# Talk:Saprang Kalayanamitr

ผู้บังคับหมวดปืนเล็ก ร้อยอาวุธเบา กองพันทหารราบที่ 3 กรมผสมที่ 4 ปี พ.ศ. 2512
ผู้บังคับกองพัน ทหารราบที่ 1 กรมทหารราบที่ 4 ปี พ.ศ.2525
ผู้บังคับกองพัน ทหารราบที่ 1 กรมทหารราบที่ 19 ปี พ.ศ.2528
ผู้บังคับการกรม นักเรียนโรงเรียนเตรียมทหาร ปี พ.ศ.2533
ผู้บังคับการกรม นักเรียนนายร้อยพระจุลจอมเกล้า ปี พ.ศ.2534
นายทหารฝ่ายเสนาธิการ ประจำรัฐมนตรีว่าการกระทรวงกลาโหม (รมว.กห.) เมื่อเดือนเมษายนปี พ.ศ.2540
ผู้บัญชาการกองพลทหารราบที่ 15 เมื่อเดือนตุลาคมปี พ.ศ.2540
แม่ทัพน้อยที่ 3 ปี พ.ศ.2546
แม่ทัพภาคที่ 3 พ.ศ. 2548
Source: [1]
Thai ranks converted to US ranks using [2]. Patiwat

