Talk:Bhumibol Adulyadej/Archive 1

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

message: *I'd like someone to write an article about the Law on Succession. I can provide/translate the related article if needed. For example,
*:The current Thai Constitution
*: http://www.parliament.go.th/files/library/b05-b.htm
*:Section 20 to 22 in Chapter 2 (The King) provide some guideline on the heir to the throne.
*:Law on Succession B.E. 2647 (in Thai)
*:http://www.kodmhai.com/m4/m4-1/H117/H-117.html
*:This law forbids a princess to inherit the throne.
*:According to the above Thai Constitution, if the King names his successor (which he MUST follow the Law on Succession B.E. 2647 which forbids a princess to inherit the throne) then the named prince will inherit the throne. However, if the King does not name his successor, the privy council will submit the name of the successor to the National Assembly and ask for approval. In this case (when the King does not name his successor) the privy council may submit a name of a princess.
Interesting... Has the King named a successor?  — KayEss | talk 08:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes -- HRH Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn. --Jakris 17:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Bhumibol Adulyadej → King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand – the naming of the article needs to be consistent for monarchs and properly reflect their status. Antares911 18:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the recent kings of Thailand "have" a number, except with the informal name Rama. "of Thailand" is not necessary - while there are many monarchs with the western names like Edward, the names of the King of Thailand are unique, thus the disambiguation with the country name is not necessary. andy 18:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: See  Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Historical names and titles. The new name would not be consistent it should be "Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand" or  "Bhumibol number Adulyadej of Thailand" Philip Baird Shearer 17:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the recent kings of Thailand "have" a number, except with the informal name Rama. "of Thailand" is not necessary - while there are many monarchs with the western names like Edward, the names of the King of Thailand are unique, thus the disambiguation with the country name is not necessary. andy 18:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: "His ceremonial name, according to the ancient tradition, is: พระบาทสมเด็จพระปรมินทรมหาภูมิพลอดุลยเดช มหิตลาธิเบศรามาธิบดี จักรีนฤบดินทร์ สยามินทราธิราช บรมนาถบพิตร Phrabat Somdej Phra Paramindra Maha Bhumibol Adulyadej Mahitaladhibet Ramadhibodi Chakrinarubodindara Sayamindaradhiraj Boromanatbophit."
Could we get an English translation of this? Adam 00:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Full name

message: It seems that every other Thai monarch is known as "the Great".  Would a consensus of non Thai historians agree this title is warranted in each case?  If not, does the title not have quite the same gravitas as in other cultures or are we observing an example of national vanity? Dainamo
Wrong, there're about 9 kings, I think, with the title "the Great" from seven hundred years of history. Suredeath
He has been officially given the title so it needs to be included. He is certainly regarded as "great" my most Thais. Adam 00:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there are seven ref (six + one) since King Sri Indradhit is not the Great and King Mengrai is not counted as the Thai king (at that time).--manop 21:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Great?

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

message: A newer photo would be good. The old photo should be somewhere in the page but it would be good if we could have a recent photo, which IMHO should be the main photo. I guess the problem might be finding one with a suitable license? Perhaps someone from Thailand could help. I guess taking a photo might be difficult since it's usually quite hard to take good photos of heads of state but maybe someone should try and convince someone in in Thai government to release a photo under suitable copyright? Nil Einne 13:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see he used to preside over convocations in public university. Perhaps someone would have a photo from here that might be suitable? Preferbly one you took yourself since you probably are not able to license any professionally taken photo for wikipedia (generally, you only get the license to the print, perhaps a license to reproduce it but you probably don't get a complete unhindered license for the photo) Nil Einne 14:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Private photos will be quite impossible.  Security at royal-hosted convocations is extremely strict, with bans on personal cameras, phones, and even jewelry.  Enforced by metal detectors.Patiwat 07:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: Can someone review the education section of this article. At the moment the article implies that Bhumibol Adulyadej was studying at the University of Lausanne in 1935. This seems unlikely as he was only eight years old in that year. I suspect the chronology is out of sequence and that the article should say simply that he was given the title Chao Fa by his brother, King Ananda Mahidol, in 1935. Was Ananda Mahidol crowned immediately on his ascension to the throne or was his coronation (if it is so called) later? The Ananda Mahidol article indicates that he did not visit Thailand for the first time until he was 13 (1938) and then not again until 1945, so it is possible that coronation did not happen until 1945. This would fit better with an 18 year old Bhumibol Adulyadej being at University? DavidCane 02:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ananda Mahidol died before his coronation, so it did not happen. Gentgeen 07:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Education

