Talk:Rattanakosin Kingdom (1782–1932)

message: Yes we have been over this several times, but I am returning to this issue. I am now reading Stuart-Fox's history of Laos preparatory to travelling there. He includes a detailed description of the French annexations of the territory which now comprises Laos in 1893 and 1904. It is quite clear from this that the position Markalexander has been taking in relation to the map is not correct. By 1893 the Siamese government no longer saw itself as a "premodern hierarchical polity and the nonbounded realm." It saw itself as a modern nation state and claimed the Lao lands as its territory. This perception was no doubt not entirely accurate, but that is not the point. The French actions of 1893 and 1904 were a straitforward territorial annexation under threat of force, analagous to the German seizure of Alsace-Lorraine. The Siamese did not see these events in pre-modern terms, and nor of course did the French.
I am therefore not prepared any longer to accept Markalexander's caption to the map, which I created, and which is not based on any Thai map of 1935, nor on any nationalist mythology of subsequent Thai regimes, but on my own reading of Thai and Lao history. The text explains clearly that Siamese sovereignty over some of these lands was at times only nominal. I agree that this was the case with the Shan states and with the Malay sultanates, but it was not true of the Lao lands by 1893, where the Siamese had done their best to establish a formal military and civil administration. The caption should describe the map for what it is - a map of lands which were transferred under duress from Siamese sovereignty to French or British sovereignty. Adam 16:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you live with my abandoned territorial claims proposal, which with a bit of luck is equally obnoxious to both of us? Mark1 16:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: They did abandon the claims in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as my proposed caption says (that's what the treaties said); Phibun revived them in the 30s and 40s. Revival of the claims belongs in a later section.  Alternatively, how about "territorial concessions", which skips over the thorny question of exactly what rights were being conceded?  Mark1 11:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The map again

message: The section about Rama I is simply incorrect. This article is another attempt of 'farangs' who thought they knew something about Thai history; only that they don't. I appreciated your time but what your wrote is simply incorrect. This is another example of why Wikipedia should not be use as a reliable reference source.
*'His government was carried out by six great ministries headed by royal princes. Four of these administered particular territories: the Kalahom the south; the Mahatthai the north and east; the Phrakhlang the area immediately south of the capital; and the Krommueang the area around Bangkok. The other two were the ministry of lands (Krom Na) and the ministry of the royal court (Krom Wang).'
--There were only 4 ministries during the reign of Rama I which were Krom Weing, Krom Wang, Krom Krang (Phrakhlang), Krom na
*'The army was controlled by the King's deputy and brother, the Uparat.'
--There was NO Uparat title during the reign of Rama I
Also, in the Rama II and Rama III, there are many incorrect points.Dhanakorn 23:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So provide sources and fix it. Markyour words 23:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rama I

message: I am proposing a move of this article to the title Rattanakosin Kingdom, which currently redirects here. Thai studies on national history has traditionally divided and named the periods of Thai history after the Sukhothai, Ayutthaya, Thonburi and Rattanakosin Kingdoms, the last of which spans from 1782 to the present (even if the name has been all but abandoned). Thonburi Kingdom already has its own article, so the corresponding section on this page should be moved there, and although today is still technically within the Rattanakosin Period, leaving the discussion in this article at 1932 as it currently does would remain appropriate in my opinion. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. Make it so. --rikker (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: I don't think  is entirely suitable for use in this article, at least not the way it is currently done. The Rattanakosin Kingdom extends from 1782 up until now, and is the current historical period in Thailand. Unlike European former states which had specific borders and symbols during their time of existence, Rattanakosin's evolved over time, and it would be inappropriate to show a single flag, symbol or map in the infobox, as this would likely mislead the reader into thinking that those were representative of all the Kingdom's stages.
The article should be modified to clearly tell the reader that the Rattanakosin Kingdom did not end at 1932, but rather continues on until today, although the name did fall out of common usage and now mostly refers to the historical aspect of the period. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox former country unsuitable 

message: Is there a reason why the spelling with two Ts are used instead of one that would follow RTGS? --Dara (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the spelling with two Ts is more prevalent. But the spelling with one does occur in articles, I got 22 in a search result, with one in an article name space. --Dara (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Rattanakosin is the RTGS spelling. As the name is formed by samasa, it is pronounced [รัด-ตะ-นะ-โก-สิน], with ต being both the final consonant of the first syllable and the initial consonant of the second. The spelling of naval ship's names need not follow the RTGS, though it's not really clear what the Navy's preferred spelling is exactly. These navy websites  don't use a consistent spelling.  --Paul_012 (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rattanakosin vs Ratanakosin? 

