part and changed "indigenous hill tribes" to just "hill tribes" as they are actually one of the last groups to arrive in Thailand, rarely "indigenous" at all. --[[User:Melanochromis|Melanochromis]] 12:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
# Regarding initial kingdoms in present-day Thailand, they should be clearly stated if which ones are considered legend, possible truth, or established truth. Legendary states should be mention only briefly. |
|||
# Please make sure it is chronological and not mentioning the same thing twice. I don't mind if my contribution is adjusted for newer additions. |
|||
[[User:Horus|Horus]] ([[User talk:Horus|talk]]) 04:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2024 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Thailand|answered=y}} |
|||
==Majority ethnic group== |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/58.97.224.179|58.97.224.179]] ([[User talk:58.97.224.179|talk]]) 15:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
The intro says that Thai are the majority ethnic group. But the Demographics says that the Lao/Isan are. Which is it? Could we get some cites for this, to avoid edit wars? [[User:Ashmoo|Ashmoo]] 02:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
can i edit the thing please because i really love thailand<3 |
|||
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' this is not the right page to [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions|request]] additional [[Wikipedia:User access levels|user rights]]. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|an account]], you can wait until you are [[Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed and confirmed users|autoconfirmed]] and edit the page yourself.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Hyphenation Expert|Hyphenation Expert]] ([[User talk:Hyphenation Expert|talk]]) 15:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2024 == |
|||
:It is a highly politicized, but not completely inaccurate, way of stating things. Lao/Northeasterners/Isaan people haven't been considered a separate ethnicity by the government since the early 1900's, when Rama VI and subsequent fascist dictatorships shaped the myth that all the people of Thailand were of one ethnicity: Thai. Today, most people don't consider Lao a separate ethnicity - but if they did, they would probably consider Northerners, Southerners, Chinese, and Muslims as separate ethnicities as well. [[User:Patiwat|Patiwat]] 02:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Thailand|answered=yes}} |
|||
Revised the section already. Please see discussion in the "Demographic Section needs to be looked at" --[[User:Melanochromis|Melanochromis]] 12:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Prime Minister of Thailand has been elected in national assembly by voting-selected at 16 august 2024 after dismissal from the position of former 30th prime minister Srettha Thavisin by construction court in 14 august,the parliament has approved a nomination of miss Paetongtarn Shinawatra to be 31st |
|||
Prime Minister of Thailand, make her being youngest person and second woman who became a Prime Minister of Thailand. |
|||
She going to assume office after His Majesty graciously appointed her in duty after 2 weeks later. [[Special:Contributions/2001:44C8:4173:7DAC:8496:9D58:2E33:C8A2|2001:44C8:4173:7DAC:8496:9D58:2E33:C8A2]] ([[User talk:2001:44C8:4173:7DAC:8496:9D58:2E33:C8A2|talk]]) 07:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Charliehdb|Charliehdb]] ([[User talk:Charliehdb|talk]]) 11:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Fully protected edit request on 1 September 2024 == |
|||
== September 19, 2006 Coup == |
|||
Removed the NPOV opening clause of the 9/19/06 section..."even though the army promised" |
|||
[[User:Tarpy|Tarpy]] 20:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
{{edit fully-protected|Siam|answered=yes}} |
|||
== Sex Trade? == |
|||
A protected redirect, '''Siam'''{{-r|Siam|,}} needs [[WP:RCAT|redirect category]] (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows: |
|||
No discussion of the sex trade, and exploitation of women and children? (not to mention young boys) Isn't it analagous to the "beer that made Milwaukee famous"? No mention of the sex tourists? Is this some kind of whitewash? [[User:Porphyria|Porphyria]] 05:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* from this: |
|||
:In contrast what the tabloid media try to make everyone believe, Thailand is much more than the sex business - but as "sex sells" you'll see much more stories about it than e.g. about the political situation in Thailand. And most tourists that visit Thailand aren't sex tourists, even though the percentage of sex tourists is probably higher than e.g. for those visiting Japan. But anyway. it is of course one aspect of the country, that's why we have the article [[Prostitution in Thailand]], but IMHO it doesn't need to be mentioned with much higher prominence. [[User:Ahoerstemeier|andy]] 11:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
<pre> |
|||
::Sex tourism is among one of the major issue in Thailand, but is NOT the primary. As with many other topic, anything controversial is likely to be popular. I agree with Ahoerstemeier that most of tourists in Thailand isn't go there just for sex; it's merely one aspect of the industry. --[[User:Underexpose|Underexpose]] 00:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
#REDIRECT [[Thailand]] |
|||
</pre> |
|||
* to this: |
|||
:::There is sex trade everywhere in the world!! If one is included in article about Thailand, that same statement should be included in [[New-York]] article as well. [[User:dhanakorn|dhanakorn]] 00:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
<pre> |
|||
::: **There is more [[prostitution per captita]] in the US then there is in Thailand. Does the US page mention it?** <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:67.170.83.72|67.170.83.72]] ([[User talk:67.170.83.72|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/67.170.83.72|contribs]]) 04:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC).</small> |
|||
#REDIRECT [[Thailand]] |
|||
{{Redirect category shell| |
|||
:::: **Exactly, then shut up. Stop picking on Thailand just because it's in Asia.** <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:69.196.235.246|69.196.235.246]] ([[User talk:69.196.235.246|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/69.196.235.246|contribs]]) 20:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC).</small> |
|||
{{R from move}} |
|||
{{R from former name}} |
|||
{{R mentioned in hatnote}} |
|||
{{R printworthy}} |
|||
}} |
|||
</pre> |
|||
* {{color|darkred|'''<small>WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.</small>'''}} |
|||
Then write that, add a section writing about how Thailand is mistreated in media, cite some sources. Voila.--[[User:NoNo|NoNo]] 03:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
The {{tl|Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{tl|pp-protected}} and/or {{tl|pp-move}} suffice, the ''Redirect category shell'' template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance''!'' '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I. Ellsworth</span>]]''''' , [[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]] [[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er there</sup>]] <small>05:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EP --> — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 21:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:BD2412|BD2412]] this has been fully protected for more than 10 years. Would you like to lift the protection now? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 21:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{re|MSGJ}} It appears that it is actually only S-protected for editing. It is fully move-protected, but obviously there's no reason to be moving the page. I think this is probably the right setup for a page of this scope. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 23:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::MSGJ was likely referring to the redirect page <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Siam&redirect=no Siam]</span>, which does appear to be fully edit-protected. --[[User:Paul_012|Paul_012]] ([[User talk:Paul_012|talk]]) 00:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I see. Well of course, why wouldn't it be? Redirects bear a lot less in the way of editing than articles. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 00:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Why wouldn't it be? Because we have a protection policy that says pages should only be protected when necessary. So if you don't mind I will try lifting the protection after 11 years in the hope that disruption will not continue — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 07:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yes indeed, sorry for not making this clearer — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 07:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2024 == |