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

message: Ok, I'll be the first to confess that I don't know the slightest thing about Thai history, but I have an issue with what seems to me to be a POV by some writers.  Granted that the King is universally revered and respected, but is the first source (the Bangkok Post link) really objective, given that it's written to celebrate the King's birthday [after all, would someone cite Harriet Miers' birthday-card endorsements of Prez Bush on Wikipedia]?  I'll leave it to more informed minds to debate this...  Nicolasdz 07:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything that comes out of Thailand is always positive of the King. Truth is, the King is really liked (revered like a demi-God) by all in Thailand. It is difficult for anyone who is Thai or any foreigner that has lived for many years in Thailand to speak in any way critical of the King himself. The love for the King almost becomes contagious; or at the very least one (a foreigner) learns not to criticize him. Discussing topics that are critical of the King is tricky, as such topics are never discussed openly in Thailand in any way or form. Thus, most what we are left with are rumours that cannot be substantiated. I am afraid that any article about the King will most of time sound very positive -afterall, the Thais really love him. The King brings all Thais together. I have never seen any country where all the population at large love their head of state -still have to find someone who will criticize the King. --Anagnorisis 08:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Respect for the Thai king is not universal. Don't forget that less than 20 years ago, there was a large and sustained communist insurgency in Thailand.  It was not just the dictatorship they wanted to overthrow.  The reasons you don't see anybody disrespecting the king these days is 1) It is illegal.  Despite what the King said during his new years address, people have been thrown in jail and prosecuted for lese majesty.  Repeat a rumor about the Crown Prince in a taxi, and the taxi will drive you right to a police station (it has happened). Make a foul remark about the King in a plane bound for Bangkok, and you'll be arrested at the airport (this has also happened).  Perform a satirical play about the Crown Prince and you'll be brutally raped or murdered (as happened in 1976).  2) Decades of military dictatorships have reconstructed the monarchy as an institution for veneration, a focus for nationalism. It is no coincidence at the Privy Council is stacked with generals.  The mainstream of Thai society (especially the rural population and the so-called Bangkok middle-class) were the most vulnerable to this brainwashing. 3) The communists were killed, exiled, or brought back to the mainstream of politics. 
*I don't know where you get this idea. People talked about the crown prince's scandal all the time, even if it's not in public. I doubt any taxi driver will drive someone to a police station. Making a foul remark about the King will most likely land you a few beating, but arresting is a bit farfetch, even if it's the law. The respect is genuine, not because it was enforced. Your argument is just that, it happened in 1976 where military dictatorship reigned. It has no bearing on what's happening now. Sure, the people may not have the kinda of veneration for the rest of the royal family, but the King is a real deal. Suredeath 20:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV?

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

message: I would like to add a new section shortly describing the Crown Property Bureau.  The CPB manages the assets of the King and the royal family.  Through the CPB, the King owns a large portion of Thailand's real estate and a significant stake in many companies.  You can't open the business section of a newspaper and not see a reference to the CPB.Patiwat 18:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be mentioned, but this is a biographical article, so you can't go into a lot of detail. If you think it is an important topic, you can start a new article on the CPB and link to it from here. Does the King run the CPB himself, or is it actually run by the government? Adam 23:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be said that the King is a massively wealthy man, owning a significant portion of Thailand and controlling a large chunk of the economy. As such, I think mention of these facts is certainly required in a biographical article. To answer you question, the King's assets are his own, and are distinct from the assets of the government of Thailand. Assets owned by the Crown are owned by the King, not the government (i.e., "The Crown" is not a synonym for the Government like in the UK). The CPB is run by Chirayu Isarangkun na Ayutthaya, also of royal lineage.Patiwat 05:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These assets are owned by the King personally, not by "the Crown" as a legal entity controlled by the state? If that is so it certainly should be mentioned. Was Chirayu Isarangkun na Ayutthaya appointed by the King personally or by the government? Adam 06:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have been wondering for quite a while why someone hasn't started an entry on the CPB yet.  The importance of the CPB in the Thai economy is enough that I believe it merits its own article.  It's principal subsidiaries, Siam Commercial Bank and Siam Cement (this one is still a stub) also merit their own entries.  I should point out that the Finance Minister also serves as the ex-officio chairman of the CPB's board, so there certainly is some relationship with the government.  Nevertheless, the CPB is professionally managed, and  I think it should be emphasized that His Majesty does not involve himself in the day-to-day affairs of the CPB. Tettyan 06:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that it should have its own article. --Anagnorisis 07:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur: the CPB should have it's own article, and a reference to the CPB article should be included in the King's article. I'll edit down some of the misc details of the CPB section of the King's article in anticipation for the full CPB article.Patiwat 08:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crown Property Bureau 