In Thai alphabetical order:
๑. พล.ต.กสิน ทองใบใหญ่ ๒. น.ส.กอบกุล กาญจนาลัย ๓. น.ส.กันยา ใจมั่น ๔. พล.ต.กัมพล วิทยาสารรณยุต ๕. พ.อ.หม่อมหลวง กิติมาศ สุขสวัสดิ์ ๖. นายไกรสีห์ กรรณสูต ๗. พล.ต.เขมรัฐ กาญจนวัฒน์ ๘. นางจรวยพร ธรณินทร์ ๙. นายจรินทร์ เทศวานิช ๑๐. นางจันทิมา สิริแสงทักษิณ ๑๑. น.ส.จิรณี ตันติรัตนวงศ์ ๑๒. พล.ต.เจน คีรีทวีป ๑๓. พล.ต.ฉลอง บุญแก้ว ๑๔. นายเฉลิมศักดิ์ วานิชสมบัติ ๑๕. นายชลอ คชรัตน์ ๑๖. พล.ต.ชวลิต สุตตเขตต์ ๑๗. พล.ต.ต.ชัชวาล สุขสมจิตร์ ๑๘. พล.ท.ชัยนันท์ อาจวงษ์ ๑๙. พล.ต.ชัยโรจน์ ธรรมศารทูล ๒๐. พ.อ.ชัยวัฒน์ สนิทวงศ์ ณ อยุธยา ๒๑. นายชาญยุทธ โฆศิรินนท์ ๒๒. พล.อ.ต.ชำนาญ เพิ่มทองอินทร์ ๒๓. พล.อ.ต.ชุมพล ทองคำ ๒๔. พล.ร.ต.ชูศักดิ์ เสนานิกรม ๒๕. นายเชิดวิทย์ ฤทธิประศาสน์ ๒๖. พล.อ.ท.เดชา หันหาบุญ ๒๗. นายถาวร พานิชพันธ์ ๒๘. พ.อ.ถาวรศักดิ์ ปริงทอง ๒๙. พล.ต.ทนงศักดิ์ ตุวินันทน์ ๓๐. พล.ร.ต.ทวิช ปาลกะวงศ์ ณ อยุธยา ๓๑. นายทวีป เทวิน ๓๒. พล.ต.ทศพร งามอุโฆษ ๓๓. นายเทวัญ วิชิตะกุล ๓๔. พล.ต.ธรรมนูญ แก้วประเสริฐสม ๓๕. พล.ต.ธวัช จารุกลัส ๓๖. นายธีระบูลย์ โพบุคคี ๓๗. พ.อ.นิจสิน ภูมิจิตร ๓๘. นายนิรันดร์ จงวุฒิเวศย์ ๓๙. พล.ต.นิรันดร พัฒน์พงศ์พานิช ๔๐. นายบัณฑิต รชตะนันทน์ ๔๑. พล.อ.ต.ประภาส เจียมฉวี ๔๒. พล.อ.ต.ปัญญา ศรีสุวรรณ ๔๓. นายพรชัย อยู่ประยงค์ ๔๔. น.ส.พรทิพย์ จาละ ๔๕. น.ส.พวงเพชร สารคุณ ๔๖. พ.อ.พัลลภ ตุละรัต ๔๗. พ.อ.พิทยา วิมะลิน ๔๘. นายพิทูร พุ่มหิรัญ ๔๙. พล.ท.พิศณุ อุไรเลิศ ๕๐. พล.ต.ต.พีระ พุ่มพิเชฏฐ์ ๕๑. พล.อ.ท.ไพบูลย์ จันทร์หอม ๕๒. พล.ต.ไพบูลย์ ไผ่นาค ๕๓. นายไพรัตน์ สกลพันธุ์ ๕๔. ศาสตราจารย์นายแพทย์ ภิรมย์ กมลรัตนกุล ๕๕. พล.ต.มนตรี อยู่พงษ์พิทักษ์ ๕๖. พล.ร.ต.ยงยศ ห่วงนิกร ๕๗. พล.ร.ต.ยงยุทธ หรัญโต ๕๘. นายยุคล ลิ้มแหลมทอง ๕๙. พล.อ.ต.รังสรรค์ แจ้งเจนกิจ ๖๐. นางรัตนาภรณ์ จึงสงวนสิทธิ์ ๖๑. พล.ต.เรวัต สดมณี ๖๒. นายแพทย์ ลือชา วนรัตน์ ๖๓. พล.ต.ต.วงกต มณีรินทร์ ๖๔. พล.อ.ต.วัลลภ มีสมศัพย์ ๖๕. พล.ต.ต.วิโรจน์ จันทรังษี ๖๖. น.ส.วิไลพร ลิ่วเกษมศานต์ ๖๗. นายวีระศักดิ์ วงษ์สมบัติ ๖๘. นายศานิต ร่างน้อย ๖๙. นายศิริพล ยอดเมืองเจริญ ๗๐. พล.อ.ต.ศิลป์ชัย จำปาเงิน ๗๑. พล.อ.ต.ไศลดิษฐ์ สันตกุล ๗๒. พล.ต.สพรั่ง กัลยาณมิตร ๗๓. พล.ร.ต.สมใจ วัฒนโยธิน ๗๔. นายสมบูรณ์ งามลักษณ์ ๗๕. พล.ท.สมบูรณ์ ทีฆทรัพย์ ๗๖. พ.อ.สมโภช บ้านไร่ ๗๗. นางสร้อยตระกูล อรรถมานะ ๗๘. เรือตรี สัญชัย กุลปรีชา ๗๙. พ.อ.สินชัย นุตสถิตย์ ๘๐. นางสิริพร บุญญานันต์ ๘๑. นายสุกิจ เจริญรัตนกุล ๘๒. นายสุขุม สาริบุตร ๘๓. พล.ต.สุเจตน์ วัฒนสุข ๘๔. พล.ร.ต.สุชาต ญาโณทัย ๘๕. พ.อ.สุเทพ เพิ่มอาภรณ์ ๘๖. พล.ต.สุนทร ขำคมกุล ๘๗. นายสุพจน์ เมธาภิวัฒน์ ๘๘. นายสุพจน์ เลาวัณย์ศิริ ๘๙. น.ส.สุพัตรา ธนเสนีวัฒน์ ๙๐. พล.ต.สุภาษิต วรศาสตร์ ๙๑. พล.ร.ท.สุรินทร์ เริงอารมณ์ ๙๒. พล.ต.ต.สุวัฒน์ จันทร์อิทธิกุล ๙๓. นายเสนอ จันทรา ๙๔. นายอดุลย์ กอวัฒนา ๙๕. พล.ท.อภิชาต เพ็ญกิตติ ๙๖. พล.ท.อภิรักษ์ เอี่ยมแก้ว ๙๗. พ.อ.อภิสิทธิ์ วีระบูล ๙๘. ร้อยโท อัครสิทธิ์ อมาตยกุล ๙๙. นายอุดม ชมชาญ ๑๐๐. พ.อ.เอเซีย วงษ์สวัสดิ์
Source: [3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patiwat (talk • contribs) 02:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