|||
I disagree with all the comments above. Thailand SHOULD have a section on prostitution because is unique not because its in Asia, but because it differs from other Asian nations in that prostitution is ready available in major tourist areas and touts pester even the non sex tourists to death, and are far bolder than in other asian nations, the level of organization and openness of prostitution locales, the fact that males are prostituted in organized bars, the fact that discotheques and bars that are open to the general public are dominated by prostitution, and the general complete acceptance, tolerance, and view of prostitution in the country. In most of asia, prostitution carries a stigma, but in Thailand, prostitutes are reached out to by the public. |
|||
{{Edit semi-protected|Thailand|answered=yes}} |
|||
If u dont believe me, believe Reuters.com http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=inDepthNews&storyID=2006-12-14T203831Z_01_BKK81927_RTRUKOC_0_US-CHILDREN-THAILAND-SEX.xml |
|||
Request to add {{Main|Mass media in Thailand}} under [[Thailand#Entertainment]]. |
|||
== Thai Gem Scam == |
|||
Though Thai Gem Scam does exist in bangkok and other large city in Thailand; I don't believe that it is a primary issue presenting in Thailand. Should it be move to topic "issue" or something? I don't think it is appropriate to place it under "Misc topic". What do you think? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Underexpose|Underexpose]] ([[User talk:Underexpose|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Underexpose|contribs]]) 23:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC).</small> |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/129.126.202.49|129.126.202.49]] ([[User talk:129.126.202.49|talk]]) 13:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Sam Sailor|Sam]] [[User talk:Sam Sailor|Sailor]] 17:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Flora and Fauna == |
|||
In Thailand the native plants are forests, shrub-studded grasslands, and swampy wetlands dotted with lotuses and water lilies. Cassia fistula is Thailand's national tree and plant. In Thailand there is about 57 mammals and 400 bird species, countless reptiles and 300 types of bird species including leopards, elephants, bears, deers, porcupines, owls, stocks, Asian Golden Cat, Banteng, Common treshew, fishing cat, Hog badger, Sambar deer and Sunda Pangolin. The Thai elephant is Thailand national animal. [[Special:Contributions/14.202.35.46|14.202.35.46]] ([[User talk:14.202.35.46|talk]]) 08:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
-- I agree, is a detail, not a primary major heading representing Thailand, though definitely a disgrace and a clue of corruption effecting not only Thai people. Agree, it should be a link to a topic of its own --Kuson--[[User:Kuson|Kuson]] 03:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)13th Nov 2006 |
|||
==Editing== |
|||
Please remember that Wikipedia is an international resource and that the use of either British English, American English, or any other variety is acceptable. Editing out words from one variety of English with an exact synonym from another is counter-productive and stupid. |
|||
Henry, Soccer means association football. Please refer to the wikipedia definition of such for further clarification. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:68.145.110.211|68.145.110.211]] ([[User talk:68.145.110.211|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/68.145.110.211|contribs]]) 13:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC).</small> |
|||
:Belated reply: I seem to have started a minor revert war back then. My rationale was that the sport's known as football in Thailand. [[User:Paul 012|Paul C]] 12:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Map with Myanmar == |
|||
I think it would be the PC thing to do to include a map with myanmar instead of burma as thailand's neighbor mostly because if they want to be called myanmar, who are we to say no? So I found a few but I figured before changing it I'll put up some options! |
|||
1.[http://www.worldbank.org/transport/rail/sys_maps/rail39.gif] |
|||
2.[http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/travel/dg/maps/5d/750x750_thailand_m.gif] |
|||
3.[http://www.asiarooms.com/images/thailand/thailand-map.gif] |
|||
personally I think i go with #2. I'm kind of a newb though so if someone who prefers one ot another could also tell me how to change it if it's not going to be obvious, i'd be grateful! |
|||
[[user:omishark]] 05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Hell no. Following the diktats of murderous thugs is not PC. In any case, the current map is used because it's PD- we can't just steal content from other websites. [[User:Henry Flower|Henry]][[User talk:Henry Flower|<sup>Flower</sup>]] 07:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
The English name of Myanmar is Burma, just as the English name of Muang Thai is Thailand. Maps from the CIA Fact Book are not copyright. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 09:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:It's a bit more complicate issue which even has it's separate article [[Explanation of the names of Burma/Myanmar]]. But as here the article on the country is at [[Myanmar]] IMHO the map should be changed accordingly - we don't need to follow the US to ignore the name (or actually it's a more like a spelling change) for political reasons. [[User:Ahoerstemeier|andy]] 12:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
No, it's not more complicated at all. The country's name in Burmese has always been Myanmar, while its name in English has always been Burma. The Burmese government announced in 1989 that henceforth the country's ''English'' name would be Mynanmar. But that government has no more right to dictate English usage than the German government would have to demand that we call Germany Deutschland. English usage is a matter for English-speakers, not Burmese dictators. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
If Germany asked for those who speak English to call their country Deutschland I seriously doubt any english speaking country would simply say "no." This matter has a lot more to do with politics and the USA's relationship with Myanmar than who has the right to change the English name of their country. What should be considered is: if Myanmar doesn't have the right than what country does? Can the USA decide to call Myanmar something completely different then without their consent as well? You don't have to necessarily respect those in charge but they do have the necessary authority to specify what the name of their country is, in any language. [[User:Omishark|Omishark]] 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
The people of Burma have the right to call their country anything they like. If a democratically elected Burmese government announced that the country was now called Xakghwui, that is what I would call it. But the democratically elected leader of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi, calls the country Burma, and so long as she does so, so should everyone else. The gang of murderers currently in control of Burma have no right to decide anything. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 00:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Burmese passports say Myanmar on them. That little plaque at the United Nations General Assembly room says Myanmar on it. Just because certain individuals don't recognize the legitimacy of the military regime doesn't mean that Wikipedia should use the antiquated name for it. The fact that unelected dictator Marshal Phibulsongram changed the name of the Siam to Thailand didn't stop people from using Thailand. [[User:Patiwat|Patiwat]] 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