message: The article states "On May 5, 1987, he received, by popular national referendum, the honorary epithet the Great."  Now, I was a little kid at the time, but I don't recall there ever being a situation where people were called out to the voting booths to vote, "yes" or "no", whether they wanted to give their king the suffix "the Great". It seems shocking that the people were asked to vote on such an issue.  I mean, what if they voted "no"? Can anybody confirm that there was or was not a referendum, and make an article edit as neccesary?Patiwat 09:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That part was added by User:Gentgeen long time ago . With a quick google I could only find two pages which state that he received that title "from the primeminister" on that date, but don't mention if a referendum was held before. However given his popularity I don't think there was any risk of a significant number of people vote "no" on that issue. andy 12:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speculation aside, lets just edit out the "by popular natioanl referendum" text out, and replace it with "from the Prime Minister".Patiwat 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular national referendum to name him "the Great"? 

message: The article says that the King went to school at Mater Dei before his mother brought him to Switzerland.  Isn't Mater Dei an all girls school at the corner of Chidlom and Phloenchit run by the Ursulines?  Could someone confirm this or correct this?
:I don't know, but there are numerous examples of boys going to all-girl schools. It usually happens if the boys school is full or if for some reason a boy needs to be kept isolated from other boys. (Pierce Brosnan, AFAIK, went to an all-girls school at least for one term.) I could understand a decision to send a prince to an all-girls school if in the local culture women were subservient and it was decided best to keep the prince out of contact with other boys, perhaps to highlight his unique status or for fear that boys would not show him due respect. There are tons of precedents for that. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Went to school at Mater Dei?  An all girls school? 

message: Why is "The King's designated successor is Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn." noted in the "The King and the people" section?  It has nothing to do with the people.  The article on Queen Elizabeth II doesn't mention her to-be-successor in the article body at all.  Her heir apparent is mentioned only in the infobox (which is already the case in King Bhumibol's article). If nobody has a good reason for why this fact should be in the "The King and the people" section I will delete it. Patiwat 05:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be true, but unless you have a citation for what you said, it shouldn't appear in the article. In itself, without that comment you just made, the fact that the Crown Prince is the King's successor is irelevant to "The King and the people" section. Patiwat 20:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I have a citation? You asked a question about the layout (why things are in certain sections), not about the content (you are not disputing the text). I gave what may be an answer to your question. Each person may have a view on this. But my answer to your question is not part of the article. So, ... I do not understand what you are talking about citations etc. It is not a matter of verifying what is said in the article. Or was it? You asked a question about format, not about content. The same type of question as to why we may put a picture further up or further down (ok, this is an exageration, but it is to ilustrate the point). Let me explain myself further because I am not very eloquent; my possible explanation is not something that is in the article (thus no need for a citation); my explanation attempts to give an answer to why the article's layout is what is. It is just one opinion. The article's own layout does not need to be explained with citations from outside sources. In summary, asking for citations explaining why a sentence is in a certain section does not make much sense. Now as to it being irrelevant without my explanation? I do not think so. That piece of information is relevant to the article; that it might be more appropriate to have it in one secxtion or the other is another matter (not about it being relevant or not). My explanation is just one possible reason as to the why you asked. Some may agree with me and others not. Maybe whoever put it there had another rationale for it. On the other hand, yes, maybe that is not the best section where that sentence should go. :) Anagnorisis 23:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might have caused a misunderstanding.  For clarity, let me restate my position: The statement "The King's designated successor is Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn" in itself does not belong in the "The King and the people" section.  That information is already in the info box.  It might "fit" somewhere else in the article, but no in the "the people" section - where, I don't know.  The only reason why that statement might belong in "the people" section would be (as explained by User:Anagnorisis) is if it were accompanied by a comparison of the popularity of the Crown Prince and the King. And that comparison would need a citation to back it up. Patiwat 07:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is designated successor in the "The King and the people" section? 