message: The current mismatch between the article title (Rattanakosin Kingdom, which technically spans 1782 – the present) and its actual scope (1782–1932) appears to be causing confusion. Should the article be moved to something more specific, e.g. Rattanakosin Kingdom (pre-1932)? --Paul_012 (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the late answer. I do not think that the scope of the article should be extended beyond 1932 until today, as this would be redundant to History of Thailand (1932–1973) and History of Thailand since 1973. In my perception, "Rattanakosin" is rarely used for the time after 1932, while technically you are right, it continues to the present. I do not have a problem with the title as-is, if the intro properly defined the scope of the article. Alternatively, History of Thailand (1782–1932), History of Siam (1782–1932) or Rattanakosin Kingdom (1782–1932) would be accurate and unambiguous without being too clumsy. I do not have a strong preference for either title. --RJFF (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rattanakosin Kingdom. 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/20120229092046/http://www.seasite.niu.edu:85/Thai/Islam_in_Thailand/140_southern_thailand___the_problem_with_paramilitaries.pdf to http://www.seasite.niu.edu:85/Thai/Islam_in_Thailand/140_southern_thailand___the_problem_with_paramilitaries.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
*  ()
*  ()
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: Should the Rattanakosin Kingdom infobox be changed from a historical era to that of a country/former country, and mention the historical era there? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think my above comments from 2009 still mostly apply, though I don't feel as strongly now about the issue. The problem with using Infobox former country is that it will say that the kingdom ended in 1932 and was replaced by Thailand, while traditional historiography holds that there has been no disruption in the continuity of the state since 1872 until now. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though I find it just a little annoying how the 1932 and 1973 History of Thailand articles feature the map in the infobox and this page doesn't, though that's just my own opinion. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

text: It seems more to me that those uses are incorrect, but there doesn't seem to be a standard for this kind of articles. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox change? 

message: If I am not mistaken, the flag in the infobox is the first flag of the Rattanakosin Kingdom. I don't mind this present flag, but I'm trying to understand if the present flag is used to symbolize the era or not? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the flag 

message: I would suggest arrange them to be similar as Byzantine Empire article. (It has long more than 1,000 years..compare to this one)--Polyesterchips (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A second option would be to split the article into two (i.e. 1782-1851/55 and 1851/55 and 1932), but I prefer the single article for Rattanakosin if possible. The non history section needs a revamp. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thought for some time that the coverage of the early (1st–3rd reigns) and middle (4th reign until 1932) Rattanakosin periods should be split across separate sub-articles, since they cover different trajectories. Since there's already History of Thailand as the main article, I'm not sure an overview for the entire Rattanakosin period is still needed. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section outline is confusing or too long. 

message: I think this article needs an architecture section like the Ayutthaya article. The Rattanakosin period is just as influential (if not more so) in terms of cultural development of Thailand. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architecture section 

message: I know that the current infobox map is taken right out of Wyatt's 2003 book, but even in the text, he only mentions of Siamese raids into Kengtung, seizing people and material, but never vassalizing the region. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map is somewhat off 

message: Please suggest how to solve this problem. Maybe we have to rewrite it all? Adding citations for this article would be really difficult for anyone, it is better to rewrite it. --Polyesterchips (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The bulk of the article content was probably created back in Wikipedia's early days, before citation requirements became established. It could use a complete rewriting, and while that is being considered, maybe reorganisation of content as mentioned above would be a good idea. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How come every section does not have any citation? 