That was an actual change to the name of the country. This is a question of whether to use the Burmese language name (Myanmar) or the English name (Burma). The equivalent would have been a military regime in Thailand, having annulled a democratic election and locked up the country's elected leader, demanding that the English-speaking world call Thailand "Muang Thai." [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 03:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Well it should be standardized, so as to prevent confusion. Why not let Google decide? Search results for Myanmar almost double those of Burma. [[User:70.41.230.90|70.41.230.90]] 23:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Thailand's coat of arms == |
|||
There is some controversy, started in the [[Bhumibol]] article about Thailand's coat of arms. The image shown at "Coat of arms of Thailand.png" is ''not'' the Thai coat of arms. It is just a generic garuda. The wings are wrong. The toes are wrong. The ornamentation is wrong. The face is wrong. I have deleted the image from the infobox until we can find a free license COA. [[User:Patiwat|Patiwat]] 18:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Deleting the COA parameters screws up the Country Infobox. Could somebody else who has better editing skills make this edit for me. [[User:Patiwat|Patiwat]] 18:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I temporarily put the old image in its place; should be at least better than a glaring red cross. [[User:Paul 012|Paul C]] 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[th:Image:Emblem thailand garuda1.gif]] seems to be the correct representation Patiwat is referring to. It's uploaded there under fair use now, but perhaps someone would like to look into the copyright status of the image? [[User:Paul 012|Paul C]] 09:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Bangkok AID== |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive]] is featuring the article [[Bangkok]] as a candidate for the Article improvement Drive. Vote if you wish! [[User:Felixboy|Felixboy]] 14:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Copyright status of Thai government publications == |
|||
Could somebody explain (or point me to some source documents) that explain what the copyright status of Thai government publications is? Specifically, are all Thai government documents by law considered to be in the public domain (like in the US)? Also, does this include contents on Thai government websites? [[User:Patiwat|Patiwat]] 01:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:According to [[wikisource:th:พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗#มาตรา ๗]], |
|||
สิ่งต่อไปนี้ไม่ถือว่าเป็นงานอันมีลิขสิทธิ์ตามพระราชบัญญัตินี้ |
|||
(๑)ข่าวประจำวัน และข้อเท็จจริงต่างๆ ที่มีลักษณะเป็นเพียงข่าวสารอันมิใช่งานในแผนกวรรณคดี แผนกวิทยาศาสตร์ หรือแผนกศิลปะ |
|||
(๒)รัฐธรรมนูญ และกฎหมาย |
|||
(๓)ระเบียบ ข้อบังคับ ประกาศ คำสั่ง คำชี้แจง และหนังสือโต้ตอบของกระทรวง ทบวง กรม หรือหน่วยงานอื่นใดของรัฐหรือของท้องถิ่น |
|||
(๔)คำพิพากษา คำสั่ง คำวินิจฉัย และรายงานของทางราชการ |
|||
(๕)คำแปลและการรวบรวมสิ่งต่าง ๆ ตาม (๑) ถึง (๔) ที่กระทรวง ทบวง กรม หรือหน่วยงานอื่นใดของรัฐหรือของท้องถิ่นจัดทำขึ้น |
|||
[[User:Paul 012|Paul C]] 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Great! Thanks a bunch. Although it doesn't specifically cover government websites, I think that point 3 can reasonably be interpretted to include websites. This has a big influence on how images from government websites can be used in Wikipedia. [[User:Patiwat|Patiwat]] 22:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I've been giving that law a read in some detail, and would appreciat it if you could tell me how article 7 does or does not conflict with article 14, which states |
|||
กระทรวง ทบวง กรม หรือหน่วยงานอื่นใดของรัฐหรือของท้องถิ่นย่อมมีลิขสิทธิ์ในงานที่ได้สร้างสรรค์ขึ้นโดยการจ้างหรือตามคำสั่งหรือในความควบคุมของตน เว้นแต่จะได้ตกลงกันไว้เป็นอย่างอื่นเป็นลายลักษณ์อักษร |
|||
This appears to grant any state agency the copyright over any of its creative work. Is there therefore a difference between "creative work" (งานที่ได้สร้างสรรค์ขึ้น) and publications (e.g., ระเบียบ ข้อบังคับ ประกาศ คำสั่ง คำชี้แจง และหนังสือโต้ตอบ, ระเบียบ ข้อบังคับ ประกาศ คำสั่ง คำชี้แจง และหนังสือโต้ตอบ, รัฐธรรมนูญ และกฎหมาย, etc.)? [[User:Patiwat|Patiwat]] 23:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Simplification of History== |
|||
''Thailand was never colonised by a European power. There are two main reasons for this. First, it was left as a buffer state between parts of Asia that were colonised by the French and the British.'' |
|||
*The Simplification of history continues, as a history buff I'm pretty sure the British and the French would have taken more out of Thailand, if they were able to. |
|||
[[User:Devraj Singh|Devraj Singh]] 11:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*They didn't do it because they were "nice." They did it because it was in both their mutual self interest. After the last French and British territorial grab in 1909, they decided to retain Siam as a buffer state because the rising threat of Germany in Europe led them to a mutual desire to settle their differences in the colonial world. If France and Britain had wanted to partition Siam at that time they could have done so very easily. Please spare us cheap sarcasm, it is very overused at Wikipedia, and wins no arguments. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 11:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*Ok, I took out the Cheap Sarcasm bit. I am aware of the concession of the 3 Southern Provinces to the British in 1909, and the loss of the land east of the Mekong to the French from 1893-1907. I am also quite aware of the history of Europe prior to world war I. Thought of the Berlin-Baghdad railway must have been quite unnerving for the British and the French to say the least. By the way What reference do you have to your claim? ''If France and Britain had wanted to partition Siam at that time they could have done so very easily''. The simplification was bad enough in my opinion, which was the reason why I raised the issue, and now this.[[User:Devraj Singh|Devraj Singh]] 11:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::"In the first decade of the 20th century, conditions were much improved for a final settlement with Britain and France... Anglo-French rivalry had abated with the exhaustion of new opportunities, the necessity of concentrating on current possessions, and the increasing dangers of the situation in Europe." (David K Wyatt, ''Thailand: a Short History'', 190) |
|||
::Before World War I Britain and France were two of the world's leading military powers, and Britain was the world's leading naval power. Siam was a semi-feudal third-world comic-opera kingdom (no offence). The French alone defeated them with little difficulty in 1893. If the two powers had decided to partition Siam, they could have done so in a few months. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 12:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Firstly the British and the French were '''never able to do so''', so the issue (of the sentence I objected) is based on an 'If' scenario written by a non-Thai. Ok, well that pretty much explains it. 'If'. |
|||
As I said earlier, I am quite aware of the situation in Europe or conditions of European armies prior to the advent of WWI. However, I also feel that most Thais would find your (further) simplification of siam as a 'semi-feudal third-world comic-opera kingdom' quite offensive. Not so much the 'Semi-feudal' bit or the 'thirdworld' bit (nothing wrong with that, in my opinion), but the 'Comic-opera Kingdom' bit (so much with sparing Cheap Sarcasms in wikipedia..). Seems that I sense some [[Eurocentrism]] here.[[User:Devraj Singh|Devraj Singh]] 13:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*It is untrue that they were "never able to do so." They never ''tried'' to do so, for reasons I have explained and given a source for, as requested. |