message: The current section on biographies needs quite a bit of work.  Disputed sentences in bold.  Criticism in italics.
"Until the book is published; however, it can't be decided if the book is factual or it's "Anna and the King of Siam" all over again." 
:"Anna and the King of Siam" has no relevance here, and the tone of the sentence is not neutral.  The first half of the sentence already gets the point across that any criticisms should be deferred.  The second half should be deleted. Patiwat 06:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is irrelevant speculation.  There is no reason why an interpretive biography should not be insightful.  This sentence simply does not belong in this article. Patiwat 06:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: The "The King and politics" section currently states that "The King summoned General Kraprayoon and the leader of the pro-democracy movement, Major General Chamlong Srimuang, to a televised audience. In an extraordinary scene, both men appeared on their knees before their king." Why is crawling on your knees before the King considered "extrarodinary"?  It has been the protocol for royal audiences, with some exceptions, since Sarit Dhanarajata revived the practice (King Chulalongkorn had banned it).  Nothing extraordinary about crawling. Patiwat 09:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seem to be 2 extraordinaries here.  1) From the western perspective, that two grown men crawled and knelt in front of the King, and 2) from the political perspective, that two political enemies were summoned together.  The way the sentence was reverted, it isn't clear which point is extraordinary.  Both of these points should be noted.  May I suggest "The King summoned General Suchinda and the leader of the pro-democracy movement, Major General Chamlong, to a televised audience. At the height of the crisis, the sight of both men appearing together, on their knees (as per royal protocol), was surprising to many." Patiwat 17:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point.  I've noted it in the article. Patiwat 19:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is appearing on your knees before the King "extraordinary"? 

message: I suspect this will remain a controversial topic for some time, so I would like to keep any mention of the Thaksin/Sondhi/Temasek/Royal Powers Political Crisis of 2005-2006 as factual as possible, and give as little "explanation" or "analysis" as possible. I have no doubt in my mind whether it should be included in the "King and Politics" section.  It was the first time in Thai history that lese majesty was used so often by both sides of the debate as a political weapon (it had traditionally been used only by the authorities), a direct claim was made that an elected PM usurped King Bhumibol's authority, and that public groups have petitioned King Bhumibol to intercede in politics. Whether the King actually interceded or not is a controversial topic - let the facts speak for themselves.  Patiwat 20:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add the citations later. Patiwat 20:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe better to leave that discussion for the articles that discuss those events (there are already articles about them in wikipedia); maybe just mention the interest of the parties in getting him involved (however, it is interesting that Thaksin announced his resignation after coming from an audience with the King). 04:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The more detailed contents are in articles linked from the Bhumibol page.  But since the section is called "The King and Politics" and the introduction to that section notes that he gets involved in politics only rarely, I think it is important to note the some summary details of 2006, where he was definately involved in politics. Patiwat 04:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I don't like the picture either.  But like it or not, Sondhi did use the King's name as a rallying cry against Thaksin.  Wearing yellow and proclaiming their love of the Kind did create the illusion that they were affiliated with the Crown.  I'm not trying to be judgemental or anything here, but the section is about "The King and Politics".  And the King was a factor in Thaksin's political downfall, even if he didn't want to be.  The picture just illustrates the facts stated in the article. Patiwat 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the lack of rebuttal, I have returned the image.  However, I have noted Paul C's concerns in the article.  It now clearly states that the palace had no comment, for or against, the protestors. Patiwat 11:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The King and Politics: Thai Political Crisis of 2005-2006 

