Talk:Bang Rachan

The POV of the prince

The one source is apparently from the Prince of Thailand, which brings up potential POV issues to a neutral reader. More citations would help; in-text citations would be expected.

"The Prince of Thailand" was Ditsawarakuman Damrong Rajanubhab (สมเด็จพระเจ้าบรมวงศ์เธอ พระองค์เจ้าดิศวรกุมาร กรมพระยาดำรงราชานุภาพ; RTGS: Somdet Phra Chao Borommawong Thoe Phra Ong Chao Ditsawarakuman Krom Phraya Damrong Rachanuphap) ( 21 June 1862 – 1 December 1943) who was the founder of the modern Thai education system as well as the modern provincial administration, at a time when the concept of Siam as a nation-state was still in its infancy. He was also a self-taught historian, and one of the most influential intellectuals of his time. Thus his POV counts for more than that of an individual whose brain is in neutral.--Pawyilee (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree. He may have been an intellectual in many ways, but he certainly was not a dispassionate historian (if such a thing were possible). His books were POV pushing par excellence. He, as you alluded to, was a key person in founding the concept of the Siamese, and one of the ways he did that was by finding an external enemy (the Burmese) to meld together many ethnic groups into one. Modern historians don't agree with his characterization that the wars were fought between nation-states (for there were no nation-states in the Western sense then). Anyway, he didn't appear to have done even basic fact-checking. The very first Burmese-Siamese war was in 1538, according to him, when Tabinshwehti hadn't even conquered Pegu. Legends like Bang Rachan or Suriothai are taken at their face value and reported as history. Amazing. His POV, precisely because of his non-objectivity, ought to count for what it is: propaganda. Hybernator (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda, we agree, should be the primary focus of this article, so that it may—with a lot of work—be changed to give a NPOV explication of the various POV being propagandized. One that leaps right out at me is the oft-repeated use of the Thai royal and noble title Nai. Unless otherwise indicated by context, it was the most junior of the ranks, one step up from Phrai plain commoner, and not normally considered noble — except that Chao Nai is a slightly disrespectful for epithet for royalty, or a boss throwing his weight around, while Nai Luang is a perfectly respectable epithet for the king. The Bang Rachan propaganda piece is the only instance I know of where it is used as perfectly respectable Thai honorifics for locally elected officials.—Pawyilee (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Improve article with NPOV of POV

History, we agree, is an inappropriate section title for a propagandist piece, but then so is In Thai popular culture. For it to rise to level of popular culture, it would have to emulate the likes of the Song of Roland, which so thoroughly distorts the facts of the historical battle of Roncevaux Pass that the battle itself is practically forgotten. Or, from a purely Thai POV, the popularity of Khan Kluay and Khan Kluay 2, which do rise to the level of permeating popular culture.

Political climate would better serve, though to distinguish between then and now, we'd have to find an actual instance of Prince Damrong using the battle of Bang Rachan to advance his POV; or else use the political climate at the time the battle was popularized, as an example of popularizing the Prince's POV—which is much better served in media by the Naresuan and Elephant movies, which have gone viral. We could link to those from the proposed section, as long as we take into account that the article to which the heading refers makes a distinction with regard to "public opinion. Having brought that up, while Duncan Stern's reference to a symbol of determination and heroism against overwhelming odds with regards to public opinion of the battle of the Alamo in the military history of the United States, in Thai public opinion and military history, that would in fact be symbolized by the Rama-I-era sisters Chan and Mook, and even more so by the Rama-III-era sword-wielding Lady Mo, who now serves as a "symbol of determination and heroism" in resisting the very authority she once served.—Pawyilee (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"In Thai popular culture" is to call it what it is. I guess you could call it "Thai version". I'll defer to you on how entrenched these stories are in Thai popular culture but it doesn't make it true. If we're to call it under a more generic title then, I'll have to challenge the entire section, which is completely outlandish and devoid of any neutrality. As for a new section called "Political climate", under which this story was popularized by Damrong, I agree that you'll have to report the geopolitical and socioeconomic situations of Siam which might explain why a supposedly learned "intellectual" like Damrong might have incorporated legends without having checked the dates or plausibility. Nor could we dismiss outright that he was just a wannabe "self-taught" historian with an ax to grind who never learned to fact-check. Such stories can be reported under a title like "Thai version" but not history or another generic title. Hybernator (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"In Thai popular culture" is NOT what it is in. That place is filled by Naresuan in media, where media includes toys and TV cartoon series. Hardly anyone in the Thai popular culture where I live has heard of the village, much less have turned it into a franchise of toys, games or popular tunes. You have gone out of your way to convince me that you do not have a NPOV, but strongly resemble a wannabe "self-taught" historian with an ax to grind who never learned to fact-check that it actually was Damrong who popularized the story.—Pawyilee (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. I have been saying that it was Damrong who started all this. (Re-read my posts.) Are you agreeing with me or not? Also confused about your comment on this not being part of Thai pop culture. To an outsider like me, a highly successful film like Bang Rachan represents a part of Thai pop culture even if your assertion that no one where you live has heard of the village (and assuming that where you live represents a true accurate barometer of the Thai pop culture) is true. Heck, the article even has the film's poster prominently displayed. What's a reader of this article supposed to make of this? That it's not part of pop culture? Really? Lastly, all I've tried to convince you here is to inform that the Thai narrative needs to be shown under a proper title or it would be challenged otherwise. Of course, you can believe in anything you want and can be a self-taught wannabe whatever. It's not a crime. That's besides the point, and irrelevant to the purpose of the discussion here: NPOV of the article. Best regards, Hybernator (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

The viewpoint raised by the hibernator are valid, but polarizing statements makes matters worse. This article is allegedly about the village and should be limited to what is known about it, like, for instance, "Bang" means "water district" with access to water transport. Everything else in this Talk has to do with the Prince Damrong, and belongs on his Talk page. I've just noticed changes to Gustave Rolin-Jaequemyns relative to when Damrong hired him as "Principle Advisor" while the Prince's article makes no mention at all of this first advisor, or of the three Harvard Law professors hired to replace him. So, changed "In Thai popular culture" to "Historical revisionism," I'll just take this off my watchlist until I've finished aping the section on the Political climate of Belgium (1848-1884). —Pawyilee (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with that title. For the record, it is you who started this thread. I don't know what polarizing statements I've made. Because I questioned HRH Damrong's assertions, which are still prominently covered here? Alas, lèse-majesté laws don't extend to Wikipedia, thankfully. Hybernator (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Dam! (the water thing, not the other thing.) Forgot to take this off my watch-list. But "axe-to-grind" is on Wikipedia's list of polarizing claims, or should be. Also, "self-taught" does seem a bit more like a put-down than does NPOV Autodidactism. Still, feel free to come on over to Damrong Rajanubhab, and grind some there.—Pawyilee (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)