|||
*19th century Siam ''has'' been the subject of a comic opera (''The King and I''), as I'm sure you know. |
|||
*As for Eurocentrism, it was a Eurocentric era - why else is Chulalongkorn a national hero for Europeanising Siam as fast as he could? [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 13:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
They were never able to do so because they never tried to do so, they never tried to do so because they were never able to do so, both are equally true in my opinion. |
|||
As you said, in those days modernization meant westernization, until recently it was either capitalism or socialism, Left or Right, democracy or feudalism, today we are in a post-modern age and the boundaries are startinig to disappear. In many ways it is still a eurocentrist era, albeit [[Neo-liberalism]] has passed its peak (how much worst could it get for the world’s poor..). |
|||
For any Ruler in any age, the greatest honour is to follow one’s duty. King, Rama V and his predecessors are greatly honoured not only for their ability to uphold the nation’s sovereignty in the age of Colonialism but also for the upholding of Dharma in accordance to Thai belief. |
|||
I actually heard about this (buffer state) theory from my history teacher many years back. I objected to it back then, and I felt inclined to do so again today. Therefore from a historian’s (realpolitik?) perspective I can see where you are coming from. However, it may seem less biased if there were some sort of official consensus/document between (or by)the British and the French to back up this claim, (rather than a general perception based on a short history of Thailand text). Since there is none, I still feel that this view is being imposed upon Thailand by eurocentrist history, I have thus made small changes in the section, from: |
|||
First, it was left as a buffer state between parts of Asia that were colonised by the French and the British. Second, Thailand had a series of very able rulers in the 1800s. |
|||
To: |
|||
First, Thailand had a series of very able rulers in the 1800s. Secondly, it was able to exploit the tension and rivalry between the French and the British and thus remained as a buffer state between parts of S.E.Asia that were colonised by the two colonial powers. |
|||
Regards, [[User:Devraj Singh|Devraj Singh]] 19:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I don't for a moment dispute that Siam had two very able rulers in Rama IV and V. That is also the view of Wyatt, whom I cited above. (See his essay "King Chulalongkorn the Great: Founder of Modern Thailand" in his ''Sudies in Thai History'', 273). But as he makes clear, the main evidence of their ability was their perception that Siam must westernise as rapidly as possible it was to avoid the fate of the Vietnamese states and Burma, which had historically been stronger military powers than Siam. The Japanese were the only other Asian state to grasp this fact in time. I don't think it is correct to say that Rama V was able to "exploit the tension and rivalry between the French and the British" - he certainly tried to, but the British were no help to him at all when the French made their demands in 1893. What led to the final settlement in 1909 was ''not'' Rama V's diplomatic skills, but the desire of Britain and France to settle their differences in the region and concentrate on European affairs. Siam was the fortunate beneficiary of this, and would have been so even if its king was a complete blockhead. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 06:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Let any unbiased historian decide for himself whether Siam was a mere beneficiary of this or the extent of the King's role in ensuring the nation's sovereignty, regards [[User:Devraj Singh|Devraj Singh]] 08:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC). |
|||
===Anarchy=== |
|||
Has the situation in Thailand really deteriorated so significantly that the countries government can be described as Anarchy. I would hope that Thailand is not in the same situation as anarchical Somalia. Someone with more enlightment on the subject could determine whether Anarchy is the best description of Thailand's current government situation. It currently describes it as such in the infobox. [[User:Basser g|Basser g]] 17:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I don't see the word Anarchy anywhere in the infobox. [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 22:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Check: [[2006 Thailand coup]], [[User:Devraj Singh|Devraj Singh]] 08:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC). |
|||
:Anarchy means two things: the political ideaology, and a situation of chaos. The latter may likely, but the first is not. Therefore, the government cannot be called an Anarchy - but rather a junta or still a democracy - but you can say the political situation is ''in'' anarchy. However, I wish to further add that there is no chaos currently occuring within Thailand apart from the brief coup and even Thaksin hasn't fought back. So, no. No anarchy occuring within Thailand either. '''[[User:Ariedartin|Ariedartin JECJY]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Ariedartin|Talk]]</sup> 14:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Whoops == |
|||
Sorry for the double popups revert, I'm busy reverting an IP who is spamming links to his forum, and I'm becoming a bot... [[User:Yandman|Yandman]] 12:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Japan?== |
|||
''Thailand's origin is traditionally tied to the short-lived kingdom of [[Sukhothai kingdom|Sukhothai]] founded in 1238, after which the larger kingdom of [[Ayutthaya kingdom|Ayutthaya]] was established in the mid-14th century. Thai culture was greatly influenced by [[Cambodia]], [[Japan]] and [[India]].'' |
|||
Most people know that much of Thailand's culture and power in S.E. Asia was inherited through Cambodia along with much influence of India and China. So the above sentence must have been some kind of Joke. There was quite a lively Japanese community in Siam during the [[Ayutthaya kingdom|Ayutthaya]] period, remains of the Japanese quarters is still to be found amidst the monuments of Ayutthaya. Ayutthaya Kings also enjoyed the employment of Japanse mercenaries in their armies, particularly after the end of the civil war period in Japan at the end of the 16th century, check:[[http://domainhelp.search.com/reference/Yamada_Nagamasa]]. |
|||
For this reason, I have obviously changed the sentence to: |
|||
The origin of the Siam/Thailand is traditionally tied to the short-lived kingdom of [[Sukhothai kingdom|Sukhothai]] founded in 1238 after which the larger kingdom of [[Ayutthaya kingdom|Ayutthaya]] was established in the mid-14th century. Thai culture was greatly influenced by [[Cambodia]], [[China]] and [[India]], although various indegenous cultures have existed in the area since the the early bronze age from the time of [[Ban Chiang]] (4420 BC-3400 BC) onwards. |
|||
-[[User:Devraj Singh|Devraj Singh]] |
|||
:The article on Ban Chiang says that the original dates for that culture were estimated at 4420 BC - 3400 BC (based on thermoluminescence), but that radiocarbon dating revised the estimates to around 2100 BC. So, I think we should drop the dates and just say that indigenous cultures have existed since the time of Ban Chiang. I'm not an expert. I just noticed the discrepancy when I read the two articles. Does someone else have an opinion? |
|||
:--[[User:Wechselstrom|Wechselstrom]] 05:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Yeah, I agree that the dates should be dropped for now, until more substantial info is available in the Ban Chiang article.[[User:Maharaj Devraj|Maharaj Devraj]] 08:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Completely unsourced and uncited == |
|||
This article is without sources and is not cited.<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<font color="#1E90FF" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Who</strong></font><font color="#9400D3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">123</font>]] 12:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Historical context after the coup == |