As of 6 March 2007, article body is 1,800 words long. Wikipedia guidelines state that an article should be no longer than 6,000-10,000 words long. Patiwat 17:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If he's the leader of a 14,000 man secret anti-protest force, and its printed in Wikipedia, isn't it no longer secret? Homestarmy 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment.  Just using the same wording that the media used.  It was "secret" because it had been established for some time before the military told the government about its existence, and there is absolutely no government oversight over its activities.  Patiwat 22:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh, alright then. Just saw this as a GA nom and the question just seemed to hit me. Another quick comment I have is that one of the trivia lines isn't referenced, specifically the one about nicknames this might seem a bit silly too, but generally speaking, trivia sections aren't seen in too good a light, if their referenced I think most people will give it a pass, but someone may ask about it if they give a serious review of this article. Though, then again, the article seems so well-referenced, I don't know many reviewers who'd fail it for having like one thing un-referenced, even if it is in a trivia section. Homestarmy 23:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch for your suggestions.
On second thought, I removed "secret" from the introduction (where the meaning might not be clear from the context) but kept it in the body article (where it clearly explains what exactly was "secret" about the force.
I've added a reference for the nickname.  Nicknames are commonly used in Thai society but I wasn't sure where to put it. Patiwat 04:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1. It is well written. - Weak Pass

Overall the article is well written with no glaring WP:MOS violations but the Trivia section sticks out like a sore thumb. Fortunately it is small and well referenced but I strongly encourage the editors of this page to convert this section into prose an integrate it within the article.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Pass

Excellent work in referencing. The subject is quite controversial and as a BLP, strict referencing is of the utmost importance.
3. It is broad in its coverage. - Pass

The article does a good job of keying in on the significant events that Saprang has been involved in and filling in the relevant details while providing wiki-links to the relevant articles that will lead the curious reader to more understanding. The article also rounds out it portrait of the subject with focused and relevant details of his family and early career.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass

This one stepped on a fine line with our WP:NPOV as some of Saprang own quotes are quite controversial and are obviously POV. However, I was comfortable with the overall tone of the article that the editors have crafted and feel that the article allows the reader to make their own decisions about the subject matter and how to interpret his words. Considering the nature of the subject, I fret that NPOV will continue to be a hot issues especially with new edits to the articles. I encourage the editors to continue working for consensus on the talk page and to maintain the high standards of NPOV that you are already working on with the article.
5. It is stable - Pass
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass

Unfortunately all of the photos are "Fair Use" instead of Free Use. It is obvious that the editors to this article have spent due diligence looking for quality photos, and the Fair use rationale is acceptable, however I will still encourage actively seeking out some Free Use or public domain photos.

Overall this article Passes the Good Article Criteria and I pleased to promote the article to GA status. I want to thank and congratulate the editors for their hard work and effort in bringing this article up to GA status. AgneCheese/Wine 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.  I am waiting for some input on editors of other Thailand related articles on where to place his nickname.  I'm shortening down the material on Wat Kalayanamitr and will try to figure out how to integrate it into the article.  I'd appreciate some input from other editors as to where to place his physical height (he's as short as one can be and still be a military officer). Patiwat 01:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone placed a POV tag on the article without describing how it was not neutral.  Note that the Good Article evaluation found that the article had a neutral point of view.  Please identify specific material that is not neutral, or I will remove the tag.  Patiwat 06:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found a minor issue that should be addressed:

