Talk:The King Never Smiles

message: I dispute the neutrality of this article and of Mr Patiwat. First and foremost, the critical acclaims section may truthfully report what newspaper reviews have said, but the reviews are hardly fair or balanced. In my personal opinion, the subject of the monarchy in Thailand can never be "well researched" or "solidly backed by research." Even if this is the case, how does a newspaper thousands of miles away from Bangkok know the accuracy and legitimacy of its sources? Do these newspapers know the incredulous claims made concerning the CPB? Do these newspaper reviewers know how to read Thai and evaluate Thai sources? In fact, does Handley even know these things? The truth of the matter is, Handley has flooded the world with his slanted views of the monarchy and has used his "References" page to convince the world. So far, most of what I have read in the book are half-truths.
Therefore, I will edit this article to include opinions commonly heard from the other side, which should be as legitimate as "Amazon reviewers" or newspaper reviewers who had a deadline to meet (logically, it is easier to agree with a "well researched" book than it is to read through all his references to actually check its credibility and paint an alternative picture). - Salapao   
Note: The preceding comment was added by User:Salapao on 06 Mar 2007
The neutrality of this article is contested. The article refers to a controversial book and does not present a balanced view. The article is accurate when it explains how Handley's book paints a different picture of the King to the image promoted by the Thai authorities. It is also accurate in noting that the book has been banned by those authorities.  It is NOT accurate in stating "Most experienced observers of Thailand would recognise that... Handley's thesis is broadly speaking correct". The customer reviews on Amazon.com show that Handley's thesis is a subject of considerable disagreement. Conversations with many Thais suggest that they don't agree with Handley. It would be arrogant to suggest that these people are not 'experienced observers'. Wikipedia is suposed to be an encyclopedia, not a blog. Let's at least acknowledge that there are other points of view! I have noted the date the article was posted was before the book was actually published; is it based on a full reading of the book or just the press releases and speculation? Conclusion: unless and until the article is expanded,  so that it presents both sides of the story, it should be tagged with a warning message.  APB-CMX. 20:24, 31 Aug 2006
The contested sentence was added on August 25, more than one month after the book was released. Otherwise the article is fairly based on published sources describing the book's content. Excising the contested sentence -- including its unsubstantiated criticism that the book has errors -- would be reasonable. Damning the entire article for this one sentence is not. Mr.Olop
Agreed: I have now removed the contested sentence, and the NPOV tag. APB-CMX. 07:28, 05 Sep 2006
Why does this article need cleanup?  Besides some formatting issues, it looks to be fairly well written and balanced. Needs some fixes for the references though. Patiwat 17:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  the previous format was quite bad. Now it's become better. I will remove the cleanup banner. Agree? --B.F.Pinkerton 05:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Contested (Aug 06)

message: Someone tried to add this link to the further reading section. It is the Thai translation of the text on the flaps. The anonymous editor even wrote in the article that...
 Due to this subject is censorship in Thailand, unable to update on Thai Wikipedia webpage. 
 This link has always been deleted, but read review and introduction in Thai language by Sinn SaeJew 
 who spent more than 15 years in Thailand and witness the mass murder 14 Oct 1976 at Thammarsart University in Bangkok (อ่านภาษา​ไทย​ได้​ที่นี่)."
I think the link is not encyclopedic and completely unrelated to the article in English Wikipedia. kinkku ananas (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thai Wikipedia is not under the influences of Thai authorities.  The claim is false. They were suspicions and concerns regarding the link removals previously. However, the link was put later put back in after the discussions on the talk page which actually happened a while ago. It is typical and completely natural that simply not all articles in English Wikipedia will be in Thai Wikipedia nor the content covered will be as extensive. Again it is Wikipedia and everyone can edit --Jutiphan | Talk - 06:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe it was censored based on the given date. --Jutiphan | Talk - 15:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: True, we should clarify this point. Would you like to do it? Roger jg 10:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * References take precedence over original research.  The source (Yale Daily News) says that Amazon and YUP were censored, at least last year.  Unless if you can provide an alternative reference which says that the sites were not censored at that time, I'd suggest taking out the tag. Patiwat 09:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: as of today, the page is still accesible from Thailand, where I am []. I don't dispute that the page was initially not accessible (I remember not being able to access it), but we should clarify that this not the case anymore, or that the ban is erratic since publication of the book. I'll then be happy to remove the tag. There is a lot of censorship in Thailand, but let's not put it where it is not. Roger jg 04:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made a change which I hope will satisfy everybody Roger jg 04:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I confirmed that the book's page at Amazon.com is blocked in Thailand. Tested today - 19 April 2008 -- 203.131.209.66 09:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have asked someone who has read the book to write a summary. I hope he will do it. Roger jg 10:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *The book has been out for almost a year.  The text in the article reflects the book summary as originally posted on the YUP website early last year.  YUP probably thinks that by now, external reviews are more credible than their own PR. I've re-written the text of the Book Summary section in order to clarify it.  I'd suggest removing the Factual Accuracy tag. Patiwat 09:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Patiwat, my comment about the summary is really more about both form and content. I believe a proper summary written by someone who has actually read the book would be of better quality and interest (and fit more Wiki policy). We could asked one of the Amazion reviewer to put his/her review here if we find one suitable. I will trytro do that but not sure we can contact people... Roger jg 04:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I just bought the book. If I ever finish reading it. I will update the summary --Jutiphan | Talk - 02:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unneccesary further reading 

message: The amazon.com webpage is not censured in Thailand neither is the Yale university press page where you can download the first 15 pages if the book which I did today from bangkok Roger jg 05:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was censored based on the given date. --Jutiphan | Talk - 15:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: True, we should clarify this point. Would you like to do it? Roger jg 10:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * References take precedence over original research.  The source (Yale Daily News) says that Amazon and YUP were censored, at least last year.  Unless if you can provide an alternative reference which says that the sites were not censored at that time, I'd suggest taking out the tag. Patiwat 09:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: as of today, the page is still accesible from Thailand, where I am []. I don't dispute that the page was initially not accessible (I remember not being able to access it), but we should clarify that this not the case anymore, or that the ban is erratic since publication of the book. I'll then be happy to remove the tag. There is a lot of censorship in Thailand, but let's not put it where it is not. Roger jg 04:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made a change which I hope will satisfy everybody Roger jg 04:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I confirmed that the book's page at Amazon.com is blocked in Thailand. Tested today - 19 April 2008 -- 203.131.209.66 09:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  censorship 

message: The summary for this book does not reflect the published reviews on the YUP website available here. Beside, it doesn't look that someone has actually read the book and summarised it but only agregated published reviews. Roger jg 09:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked someone who has read the book to write a summary. I hope he will do it. Roger jg 10:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *The book has been out for almost a year.  The text in the article reflects the book summary as originally posted on the YUP website early last year.  YUP probably thinks that by now, external reviews are more credible than their own PR. I've re-written the text of the Book Summary section in order to clarify it.  I'd suggest removing the Factual Accuracy tag. Patiwat 09:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Patiwat, my comment about the summary is really more about both form and content. I believe a proper summary written by someone who has actually read the book would be of better quality and interest (and fit more Wiki policy). We could asked one of the Amazion reviewer to put his/her review here if we find one suitable. I will trytro do that but not sure we can contact people... Roger jg 04:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I just bought the book. If I ever finish reading it. I will update the summary --Jutiphan | Talk - 02:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book Summary 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong. I noticed that the reference I previously edited  point to the scanned version of the book; a user added in the revision of 103941480. In wiki manga project, the link to the scanned version either directly or indirectly is always removed. --Manop - TH 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to scanned version