|||
This article is one of several articles that will go through a contextual crisis in the aftermath of the [[2006 Thailand coup]]. The junta has promised a new Constitution, which implies a different form of government with different institutions. If you take the junta's word for it, the deficiencies of the 1997 People's Constitution (No. XVI) were so significant that major changes will need to occur in Constitution XVII. |
|||
With that being said, after Constitution XVII comes out, should this article still retain any information about the forms and institutions of the government based on the 1997 Constitution? If not, should the content just be deleted? Or should it be moved to a different article? Or should information about the Constitution XVI, XV, XIV, ... governments be kept in this article? |
|||
:p.s., These questions also apply for the [[Politics of Thailand]] article, the [[List of political parties in Thailand]] article, the [[National Assembly of Thailand]] article, and a couple of others as well. [[User:Patiwat|Patiwat]] 02:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Put the old info in a section about recent history. |
|||
== Thai characters prevent line wrapping == |
|||
In my browser, Thai characters prevent lines from wrapping when they are rendered. The browser is Firefox 1.5.0.3 (renderer Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.3) Gecko/20060523 Ubuntu/dapper Firefox/1.5.0.3). I do not have access to other renderers to try this with. The wrapping is prevented both in view mdoe and in edit mode. It results in lines about 10 pages long. Thai words also break onto a new line after a preceding parenthesis that stays on the preceding line. It can be fixed temporarily by manually breaking the line after a thai word and joining it back, but when it is re-rendered, it is again not wrapped. Apparently, this is known to the Mozilla team: http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.8b1/known-issues-int.html -[[User:Pgan002|Pgan002]] 22:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Pronunciation: Narai Ratcha Niwet? == |
|||
Does anybody know, how to pronounce the Name of the Temple "Narai Ratcha Niwet"? Or do you know where I can find help on that matter? I'm writing a TV-Text on that matter and need to be able to tell the narrator how to pronounce it. |
|||
== WWII Fighting with Japan and France == |
|||
I think some text should be added regarding Thailand's brief wars with French forces in Indochina, and with Thailand's usual ally the Japanese. I'm going to dig up a little on that subject and see if I can put together something worthwhile. [[User:Boris B|Boris B]] 07:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Oops, I didn't realize there was a separate "History of Thailand (1932-1973)" article. [[User:Boris B|Boris B]] 08:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== maps == |
|||
I came looking for a map of thailand I can download and use with my pocketpc, but found no relevant. can anyone help? |
|||
==Insulting the king== |
|||
My uncle goes to Thailand frequently, and while he says that insulting the king is extremely dangerous, it is not illegal per se. Most of the censorship is carried out personally by newspapers, publishing houses, etc. A citation would be nice. |
|||
: Your uncle is wrong. There is a law about that. --[[User:84.142.170.246|84.142.170.246]] 21:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::See also the wikipedia article [[lèse majesté]] that confirms the illegality in Thailand. You may also do a simple Google search on "lese majeste thailand" to find many recent accounts of prosecution. −[[User:Woodstone|Woodstone]] 21:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::Trying to prove the validity of one wikipedia article with another is not a very good idea. Nevertheless, apparently you're right. I apologize.[[User:Lehi|Lehi]] 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Use of template in See Also== |
|||
The template Thailand topics is now used for "see also." This is far more efficient than the typical plain list. There are 50-70 links using much smaller space. If you'd like to add more see also, you will have to add in the template, not in the article. The template, however, might look complicated, so if you don't know much about the template format, it's better to ask someone else to add it for you. Note that this template is also used for the [[portal:Thailand|Thailand portal]] --[[User:Melanochromis|Melanochromis]] 20:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== where is the "Contents" summary on this page? == |
|||
How come this article does not have a "Contents" list? Where does it go? --[[User:Zack2007|Zack2007]] 07:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:It's gone because the new included [[Portal:Thailand topics]] adds a <nowiki>__NOTOC__</nowiki> via the [[Portal:Thailand/box-header]]. I will try to fix it... [[User:Ahoerstemeier|andy]] 12:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== September 2006 coup d'état is getting way too long == |
|||
This is just a subtopic but it's already longer than many other topics. Plus, there's also a main article for this topic too. |
|||
--[[User:Melanochromis|Melanochromis]] 09:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
It's also biased. Not saying it is wrong. But it is biased. [[User:210.10.221.160|210.10.221.160]] 15:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Tommy. |
|||
:I'd simply delete most parts of this subsection, it's nonsense to have more on this single coup, more than on the last 500 years of history. A single paragraph should be more than enough for this overview article - all the 30 earlier coups and the much more notable [[6 October 1976 Massacre]] or [[Black May]] are covered by a single sentence within the history section. If noone complains I'll be bold soon and cut that subsection to a reasonable size... [[User:Ahoerstemeier|andy]] 22:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:: I've converted it into a short paragraph. The removed contents can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Thailand&oldid=96808133 here]. Maybe someone might want to transfer it to the [[2006 Thai coup d'état]] article. --[[User:Melanochromis|Melanochromis]] 21:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposed WikiProject == |
|||
In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Southeastern Asia at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southeastern Asia]] whose scope would include Thailand. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. [[User:Badbilltucker|Badbilltucker]] 16:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: It's an interesting idea. I already left my comments on the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southeastern Asia|proposal page]]. Good luck !! --[[User:Melanochromis|Melanochromis]] 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
yea this fits for a wiki project |
|||
do it it'd be good [[User:Tu-49|Tu-49]] 03:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Thailand ''was'' a constitutional monarchy? == |
|||
''Thailand was a [[constitutional monarchy]] until the sudden coup on September 19, 2006.'' |
|||
Isn't it still a constitutional monarchy? Why? The infobox states that the current government type of Thailand is ''military dictatorship under constitutional monarchy''. I am sure that Thailand is not considered [[absolute monarchy]], and the [[military dictatorship]] does not rule out the problability of constitutional monarchy, as stated [[constitutional monarchy|here]]. Can someone check this? I don't know how to fix it, though. <b>[[user:Kinkku Ananas|<font color="#8B0000">kinkku</font> <font color="#FFD700">ananas</font>]] <sup>''[[user talk:Kinkku Ananas|(talk)]]''</sup></b> 11:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I totally agree with <b>[[user:Kinkku Ananas|<font color="#8B0000">kinkku</font> <font color="#FFD700">ananas</font>]] <sup>''[[user talk:Kinkku Ananas|(talk)]]''</sup></b> on this matter. [[User:Maharaj Devraj|Maharaj Devraj]] 08:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