message: The article notes the "sacrilegious acts towards the King's image" that took place during the 2003 Phnom Penh riots.  This was, of course, horribly disrespectful towards the King.  But was it sacrilegious?  Sacrilege is  a term used only on religious topics, and the King has never claimed to be a Devaraja or God-King or anything more than the titular head of Thai Buddhism.  The King's authority is not religious, but based  on constitutional authority.  Disrespect towards him is in bad taste, illegal in Thailand, but not sacrilegious. Patiwat 20:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please write a section entitled "The Holy King". Patiwat 22:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

message: What about a trivia section at the bottom with general info of minor interest on matters related to the King? Like the number of white elephants the King owns (by law any white elephant found belongs to the King). I do not know, that is just an example .... but other things like that. Thoughts? Anagnorisis 04:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think small things like that -which would normally not appear in a short article, but would in a book or long biography- may give a better perspective to those that have never gone to Thailand (most readers here) about the special role and interaction the King has with his subjects. However, being trivia, I would put it at the bottom of the article. Anagnorisis 20:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: I have added a section on the controversy surrounding the King's constitutional powers as relates to the Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka case.  In summary: the SAC nominated 3 candidates to the Senate for the position of Auditor General.  The Senate voted on Jaruvan and submitted a nomination to the King.  The King signed the decree.  The Constitution Court later decided that the SAC should only have submitted 1 name to the Senate, and disqualified Jaruvan's nomination.  Jaruvan refused to aknowledge the Constitution Court's ruling, claiming the King's decree of appointment could not be rescinded.  Later, when the Senate appointed a replacement, the King refused to sign the nomination.  Eventually, the King's principle private secretary wrote a letter to the SAC, and the SAC reinstated Jaruvan.
I believe this controversy illustrates two points 1) The King effectively has veto power over any laws or decrees that are presented to him.  However, this veto power has practically never been used, except in the veto of Jaruvan's replacement. 2) The highest court in the Kingdom does not have the power to contradict post-facto a royal decree.  I believe these are significant points relating to the King's role in politics, which explains why I have described the Jaruvan controversy in some detail in the article. For an even more detailed description of events, see the Jaruvan Maintaka article. Patiwat 03:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The King and Politics: The Jaruvan Controversy 

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

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

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

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

message: Some images used in the article have questionable licenses.  They are 1) the coronation portraits ("Portrait bhumibol sirikit.jpg"), the 2) the royal standard ("Thai King Standard.png"), and the 3) Coat of Arms ("Thailand coa.png").  These images are not under the public domain, nor have they been released under a free license.  As such, these images may be deleted at any time.  I don't want that to occur.  Could somebody please replace these images with public domain or freely licensed versions. Patiwat 22:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable license status of some images 

message: Is it just me, or has the tone of the article changed from being objective, fact-based, and straight-forward, to being ชเลีย, sycophantic, and overly dramatic?  The King is worthy of much praise, but is an encyclopedia the appropriate media for that praise?  This is starting to read more like a TV show or a book for children than an encyclopedia.  Examples: "Through his benignancy and countless rural development projects, the King has won the hearts of all Thai people, who not only view the monarchy in a semi-religious light but also appreciate his arduous, sincere attempts to relieve Thailand's rural poor." or "Always seen with a camera in his hand, he had sedulous attempts to truly understand the people and set about giving immediate help to relieve their miseries." or "The fact that King Bhumibol is at the very heart and soul of all Thai people of all religions is recently demonstrated in the phenomenal event on June 9, 2006. People from all walks of life, being carried away by overwhelming emotion and elated bliss, shed tears when their most revered king, who is now 78 years old, waved his frail hand and smiled solemnly to the people." or "Although he has become less active due to his health problems, the love and respect for His Majesty has not evanesced from Thai people's hearts." or "His dedication and shown sincerity to the people and the country over the past sixty years has earned him the apothiosized position, at an almost unprecedented level in every living Thai's heart.".  Not even the articles on Jesus or Allah or the Virgin Mary or Mother Theresa are written of in such a flattering matter!  I believe that entire "King and the People" section should either be re-written or reverted.
You are quite right, this article has become a total disgrace since I last looked at it (at the time I added some photos early this year). I have started removing the huge amounts of eulogistic guff that someone has asserted. That the King is widely admired and indeed revered in Thailand is not in dispute, and the article has always said that, with proper referencing. But to assert as a matter of fact that he is some sort of saint, and to do it for paragraph after paragraph, is unencyclopaedic and unacceptable. There is also much too much recent Thai political history, which is not the topic of this article. Adam 07:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, folks for clearing this up. I thought I was going nuts when I was reading some of the stuff. Living in Thailand, I have to say I find myself getting caught up in it and it's hard to distance myself from it all. But Wikipedia needs to stay objective, and that's where other folks come in. Thanks again. - Wisekwai 12:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Adam, your edits so far seem reasonable.  Thanks. Patiwat 14:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, your continued edits seem reasonable; however, I take exception to this sentence in the introduction: "Critics (mostly outside Thailand) attribute this status to the suppression of criticism of the monarchy."  This sentence doesn't seem to be supported in the body of the article.  Are you referred to Paul Handley's biography, which hasn't even been published yet?  Or criticism that occured during the 70's in the heady days of the student movement?  Or the mysterious "Finland Plan" plotters that Sondhi claims want to overthrow the King?  Please clarify.  Patiwat 10:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone of the article 