message: This is my personal belief, also from this podcast https://newbooksnetwork.com/shane-strate-the-lost-territories-thailands-history-of-national-humiliation-u-of-hawaii-press-2015/ by New Books Network on the book "The Lost Territories: Thailand's History of National Humiliation". In the podcast, the author of the book, Shane Strate, kind of states that the territorial losses didn't really matter to Thai elites when those territories were actually ceded in the late 19th/early 20th century but were a product of 1930s/40s Thai nationalism, in which the idea of the "lost territories" were created. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue was first and most extensively explored by Thongchai Winichakul in Siam Mapped, which is cited in the article, but rather haphazardly, and not in regard to the specific topic. It's pretty much required reading for balancing out the traditional historiography, but the text itself isn't very accessible IMO. Many other recent works, including the one you mention, follow and/or expand on this line of thought, and yes, it needs to be worked into the article. (See also the topmost section of this talk page.) --Paul_012 (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the Thai territorial losses overstated in Thai history? 

message: There's a lot of stuff on this article now that I think it might be better separating it into two separate articles or at least moving some of this into niche articles. There's a distinctive transformation between Early and Late Rattanakosin too historically as well, the Siam of 1782 was drastically different, demographically, culturally, and politically, from the Siam of 1910 and after, even and especially in Bangkok. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating this article into "Early" and "Late Rattanakosin"? 

message: As much as I would like to imagine this kingdom as significant as the Byzantines were, I don't think it's worth dedicating all the stuff about the demographics and foreign relations on this main article. A possible idea is to separate this into their own specific pages and to therefore shorten this page? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much content about demographics and not enough about history; Streamlining? 

message: @Vif12vf it doesn’t matter how much countries is listed, as long as that’s what that place is currently part of, whether it’s 8 or 10 current countries, it really doesn’t matter. Javyriv (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The established standard for the today-section is no more than 4-5 countries. So yes, it does matter! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does it matter? 

message: Are the link to the anthems correct? The first anthem links to God Saves the King, which is the anthem of the UK. The second anthem links to the current Thai Royal Anthem, and not "The Floating Moon on the Sky" or "Glory his Prestige". 223.24.167.158 (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthems correct? 

message: As has been raised earlier by Polyesterchips and Yourlocallordandsavior, there's a case to be made for splitting the coverage of Thai history from 1782 to 1932 into smaller articles, considering the distinct change in trajectory of the history the period. While the current text, contributed by NewFrontierHistoryEng, makes the split at watershed events in 1855 (Bowring treaty) and 1905 (abolition of corvée), the more traditional approach (that aligns better with sources) would be to follow the reign boundaries.
For the first three reigns, the term early Rattanakosin period is quite well attested, and I think that should be the natural choice for the article title. For the remainder, there seem to be various approaches. Some consider the period of modernisation to cover only the fourth and fifth reigns, though it would be more convenient to just cover the 1851–1932 period together (as there's not that much to cover between 1910 and 1932). While some sources use the term middle Rattanakosin period, they're much rarer than those for early. References to modernisation and reform are often used, but more as a description than a distinct term, so there doesn't seem to be an easy natural title here.
We could also fall back on the descriptive title History of Thailand (1851–1932), which would be consistent with succeeding articles. Or we could stick with the current format, and name the new articles Rattanakosin Kingdom (1782–1851) and Rattanakosin Kingdom (1851–1932) (though my preference is against this as I think the title should emphasise the fact that these are periodisations rather than distinct countries, a misconception that the kingdom terminology is bound to cause).
As for the remaining Rattanakosin Kingdom page, I think it should be converted to a disambiguation / set index page, which would require that incoming links be updated.
In summary, here's a breakdown of the options I see:
* 1 Do nothing; leave the article as-is.
* 2 Split the article into two periods, covering 1872–1851 and 1851–1932, titled:
** A Early Rattanakosin period and Middle Rattanakosin period
** B Early Rattanakosin period and History of Thailand (1851–1932)
** C History of Thailand (1782–1851) and History of Thailand (1851–1932)
** D Rattanakosin Kingdom (1782–1851) and Rattanakosin Kingdom (1851–1932)
** E Something else
* 3 Split using some other period divider.
Opinions and suggestions, please? --Paul_012 (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with Early Rattanakosin period and History of Thailand (1851-1932). Might have nationalistic problems to do C if you claim that Thailand began in 1782 and that Ayutthaya wasn't Thai, etc... Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article split