From 19 September 2006 to 1 October 2006, Thailand did not have a constitution. The very first act of the 19 September rebels was to abrogate the constitution. Therefore, for that period of time, Thailand was ''not'' a constitutional monarchy. [[User:Patiwat|Patiwat]] 07:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Yeah, that is true, thanks to [[User:Patiwat|Patiwat]] for clearing it up for us. Hope all will go well after the elections in December. [[User:Maharaj Devraj|Maharaj Devraj]] 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Division between Politics and Government == |
|||
The article currently contains one section on Government and another section on Politics. The Government section talks about the popularity of the King and the details of the 2006 coup. The Politics section mentions the structure of government under the 1997 constitution. No mention of the structure of government prior to 1997. No mention of the ban on political activities after the 2006 coup. Both sections need a big re-write. [[User:Patiwat|Patiwat]] 08:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*I have merged the two sections, provided numerous references, gave some historical context, and described the forms of government under the 1997 Constitution (1997-2006) and current Constitution. [[User:Patiwat|Patiwat]] 09:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== NPOV == |
|||
I just put '''NPOV''' in this article because it not neutral. It need to be clean up please. [[User:Jet123|Jet123]] 23:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:[[User:Jet123|Jet123]], can you be more specific about what portion(s) of the article you believe are not neutral? Other than the section on the Coup, the article appears to me to be factually neutral and objectively encyclopedic. - [[User:Thaimoss|Thaimoss]] 00:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Press freedom == |
|||
Am I the only person put off by the last graf under Culture ("Thai culture has been greatly shaped in recent years by its vibrant and free press."), which happens to be just above the rankings section that lists the country as 122nd out of 167 in press freedom by Reporters without borders? (''Added by [[User:68.228.8.68|68.228.8.68]] on March 25, 2007, 04:22'') |
|||
:Agree with your impression of the phrase "vibrant and free" in light of the nearby comment, which is pretty hard to interpret that same way. However, that organization is probably not "the" authority on press and/or press freedom, just one voice. Have toned down a bit, focusing on breadth of market of newsprint. - [[User:Thaimoss|Thaimoss]] 15:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Removal of protection from [[Thailand]] ? == |
|||
Tizio, |
|||
Respect the [[User:DumbBOT|DumbBOT]], and clearly see the edit comment '' "removing a protection template from a non-protected page"'' but I think there is a disconnect. I requested that the page be protected from non-registered edits, as a result of vandalism. The protection was implemented (although maybe not correctly, from your BOT response). The vandalism on this page all but stopped. So, this was all good, and at least according to the process. |
|||
Then, DumbBOT came in and removed that protection template, and here is the result, within '''hours''': |
|||
16:47 Thailand (14 changes) . . (-588) . . (Page history) [66.141.178.154; Zack2007; Gtg204y; Prolog; 59.100.255.60 (2×); 68.223.108.85 (2×); Houserat125 (3×); 217.60.120.11 (3×)] |
|||
16:47 (cur; last) . . (-270) . . 66.141.178.154 (Talk) |
|||
16:15 (cur; last) . . (+30) . . 68.223.108.85 (Talk) (→Etmology) |
|||
16:14 (cur; last) . . (-348) . . 68.223.108.85 (Talk) (→Etmology) |
|||
m 10:22 (cur; last) . . (+987) . . Gtg204y (Talk | contribs) (rvv) |
|||
10:22 (cur; last) . . (-987) . . 217.60.120.11 (Talk) (→YouTube Controversy) |
|||
m 10:20 (cur; last) . . (-475) . . Prolog (Talk | contribs) (Reverted 2 edits by 217.60.120.11 to last revision by Zack2007. (TW)) |
|||
10:20 (cur; last) . . (-14) . . 217.60.120.11 (Talk) (→Headline text) |
|||
10:19 (cur; last) . . (+489) . . 217.60.120.11 (Talk) (→Demographics) |
|||
m 10:02 (cur; last) . . (-65) . . Zack2007 (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 122231834 by Houserat125 (talk)) |
|||
09:57 (cur; last) . . (+65) . . Houserat125 (Talk | contribs) (→History) |
|||
09:47 (cur; last) . . (-13) . . Houserat125 (Talk | contribs) (→History) |
|||
09:47 (cur; last) . . (+12) . . Houserat125 (Talk | contribs) (→History) |
|||
07:19 (cur; last) . . (-60) . . 59.100.255.60 (Talk) |
|||
07:17 (cur; last) . . (+61) . . 59.100.255.60 (Talk) |
|||
b 05:58 (cur; last) . . (-22) . . DumbBOT (Talk | contribs) (removing a protection template from a non-protected page) |
|||
What was wrong with the protection template? Can you undo that BOT "fix" while we work to get that protection done the "right" way? The protection was requested, and implemented, and is legit, we just need to get it set up right (I guess) - [[User:Thaimoss|Thaimoss]] 22:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC) [[User_talk:Thaimoss|(talk)]] |
|||
:I have removed the protection template, but the page was already unprotected. See [[User_talk:DumbBOT#Q&A about unprotection]] for details. [[User talk:Tizio|Tizio]] 13:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Anyway, it doesn't look like a huge amount of vandalism. If it increases, we may semi-protect the article again. [[User talk:Tizio|Tizio]] 13:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==YouTube== |
|||
This is a minor event in comparison with the history of a nation, so it certainly does not deserve to be mentioned in the main article of the involved nation. It's like I write about the close-down of [[Napster]] on the [[United States]] article. I have moved it to [[Media of Thailand]], not even sure its sufficiently significant there`. [[User talk:Tizio|Tizio]] 13:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
My immediate reaction was to disagree. But upon further reflection, I see some merits in [[User talk:Tizio|Tizio]]'s example of [[Napster]] of writing about "the close-down of [[Napster]] on the [[United States]] article" with one exception. In this case here, we are not dealing with private disputes between private corporations. The YouTube shutdown was initiated by the Thai government, so I maintain that the YouTube controversial should be part of Thailand "somewhere" and not just in the [[Media of Thailand]] section. So my suggestion is this - would a brief text and a link from [[Politics of Thailand]] to [[Media of Thailand]] make sense and work? Just my 2 cents. – [[User:K_ideas|Kempton]] "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by [[Kevin Roberts]] 23:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, [[Media of Thailand]] is an article about Thailand, so I don't know why that could not be the somewhere where this event is mentioned; IMO that's the most reasonable place where one would expect to find Internet-related events concerning Thailand. On the contrary, this articles contains the more significant facts about the nation, and mentioning the YouTube event here is like attributing it the same importance. A mention from [[Politics of Thailand]] might be worth a try, however. [[User talk:Tizio|Tizio]] 13:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Government == |
|||
Shouldn't the government be "in transition (currently military junta)"? [[User:QZXA2|QZXA2]] 23:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
-- No. |
|||
==lacks historical stuff!!== |
|||
hey it lacks the thai invasion of french indochina episode resulting in the vichy french-thai conflict of 1941 and the involvement of the thai along the french against the communist viet minh in the 1st indochinese war. there were thai infantery and airborne thai battalions in the french union figfhters at dien bien phu 1954. [[User:Shame On You|Shame On You]] 21:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Economy and Long Stay Foreign Residents == |
|||
In the section about economy, the following line stands out: |
|||
"Long stay foreign residents also contribute heavily to GDP." |
|||
Without a source to confirm this, this line really should be removed from the article. I don't believe it is accurate.([[User:124.120.111.19|124.120.111.19]] 06:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