message: The statement that Bhumibol supported the military regimes before 1973 is supported by all the references I have. He was content to serve as a figurehead monarch under Pibul, Sarit and Thanom. He didn't like Pibul very much but he didn't dismiss him, abdicate or in any other overt way oppose him. He worked closely with Sarit, and then with Thanom - in the context of the Cold War he thought military rule was better than weak civilian government and the risk of communism (and he may have been right), though no doubt he tried to moderate the military regime's actions. Having supported the return to democracy in 1973, he was disappointed by the Pramoj brothers (as was everyone) and did not oppose the 1976 coup - as was shown by his support for Thanin and his close relationship with Prem. It was only in the 1980s that he decided that there could be no more military regimes. No doubt all this history has been erased from the Thai collective memory, which chooses to regard Bhumibol as a saint rather than a complex political figure, but those are the facts. Adam 14:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, I think I agree with you here.  The King has given support, whether active or passive, to particular military regimes, and he has been selective about it.  He wasn't forced to do so.  He did not, for instance, support the two Young Turk coups in the 80's, despite the rebels seizing Bangkok.  Patiwat 23:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That seems reasonable. Patiwat 02:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bhumibol and past military regimes

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

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.  
*See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article. 
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article.  (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*If this article is about a person, please add  along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
*Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.   
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. 
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Wim, I'll get to this over the next day or two.  You must be watching my edits or something. Rlevse 21:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did my run through with it.Rlevse 22:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  peerreviewer script output 

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

message: Some other issues about the article are noted below: Patiwat 07:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree the UNDP award info should be beefed up, but someone who is familiar with it should add it.  I'll gladly add more details on Scouting when I find them.  I don't think 60th anniv info should be cut, but rather the other celebrations added.  Rlevse 18:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say add in more awards if he has them. Rlevse 14:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor issues 

message: A recent anonymous editor noted (regarding the Emerald Bhudda controversy): "This mini crisis, along with Thaksin's reluctance to face a joint session of parliament on the issue of the Prime Ministes's family's sale of Shin Corporation shares to Singapore's Temasek, led Thaksin to finally dissolved the parliament in February 2006 and call for a new round of election."  No citation was given.  I later added a citation-needed tag after the second comma, because it wasn't so clear to me that Thaksin's reluctance to face a joint session of parliament had any direct role in his dissolution of the House.  Later on, Rlevse added a citation to http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-southeastasia.asp?parentid=37821.  However, the article does not make any mention of a joint session of parliament, nor does it mention the dissolution of the House.  I am thus going to replace Rlevse's citation with a citation-needed tag.  Note though, that I do not believe that this sentence is very relevant at all to the King's role in the political conflict.  The King was indirectly involved in the Emerald Bhudda controversy and very directly involved in the Jaruvan controversy.  His public involvement in the Shin Corp deal is via SCB's indirect minority ownership of Shin Corp, and nothing more than that.  I personally think the noted sentence should be deleted. Patiwat 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is getting close to being reviewed for Good Article status.  The citations need to be put in place or the text needs to come out within a few days.Rlevse 18:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, we could still use more refs in the eariler sections. Rlevse 18:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shin Corp deal and the King