The lead may not be up-to-date; it states that "Saprang is considered one of the top contenders to lead the army and the junta after CNS-leader Sonthi Boonyaratkalin's mandatory retirement in 2007." From the Future role section, this is apparently no longer the case - as I'm unfamiliar with the subject, rather than amend it myself I'd prefer that this receives expert attention from someone with access to the sources ;)
On a related issue, Saprang is clearly no stranger to controversy. I'd agree with the original GA reviewer above that editors have managed to maintain a commendably balanced approach. However, the major sources used (The Nation and the Bangkok Post) can both be argued to have a 'liberal' agenda (and are certainly seen this way in Thailand). As a future exercise, it may be worthwhile for the coverage of the article to broaden the spectrum of sourced material. However, this does not affect the current GA hold.
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 20:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.
I have update Saprang's position.  Saprang was not promoted to lead the Army after General Sonthi's mandatory retirement, and was instead transferred to become DPS of the Defense Ministry.
Please suggest what sources should be used that have a non-"liberal" agenda, although I should note that The Nation was extremely anti-Thaksin/pro-coup while the Bangkok Post was anti-coup.  There are only 2 English-language daily newspapers in Thailand, and non-English sources are frowned upon in the English-language Wikipedia and have no role in an English-language GA.  Of the reputable international sources that regularly cover Thailand, I have included the only article that the FT has published that mentioned Saprang.  The Economist and Prachaitai are extremely critical of the coup and the junta, so adding more references from them wouldn't help in maintaining NPOV.  The WSJ and the NYT have never mentioned Saprang in their Thailand-related articles.  Kyodo News and CBC are neutral, and they have been used as sources.  The Asian Times, which is owned by the strongly pro-coup/anti-Thaksin Manager Media Group, has been anti-Saprang (see [4]), so I'm not sure how adding even more references from them would add to NPOV.  Again, if EyeSerene could suggest any reputable sources that he/she thinks would lend a greater NPOV to the article, I'd be extremely willing to include them. Patiwat 02:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You are perfectly correct and, as I said, I think you have done an excellent job in keeping the overall balance of the article neutral. You know more about Thailand than I do; I'm aware Thaksin was (and his party still is) popular in rural areas, and thus the coup (and presumably Saprang) is correspondingly less so... but as you point out, finding WP:RS sources for this is harder. I'll have a dig around and see if I can find anything, but if you haven't already I doubt very much that I will. I don't want to blow this out of proportion either as it's really a very minor point. The article is already suitably NPOV - the benchmark I use for this is, when I have finished the article, to see if I can guess what the author's personal opinion is... and in this case I couldn't ;) All the best (it's 'he', btw), EyeSereneTALK 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


### GA Sweeps (Pass)
Thank you for your work (and the quick response!). I have now passed this article, and updated the article history to reflect this reassessment. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Saprang Kalayanamitr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150725162347/http://bangkokpost.net/News/27Dec2006_news03.php to http://bangkokpost.net/News/27Dec2006_news03.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206052530/http://www.bangkokrecorder.com/news/news/airport-president-resigns-738.html to http://www.bangkokrecorder.com/news/news/airport-president-resigns-738.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://bangkokpost.net/News/16Feb2007_news04.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070220070418/http://www.bangkokpost.net/topstories/topstories.php?id=116869 to http://bangkokpost.net/topstories/topstories.php?id=116869
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saprang Kalayanamitr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029234921/http://www.xignite.com/xWorldNews.aspx?articleid=SEP20060815116005 to http://www.xignite.com/xWorldNews.aspx?articleid=SEP20060815116005
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://bangkokpost.net/Business/22Jun2007_biz29.php
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.matichon.co.th/matichon/matichon_detail.php?s_tag=01p0116070350&day=2007%2F03%2F07&sectionid=0101
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This article, at least in 2018, sucks. Seligne (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)