I agree <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Dinobert06|Dinobert06]] ([[User talk:Dinobert06|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dinobert06|contribs]]) 02:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== missing text between first paragraphs? == |
|||
Between the first two paragraphs, there appears to be information missing. The first paragraph is about the country's name, which was Siam until 1939, and then changed several times, the last time on May 11, 1949. However, the next paragraph starts with "A century later, Sukhothai's power was overshadowed by the larger Siamese kingdom of Ayutthaya, established in the mid-14th century", which seems totally out of context, since the first paragraph is only about events in the 20th century. |
|||
[[User:202.154.150.222|202.154.150.222]] 08:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Fixed, the first paragraph of the history section was lost in one of the vandalism edits. Thanks for spotting it. [[User:Ahoerstemeier|andy]] 09:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Thai history == |
|||
both Ayutthaya and Ayuthaya appear here but i'm not sure if both are right because Ayudhaya is also widely used to call the same kingdom. moreover, where is Dhavaravati, Srivijaya and Lanna? |
|||
== Reverted edits == |
|||
I reverted the edits from the past few days that exemplify Thanksin's wrongdoings and overuse filler words to glorify the junta. If some editors are not appeased, the Government entry in the main box may be changed from "Military Junta" to "Military Junta, planned to re-establish Democracy" or something along those lines. I don't care about the wording, but I do believe that Thailand is still under military rule. [[User:Wikky Horse|Wikky Horse]] 03:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Probably related with this, but from the other side - there's an anonymous user who repeatedly adds "under Royal Patronage" to the "Military Junta" in the infobox. To me the only reason to add it is to discredit the King as being behind the coup and supporting a non-democratic government. Any Thai government must get formal acceptance by the King, thus it is not necessary to add this into the infobox (or do we add it for United Kingdom, where the Queen also has this formal right). [[User:Ahoerstemeier|andy]] 16:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== English as language? == |
|||
I strongly doubt English should be listed in the infobox. It is not more common in Thailand than in other non-English countries to find someone speaking a reasonable English, as English is teached every child in school. However outside Bangkok and the other tourist areas one would have a lot of difficulty to find anyone able to speak an understandable English, much more than e.g. in rural Germany or Netherlands. But noone would think of adding English in the infobox for these countries. If any additional language to Thai should be added, Lao, Chinese, Khmer, Yawi and other minority group languages would be more appropiate. I have no idea why the CIA lists it as a second language, but do we have to use the CIA factbook as the only and authorative source? [[User:Ahoerstemeier|andy]] 19:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Agreed. The item in the Demographics box is labeled as "Official languages", and because English is not used in official documents or recognized as an official language by Thailand, I removed it. [[User:Wikky Horse|Wikky Horse]] 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Flag - color is poor == |
|||
The image of the Thai flag at the head of the article has a central band that is the wrong color. The true color is a much brighter blue. There's a photo of a Thai flag at http://www.kohsamui.org/thailand-flag.jpg, which shows its correct color. I don't have a suitable high-res image to replace the current one with - does anyone have one? |
|||
[[User:Oscroft|Oscroft]] 19:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:However in the book referenced in [[Flag of Thailand]] it is printed in a rather dark blue, not far from the one in the SVG in this article. Sadly I don't know if/how the colors are officially defined in the Thai law in a normalized color space, or if it just says "blue". [[User:Ahoerstemeier|andy]] 20:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Interesting book reference, but I have to say I think it has got it wrong. I don't know if there is a specification in Thai law - I just know what the Thai flag looks like in practice (I live there about half the year) and it is never that dark blue colour. [[User:Oscroft|Oscroft]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|signed but undated]] comment was added at 18:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::For further information, I have found several more web sources showing the correct color, http://www.worldflags101.com/t/thailand-flag.aspx, http://www.thailandlife.com/flag.html (weird shape, but a good color), http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Stu/ckunjara/, and http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/th.html. It is worth noting that that last page says "The reasons for the suggested change were that blue was the colour of the King and the red/white/blue-coloured flag, which was similar to the national flags of the Allies, would remind Thailand of its participation in World War I.", so the blue should be similar to the blue of the flags of the allies in WW1. I'll see if I can produce better versions of the images currently in use on the relevant wiki pages when I have time. [[User:Oscroft|Oscroft]] 07:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::You might like to see [[:Commons:Image talk:Flag of Thailand.svg]]. [[:Commons:User:Plenz]] once uploaded another version with a brighter blue, but I thought it was too bright and the red was still too dark, and reverted it. Most of your non-photograph examples all have too bright reds to me. Thai law only specifies that the colours are red, white and dark blue, so there isn't really any standard. I'm for using the same colours as those specified for the [[Union Flag]] or the [[Flag of France]], but even the latter's image on Commons is incorrect, and I know absolutely nothing about SVGs. [[User:Paul 012|Paul_012]] <sup>([[User talk:Paul 012|talk]])</sup> 12:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Etymology== |
|||
This paragraph is messed up really bad. Whoever fixes this should consider that Thai dictionaries define Thai TH: |
|||
ไทย (pronounced ไท) n. adj.free, freedom-loving; Thai, pertaining to the Thai or Thailand; a Thaiman, a Thailander; the Thai language S. อิสระ ; สยาม |
|||
เป็นไทยแก่ตัว vi.to be free, to be independent |
|||
ไทยทาน (pronounced ไทยะทาน) n.(P) offerings, gifts, charity |
|||
ไท n.ไท้ n.(P) a lord, a boss |
|||
เป็นไท vi.to be lord, to be boss S. ใหญ่ |
|||
The expression ไทยไท is not to be found, but I've been told it means "We Thai", or the ungrammatical but more expressive, "us Thai". |
|||
Looking up ''free'' yields ( ฟรี ) adj. adv. vt. freely ( ฟรี - ลิ ) adv. freedom ( ฟรี - ดัม ) n. |
|||
1. อิสระ , อิสรภาพ , มีอิสระ , เสรีภาพ , เป็น ไทย , ปล่อย ให้ เป็นไท ย แก่ตัว , สิทธิ เข้าออก ได้ โดยอิสระ |
|||
2. ตาม สมัครใจ , ไม่มี มี ข้อจำกัด , สาธารณะ , ไม่ หวงห้าม , ไม่มี กฎเกณฑ์ |
|||
3. สนุกสนาน , สำมะเลเทเมา , ไม่มี พิธีรีตอง |
|||
4. ทะลึ่ง , ล่วงเกิน , ถือวิสาสะ , ถือวิสาสะ หยิบ เอา |
|||
5. โลน , ( พูดจา ) เปิดเผย , ไม่ ปิดบัง , พล่อย , ฟุ่มเฟือย , ไม่อั้น |
|||
6. สะดวก , คล่องแคล่ว , ( ไหล ) พลั่ง |
|||
7. ( เชือก ) แกว่ง ไปมา , ไม่ ผูก กับ สิ่งใด |
|||
8. ว่าง , เปล่า |
|||
9. ไม่ต้อง เสีย ค่า เข้า , ไม่ต้อง เสียค่าเช่า , ไม่ เก็บ ค่าธรรมเนียม , ไม่ต้อง เสียภาษี |
|||
10. ปราศจาก , เปลื้อง , ปลด , ปลอด , แก้ , พ้น |
|||
สยาม (สะหฺยาม) n. Siam, old name of Thailand |
|||
สยามเทวาธิราช (สะหฺยามเทวาทิราด) n.The guardian spirit of Thailand |
|||
[[User:Panabol]] in his [[Initial states of Thailand]] gives alternate spellings of Siam as Sama / Sayam / Assam / Shan / Xian. I've stumbled over sources that said Siam meant ''Colored'' in a Burman language, and another that said ''Siam'' meant earth mixed with water, i.e., Black Earth, but I can't find them write now. [[User:Pawyilee|Pawyilee]] 16:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I'm thinking of adding the colloquial names of Thailand, ประเทศไทย and เมืองไทย, to the Etymology section. This is how Thais most commonly refer to their country, so we want the casual Wikipedian to know that there are terms to use other than ราชอาณาจักรไทย. The terms ประเทศ and เมือง mean "country" or "land", so the combination ประเทศไทย or เมืองไทย means Land of Thai, or Thailand. If this info is added, the Etymology section may also need to be reworded as just "Name" or "Country Name". Would this addition to the article add confusion and clutter or would it be worth its space? [[User:Wikky Horse|Wikky Horse]] 22:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: ราชอาณาจักร is Thai for ''empire'', so ราชอาณาจักรไทย really means ''The Thai Empire'''. [[User:Pawyilee|Pawyilee]] 01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually no. ราชอาณาจักร translates as ''kingdom''. Empire is จักรวรรดิ |
|||
::I was going to say I didn't see why we needed an etymology section at the beginning of the article, but it seems most other country articles do have such sections, so I'm not going to dispute its existence. However, unless there is actually something to say about the names apart from the dates they came to use, it probably would suffice to mention the country's names in the history section rather than dedicating a whole one-paragraph section. [[User:Paul 012|Paul_012]] <sup>([[User talk:Paul 012|talk]])</sup> 19:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Disproportionate amount of Jewish history== |
|||
[[User:TShilo12]] recently added content regarding Jewish history in Thailand, which seems rather disproportionate given the fewer than 1,000 Jewish population. Perhaps it should be moved to another article, and half a sentence here would suffice. [[User:Paul 012|Paul_012]] <sup>([[User talk:Paul 012|talk]])</sup> 12:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:[[User:TShilo12]] is not inclined to disagree. However, the [[Demographics of Thailand]] article doesn't seem like it fits any better there, and the [[History of the Jews in Thailand]] or [[Jews and Judaism in Thailand]] article seems to have yet to be written. Perhaps [[User:IZAK]] has some valuable insight on what might go into such an article. [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk</sup>]] 22:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Ummm racial slur? == |
|||
''Acentury later chinese '''gooks''' came when Sukhothai's power was overshadowed by the larger Siamese kingdom of Ayutthaya, established in the mid-14th century.'' |
|||
I'm pretty sure that this word only has one meaning and it derogatory. I'd delete it but I don't know. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.208.228.193|69.208.228.193]] ([[User talk:69.208.228.193|talk]]) 19:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Latest revision as of 08:08, 20 November 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thailand article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 10, 2005, December 10, 2006, December 10, 2007, December 10, 2008, December 10, 2009, and December 10, 2010. |
Thailand (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 4 February 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
History rewrite
[edit]I suggest rewriting the History section (but feel free to replace with a more appropriate template).
- Newer additions seem to focus too much on genetic studies. Some of the text is more appropriate to be incorporated to Demographic article. The concept of intermixing of various ethnic groups is worth mentioning though.
- Regarding initial kingdoms in present-day Thailand, they should be clearly stated if which ones are considered legend, possible truth, or established truth. Legendary states should be mention only briefly.
- Please make sure it is chronological and not mentioning the same thing twice. I don't mind if my contribution is adjusted for newer additions.
Horus (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2024
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
58.97.224.179 (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
can i edit the thing please because i really love thailand<3
- Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2024
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Prime Minister of Thailand has been elected in national assembly by voting-selected at 16 august 2024 after dismissal from the position of former 30th prime minister Srettha Thavisin by construction court in 14 august,the parliament has approved a nomination of miss Paetongtarn Shinawatra to be 31st Prime Minister of Thailand, make her being youngest person and second woman who became a Prime Minister of Thailand. She going to assume office after His Majesty graciously appointed her in duty after 2 weeks later. 2001:44C8:4173:7DAC:8496:9D58:2E33:C8A2 (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Fully protected edit request on 1 September 2024
[edit]This edit request to Siam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A protected redirect, Siam, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:
- from this:
#REDIRECT [[Thailand]]
- to this:
#REDIRECT [[Thailand]] {{Redirect category shell| {{R from move}} {{R from former name}} {{R mentioned in hatnote}} {{R printworthy}} }}
- WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.
The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @BD2412 this has been fully protected for more than 10 years. Would you like to lift the protection now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @MSGJ: It appears that it is actually only S-protected for editing. It is fully move-protected, but obviously there's no reason to be moving the page. I think this is probably the right setup for a page of this scope. BD2412 T 23:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- MSGJ was likely referring to the redirect page Siam, which does appear to be fully edit-protected. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I see. Well of course, why wouldn't it be? Redirects bear a lot less in the way of editing than articles. BD2412 T 00:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't it be? Because we have a protection policy that says pages should only be protected when necessary. So if you don't mind I will try lifting the protection after 11 years in the hope that disruption will not continue — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, sorry for not making this clearer — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I see. Well of course, why wouldn't it be? Redirects bear a lot less in the way of editing than articles. BD2412 T 00:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- MSGJ was likely referring to the redirect page Siam, which does appear to be fully edit-protected. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @MSGJ: It appears that it is actually only S-protected for editing. It is fully move-protected, but obviously there's no reason to be moving the page. I think this is probably the right setup for a page of this scope. BD2412 T 23:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2024
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to add
under Thailand#Entertainment.
129.126.202.49 (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Flora and Fauna
[edit]In Thailand the native plants are forests, shrub-studded grasslands, and swampy wetlands dotted with lotuses and water lilies. Cassia fistula is Thailand's national tree and plant. In Thailand there is about 57 mammals and 400 bird species, countless reptiles and 300 types of bird species including leopards, elephants, bears, deers, porcupines, owls, stocks, Asian Golden Cat, Banteng, Common treshew, fishing cat, Hog badger, Sambar deer and Sunda Pangolin. The Thai elephant is Thailand national animal. 14.202.35.46 (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Old requests for peer review
- C-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in Geography
- C-Class vital articles in Geography
- C-Class Thailand articles
- Top-importance Thailand articles
- WikiProject Thailand articles
- C-Class Southeast Asia articles
- Top-importance Southeast Asia articles
- WikiProject Southeast Asia articles
- C-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles