Talk:Thailand/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Redirect from Siam

You can't just redirect. Siam is different than Thailand so it should have its own page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.238.220 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 31 March 2003 (UTC).

Why not? In the last century the name of the country was changed from Siam to Thailand to Siam back to Thailand, and all of the enduring institutions of today's Thailand are inheritances from Siam. "Thailand" covers more than "Siam", but includes all of it; the best place to cover Siam would seem to be under Thailand. David K 11:55, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think there should be a little info on the use of the word Siam. --Dara 08:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete information on municipalities

The information on municipalities is seriously obsolete: nowadays every amphoe has at least one municipality, thesaban tambon <name of amphoe> . That means there are nearly a thousand. As far as I know, all the sukhaaphibaan were eliminated in the process of creating the new municipalities. Is there someone with access to current government data who can update this?David K 11:55, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I could find numbers from the census 2000, which suggest that there were 7,408 Tambon (including the 154 kwaeng (แขวง) in Bangkok) and 69,307 Mubaan. Yet sadly those lists did not say about how many of the tambon are thesaban tambon, nor what happened with the Sukhaphiban. Once I find more information I will update those numbers (and probably write up those information into a article tambon). andy 22:50, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Featured status of provinces article

Hi, I came here via the 'Featured Article' link on the main page and I'm somewhat surprised to find absolutely nothing here on these topics which brought Thailand into world attention during the last year or so:

• problems with the Islamic minority in the south (including terrorist attacks, leading up to the recent clashes where according to cnn over 100 insurgents were killed)
• the controversial "war on drugs" in 2002/2003 with over 2000 deaths (according to the bbc) and 90,000 arrested. There is a small paragraph on illicit drugs in Foreign_relations_of_Thailand, but it mentions nothing of this.
• Foreign_relations_of_Thailand should surely mention the involvement in the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq (involving 443 Thai troops according to that entry)?
• tourism just gets 2 dry sentences in Economy of Thailand (and a bit in umm, this and other entries about places which are popular destinations)

etc. I know that Rome wasn't edited in a day, but this being a featured article I was hoping to find something to put those media reports in perspective. In all fairness, the stuff which is already there looks like very serious work. regards, High on a tree 05:07, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, the featured article was Provinces of Thailand, not all our articles about Thailand. That one article by itself (plus all the province articles) should be fairly complete, yet for Thailand by itself it has many holes yet for sure. You are of course right that those points you list are missing, so why not be bold and add something on them where it fits. As I am the main contributor of Thai topics I simply haven't found the time or enough background information to writeup something good. E.g. for the problems in the deep south - I know about the recent problems for sure, as well as some bits about the inclusion of the Pattani sultanate into Siam in beginning of the 20th century, but I am ignorant about all the developement during the 20th century. andy 09:22, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I see, seems I clicked on the wrong link then - apologies... in any case, I definitely respect your fine work. My issue was that maybe the decision to make this a 'featured' article was a bit premature, because one would expect some sort of completeness. (Btw the CNN article I linked mentioned incidents in Yala, Pattani and Songkla, and to be fair in two of those articles the separatist movement is briefly mentioned.) I felt hesitant to enter things I only read in the newspaper into articles which already seem quite polished. (Actually I spent a day in Hat Yai once and I've read Platform by Houellebecq, but that doesnt make me an expert in Thai moslem separatism... ;) ) grüße, High on a tree 03:25, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's controversial anti-drug campaign is covered in the articles on Thaksin Shinawatra and in slightly more detail in Policies of the Thaksin government#Anti-drug policies. Patiwat 05:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Map

I just noticed the map here still lists neighbouring country Myanmar as Burma. This should be updated.

I disagree, but if you feel the urge, feel free. Markalexander100 03:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It isn't much surprising, as that map is from the CIA world fact book (and thus PD) - and the USA is one of the few countries which did not accept the renaming to Myanmar. andy 07:44, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I started the comment, just forgot to put on my sig. I don't know much about East Asian politics but I do know that the official name for Burma is Myanmar. As long as the Myanmar is the official name, we should be using it. I won't bother finding a new map. If another agrees with me and is willing to update it, that would be great. --Will2k 14:54, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Provinces

"The name of each province is derived from its capital city." Isn't this the wrong way round? --Bobbagum 15:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so- the provinces take after the old-style meuang, where there was a city-state (maybe more accurately, "town-state") which had an undefined, fluctuating hinterland. The city/town was always primary. Markalexander100 00:35, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thailand has 75 provinces, not 76 provinces. See the Ministry of Interior's web site - http://www.moi.go.th/province.htm .Bangkok is special administration area - the capital city, not province. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.142.207.162 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 9 April 2005, UTC+7.

Muang or Prathet?

I've never seen anything other than prathet Thai used in official contexts, surely this should be the local formal name of the country in the infobox? Jpatokal 17:09, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd like both at least to be mentioned (more info is always good!). We could always note that muang is informal, but it might get a bit cluttered. Markalexander100 01:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Muang' is informal. Prathet (literally means 'country') is more formal. But the real official name of Thailand is 'Raja-anachakra Thai'(ราชอาณาจักรไทย - Pronounced as Rat-cha-ar-nar-chak-thai), it means 'Kingdom of Thailand'. And this should be mentioned, not 'Muang Thai'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.121.130.34 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 2 March 2005, UTC+7.

Colonization

ONLY STUPIDs?

I CAN SEE THAT LOTS OF IDIOTS ARE HERE!!!

PLS DONT CHANGE THAILAND (SIAM) HISTORY UNLESS YOU KNOW BEST!

SOME ARE VERY STUPID AND DONT EVEN KNOW OUR HISTORY; PLS WORK HARDER ON BOOKS AND REFERENCES!

ANY ADMINS; BEFORE CHANGING ANY DETAILS; PLS BE CAREFUL OF VANDALISM! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.191.162.226 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 22 June 2005 (UTC).

PLS READ PS

The sensitive case is that Thailand was the (informal) British colony, which it actually never was, and we cannot accept that. And the truth is that we also used to own the areas around which was later became the new territoties under the British Empire by an unfiar threats (in many historians' opinions). I think this page should not be changed by anybody anymore unless he/she knows what is behind the true story and understand OUR history well.

PS1: I HATE IDIOTS! PS2: SIAM HAS NOT BEEN COLONIZED BY ANY COUNTRY (FORMAL OR INFORMAL) PS3: PLS DONT CHANGE ANYTHING IF YOU DONT KNOW SIAM HISTORY! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.191.162.226 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 22 June 2005 (UTC).

If you stop shouting and stop insulting people, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Mark¹ 07:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The person doing the shouting should also have the integrity to sign their postings. Rlevse 19:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As usual, many Thais do not understand the blatant censorship that came with Thousands of years of stifled thought and lack of equality and democracy in society. DeJure - Thailand has never been colonized. DeFacto - not entirely clear. Why were Japanese in Thailand printing money in World War 2? Please look at the situation and extrapolate what happened, rather than believing the heavily edited and biased historical references written by Royal Thai scholars." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chokdii (talk • contribs) 02:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

very upset with fairness fo somebody

I dont understand why the foriegners always changing the contents of our histoty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.94.23.91 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 23 June 2005 (UTC).

Because this is a Wiki and everyone is allowed to edit. And please notice that noone denies the fact that Thailand was never a colony, but you also have to accept that Siam had to make contracts with the British which included quite "unfair" terms for Siam. And as there are historians who call that "inofficial part of empire" it is worth noting in the article. The basic idea of this website is NPOV, thus showing not only one view of the topic. BTW: If only Thais would write about Thai topics here there'd be very few about the country, most was written by farang interested in the country. andy 20:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History of Thailand is a debatable issue. Research done in english language is not that well-establish (compare to other country's history) and one could argue that eesearch done by Thai historian is arguable. The term "part of Empire" is a controversial concept and is still up-to-debate among many historians, so I don't believe its appropriate to state it in wikipedia. Personally, I don't believe that "unfair contract" with Siam and British empire could be inteprate as "part of Empire". The term could, if possible, apply to relationship between Siam and China, but not UK. If I remember correctly, in one point of the history, Chinese actually consider china-siam relationship as more than just a diplomatic one. --Underexpose 00:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This page is for discussing changes to the article, not for general discussions. Which part of the article are you talking about? What changes would you like to make to it? Mark^{your words} 01:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I were talking about the possiblity of putting term "inofficial part of empire" in the article, in response to andy's comment. --underexpose 03:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That was taken out of the article months ago. There's no point reviving old discussions. Mark^{your words} 11:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Any East Asian-International historian here?

This is not only one view, please read before- keyword "Thai history". (and please considered your view too, do you have any reference???)

I think that there are many books in amazon.com, you can order, or just go to the library nearby, if you love to read. I found this is already a war and to me it is quite stupid that I have to change it back again and again since I am also have things to do.

Thailand is not so big as China but we also have the right as written to declare that, if you are one who stay in our territory, please study and clarify yourself of our knowledge.

But I beg your pardon, I think you have some knowledge but plese working on that more a bit, or read a history written by other neutral countries, then you will see more. Please do not based your knowledge on the one who take the land and write the history by themselves. This is crap!

I am sick to say if the Ang-Sach writes about WWII of the Soviet army. Tell me who are the best? I am really sick with this kind of stubborn people around. I will let it be after this and hopefully the Thais and other will not rate this WiKi, as the neutral source any longer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.191.148.33 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 23 June 2005 (UTC).

I know at least two people who edited this page who have read Wyatt's "History of Thailand", which is the standard english language history of Thailand. Though Wyatt doesn't use the term "informal empire" (so I cannot give the quote to proof that statement), if YOU read it you'd see what I explained you before. BTW: If you want to tell anyone to shut up - what did YOU contribute on Thai topics here so far? Those you claim to be ignorant stubborn idiots have done that, and they definitely don't do it to insult your country. So you can tell everyone that this is not the place for the nationalistic version of your history - and we are more than happy to accept this rating. andy 11:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

;-)

sorry man! I havent used or cited from Wyatt's "History of Thailand". In fact, I've learnt and read so many for nearly 10 years, using one book is so stupid like using just only yours brain.

This is really wasting my time- talking with air-head-type1-animals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.191.152.137 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 24 June 2005 (UTC).

So we finally have one point to agree - I don't see any point in continuing this discussion anymore with someone who think all other editors are ignorant. andy

I assume from your[the above aggressive one] opinions that you are Thai citizen, and so do I! Tell me who are the best, you said? You think only Thais can write their own country's history? Don't be stupid! As you probably know, all the accepted Thai history taught in school was written by only one person! I get sick of what I have been taught here! It is commonly said that the British Empire and France took our lands, but where were them from? Didn't our ancestors get them from our neighbour countries? Didn't our today's territory use to be Khmer's before the age of Sukhothai? Wasn't 'Pra Kaew Morakot' taken from Vientiene? I'm agree with andy that this is not the place with our patriotic history. I want some thing more neutral than the Thai aspect which always protect our great ancestors and monarchs! Ps. I agree with him for only one thing, please declare the evidence of 'informal British Empire'. I am not such an idiot radical, I just want to see where is it from. CW32 17:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Apparently it's in The Oxford History of the British Empire—Volume III, edited by Andrew Porter. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. (among other works, I'm sure). It's mentioned in this review. Mark¹ 02:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Bitte Vorsicht bei Änderungen wichtiger Kommentare

Das ist eine öffentliche Diskussion. Kein Kommentar sollte gelöscht werden, nur weil sich einer aufgrund eines Fehlers persönlich angegriffen fühlt und weibisch nicht damit umgehen kann. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.181.7.166 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 24 June 2005 (UTC).

As this is the english WP German comments are no good idea - nor do I understand what you mean as noone has deleted anything. Besides, even IF the text is deleted, it will always stay in the editing history. andy 09:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Link removed

• Thai National Assembly Official parliamentary website

I have removed this link, which is not working at this time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.118.120.214 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 June 2005 (UTC).

This is operational again. I think it should be displayed again. Any objectiuons? I will go ahaead and edit this in. Felixboy 20:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I just checked it, and it works fine here. Must have been either a very temporary problem of that site, or routing problem with your ISP. andy 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

lots of mistakes with no quote

Actually I am sick to write against those air-heads. But please see some written by some neutral articles to quote. The history of the un-unified Siam can be reached back quite long. The same as written in Burmese and Chinese historical books. In the past, SEA was not totally influenced by the Khmehr, but more by the India. Some history of Siam before the unification can be refered by the French version in Wikipedia: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tha%C3%AFlande

Wish all the stupids here understand more or less with learning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.181.59.40 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC).

Siam-Dvaravati

Markalexander100, you just violated the "three-revert" rule. That is not productive. You should explain in the discussion why you insist that "Siam-Dvaravati" was not a precursor to Thailand. −Woodstone 09:54:41, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Now also 85.181.21.107 violated the "three-revert" rule. Please stop behaving like this and come to an agreement on the talk page first. −Woodstone 11:03:29, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Mark probably skipped the discussion because he considers it nationalistic nonsense - Dvaravati was a Mon kingdom, with hardly any Thai people - the Thai people came to the area centuries after the establishment of Dvaravati. There may have been some Thai people around already, but those weren't in power for sure, other than in the clearly Thai kingdoms of Sukhothai and later Ayutthaya. Thus there wasn't anything like "Siam-Dvaravati", nor is it correct to consider Dvaravati a precursor to Thailand, just because it covered the same land area. And I haven't ever read about Dvaravati to be "dependend" on Funan - it may possible, but as most of Dvaravati history is unknown due to lack of sources it cannot be proved to be true or false, but given the distances it is not much likely. I have however read about Dvaravati dependend on Srivijaya, or as one of the Indianized states one can even consider it depended on Sri Lanka. andy 16:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Neither of us violated 3RR (it forbids more than three reverts, not three). Also, what andy said. It's nationalistic nonsense. Mark¹ 00:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Now we just did. I've reverted myself for now. Since we're here now, has anyone heard of such a thing as "Siam-Dvaravati", and do they have any reason to believe that it or the real Dvaravati was ever controlled by Funan? Mark¹ 02:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

sources???

please quote "many historians"? sources? please provide your sources and references of the Independence date of Thailand from Kmehr Empire? when? how? International acceptance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.181.20.140 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC).

And where are sources for the Siam-Dvaravati - see above section? andy 11:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't really like the "from Khmer Empire" part myself, although for a different reason: it implies that "Thailand" became independent then, rather than Sukhothai. I'd like to cut that line. Mark¹ 02:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't really like the "from Khmer Empire" part myself>>please! delete "YOUR" wrong idea. Since there is no concrete evidence of that yet. And the SEA region is mixed of several kinship groups until there is no roots as obviously seen as i.e. "Hans" Chinese.

Siam-Dvaravati can be seen until today's central Thailand from their culture, language, song, frock and there are many more evidences. In addition, the "Mon" and the "Tai" has been also noticed that they have "Fair" skin, not "Dark-Tan". And do you think that after the "Tai" came, with your common sense, do the "Mon" in central Thailand ran off into the sea and disappeared or gradually integrated with the "Tai"?

However, if this is not a public encyclopedia, I wont step in to talk in a "funny" thing in a mafia community!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.181.9.4 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC).

Of course the common people have mixed with each other, as well as gradually replaced each other - maybe the Mon had to take the less fertile fields and thus their number reduced... But the ruling class changed from Mon to Thai with the Ayutthaya kingdom, thus the earlier ones cannot be considered a direct precursor. Of course the entry in the infobox is a very strong simplification of the complex and still widely unexplored history, but it is generally accepted that Siam started with the Sukhothai kingdom.

But of course this is all a big conspiracy between western historians, this website and however else may come to you mind, to steal you great Thai people 500 years of history. If you really think that then you better leave this space, as that is not the case. andy 11:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Culture

This section notes: "... therefore one should not slide a book across a table or place it on the floor" when discussing books and printed material.

I don't have a Lonely Planet Thailand handy, but this sounds very much like a direct or near direct quote from the Thailand LP guide, which is a copyrighted work. Dxco 01:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually the statement seems somewhat obsolete. Stepping over or on books is still taboo, but to "place it on the floor" is not really a no-no anymore.--Paul C 17:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

After living in Thailand for seven years, I can honestly say that most of the supposed Thai taboos are merely paid lip service in modern Thailand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.144.63.140 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC).

idiot

Lonely Planet Thailand gives so many errors, and do not based on a real research, i.e. (1) the meaning of Bangkok= Bang Makok; (2)the Thais often shit in the street-bushes; (3)Tha cinema and etc. One should not relies on the articles of this book so much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.39.221.13 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC).

Safety

does anyone know anything about how safe thailand is to visit/ live for a female [canadian] in her early twenties? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.30.77.17 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC).

In terms of being raped or murdered? Safer than Canada. In terms of being run over? Less safe than Canada. Mark¹ 23:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto on safety, but be advised to be wary of robbery, theft, pick pockets, etc. Rlevse 18:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thailand 001

There was an article Thailand 001 that was marked as a copyright violation from the following URLs:

• http://www.thailandguidebook.com/history.html
• http://www.beachpatong.com/photogallery/songkran/
• http://www.ethailand.com/index.php?id=1121
• http://www.insidebuddhism.com/places/place.asp?id=58

Material from these pages may be useful for adding to this article or other Thailand-related articles. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Post-Colonialism

One predominant feature of Thai culture is that because it was never colonized, it does not suffer from a historical post-colonial perspective. This results in a marked lack of either xenophobia or the machismo paradigm of gender identity.

This should be reworded to reflect Thailand's natural immunity to Communism instead. According to Marx, the demographics of this nation are ripe for revoltion, but such an event *NEVER* happened. Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE NEVER COLONIZED!

Also, how about that traffic? :P ~Ghet 19:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It was crap, I've removed it. Actually there was a substantial communist insurgency, but as in Malaya it was dealt with by a combination of military suppression and social and economic improvements. But that's a matter for cited sources in the history section. Mark¹ 19:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Colonization

I edited history of Thailand to credit our King Rama V to rule the country out of the colonism crisis. It's the history. There is an evidence of country modernization, Europe visits, etc. How can British and French just left Thailand by themselves? Look at Africa. Or some places else. Have they ever done that by themselves? just left a country as a buffer state... Think! 129.82.209.24 05:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What you did was to remove one part of the story, and repeat another part already mentioned. That's not helpful. Mark^{your words} 12:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree! My father is from a long line of Thai Royal Heritage and my mother is American; therefore, I have researched this honorable history of Thailand all my life. Basically, Thailand was extremely intelligent while playing the French against the British. In addition they learned western culture/strategy by inviting foriegn educators into Thailand. If we truely were a, "buffer", state then why would they create the classic historical play,(The King And I)? I was born and live in the US, but visit Thailand on a regular basis. If you visit Thailand then you will see that it is the people's dedication to their King and country which made Thailand truely, "The Land Of The Free." Sean Viryasiri (Nashville, TN USA) 09:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Chinese minority does not call Thailand Siam

The article states in the first paragraph "It is also the name of the Thai people - leading some inhabitants, particularly the sizeable Chinese minority, to continue to use the name Siam." As far as I know, this is false. No person of Chinese ethnicity that I know has ever used "Siam" instead of "Thailand" because they resent being lumped up with the ethnic Thais/Thai. In fact, the only situations I have ever heard "Siam" being used are in historical or poetic references. The only situation I have ever heard of people resenting being called "Thais" is by the ethnic Malays of the South. Patiwat 10:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is this statue of?

Can anyone identify this statue?

Adam 12:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The statue is of King Naresuan, and it is located in Ayuthaya, near Wat Phu Khao Thong (Golden Mount Chedi). They aren't visible in the photo, but the statue is surrounded by dozens of these little chicken statues - I can't remember the significance (of the chickens). [[1]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shakakoz (talk • contribs) 05:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC).

Naresuen was a famous 16th century warrior-king of the Ayutthaya kingdom, (all Tai people from Thailand to the Shans in Burma revere him as a national hero). As for the chickens... guess I'll have to find out about that as well, perhaps something to do with his zodiac sign?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maharaj Devraj (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

Lately what happen to Thailand?

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Hmm, just interested to know what happen to Thailand lately? Especially on the southern part of Thailand. Is there riot? Hope to know full detail on it because my friends and I are interested to go to Phuket island on this June. We are all from Malaysia, therefore, we wish to make full preparation of information before going, well, precaution is better than cure. Thanks in advance for everyone cooperation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.50.9.49 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC).

Phuket is safe as far as we know now. So far the southern riot only affects the three muslim provinces at the Malay boundary, i.e. Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat. For details see South Thailand insurgency. There is a little concern that the terrorists may seek targets outside that area as well (there had been bombs in Hat Yai once already), but so far nothing else happened. There is also quite some political chaos around PM Taksin Shinawatra, but that remained peaceful so far, and is only affected Bangkok with many demonstrations. To follow that one you can also take a look at Current events in Thailand. andy 09:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a riot, its more of an ethnic conflict which has now been fueled by Islamic Fundamentalism, you guys in the US should be familiar with it? Well, yeah, its been happening to us in India and Thaialnd for a while now. The root of the problem goes back to the Colonial period and the birth of the Thai nation state in which the Malay Sultanates were incorporated under direct control of Bangkok. However, things were further complicated during the cold war, and now again it is further complicated by various conflicts of interests as well as fundamentalism (as earlier mentioned). The successive governments (particularly the Thaksin government) hasn't exactly been paying full attention to the problem either, and now its kind of too late. Fundamentalism has caught on and terrorists cross over from neighboring countries easily (in small fishing boats),check [2] also www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1508121/posts. However, places popular for Tourism such as Phuket or Samui (or anywhere apart from the 3 southern most provinces being Songkla, Narathiwat, or Yala) remain unaffected as with the rest of the country. Maharaj Devraj 17:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Age of consent - 15 or 18?

Is it true that the age of consent for a non-sex worker is 15? If so, then how did rock star Dag of band Big Ass get into trouble for having sex with that 17 year old girl? Could somebody please clarify. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patiwat (talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC).

I'd always assumed it was 18, but this site says "The minimum age limit for heterosexual, lesbian and gay relations (since 1987: before it was 13) is set at 15 (Art. 279 CC). On 14 October 1996 a new "Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act" came into force which criminalises sexual acts with minors [whether hetero or homo] (under 18) "in the place of prostitution" (Art. 8: 1 to 3 years and a fine)." That's said to be correct as of 1998 or 1999. Henry^Flower 21:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Another belated addition: the British Guardian newspaper yesterday (June 17) had a piece stating that "Thai penal code outlaws sexual intercourse with a girl under 13, with or without consent". Henry^Flower 08:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Child Protection Act of 2003 practically places the age of consent at 18, but I'm no lawyer. Paul C 10:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

Not on Thailand per se but related, History of Southeast Asia is currently a nominee for Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the nominee by voting for it! __earth ^(Talk) 03:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Concession of Siamese territory

I agree with Henry flower that my edit was incorrect, although I still think that the information would be rather interesting for modern researchers (taken from ML Manich Chumsai's Popular History of Thailand, <1993>). It also reflects the roots of the current unrests in Southern Thailand, in my opinion.

Perhaps it could have been Changed to:

Thailand is the only Southeast Asian country never to have been taken over by a European power. Western influence, however, including the threat of force, led to many reforms in the 19th century and major concessions to French expansionaism and British mercantile interests. This included the loss of the area west of the Mekong river which became part of French Indochina(1893) and the loss of the 3 southern provinces, which later became Malaysia's 3 northern states(1909) ?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maharaj Devraj (talk • contribs) 09:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

You might like to redistribute those replies into sections- conversations will be impossible to follow otherwise. When you say 'the area west of the Mekong river', do you mean 'east of the Mekong river'? In either case, 'lost' is misleading: most of that region consisted of statelets with some loyalty to Siam, some to Vietnam, some to China and a fair degree of independence. Henry^Flower 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, you got me there. I meant East of the Mekong and many thanks with your suggestions. Maharaj Devraj 17:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Tiny nitpick, but I've no time..

"An interesting fact is that although Shinawatra was praised for boosting the economy, his resignation caused the baht-dollar value to rise from 39 to roughly 37."

to rise from 39-37? what's a better way of saying this... --67.171.173.185 02:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is written in a very biased way and unprofessional manner. It doesn't say who praised Thaksin and it doesn't say why he was praised. It doesn't say why strengthening the currency is good for the economy (it doesn't - it makes Thailand's exports more expensive and thus reduces foreign currency inflows to the economy). The sentence should be deleted. Patiwat 21:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject

For coordinating the editing of Thailand-related topics please visit Wikipedia:Thailand-related topics notice board Reads like a travel agency brochure. No poor people? Where are you hiding them? Fixmacs (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Very Bad Article

HORENDOUS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.135.90 (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting statement: Due to the government of the Monarch, Thailand is the only country in Southeast Asia that has never been colonized or taken over by a European power. What were other SE Asian countries that were occupied by Europeans - republics!? --bonzi (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I will show you. If you want to know the list of other Southeast Asia, why you don't click to Wikipedia page about other countries in Southeast Asia. It will show the Independence Date from the Europian Power.

This is all of Southeast Asia Countries

• Brunei Independence from British
• Vietnam Independence from France
• Singapore Independence from British
• Philippines Independence from the United States and Spain
• Cambodia Independence from French
• Indonesia Independence from Netherlands
• Laos Independence from France
• Malaysia Independence from UK
• Burma Independence from UK
• East Timor Independence from Portugal

All from Wikipedia

Why this is bad article?

Moreover, this is how to spell HORENDOUS: horrendous [ADJ] น่ากลัว, See also: น่าสยดสยอง, Syn. dreadful, horror, scary, Ant. lovely; pleasant Visarute (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It is okay. Could use some more footnotes and dig deeper.Pwordisony (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Aboute Geography

"It is comparable in population to countries such as Iran and Peru..." This is not true. Peru's population is about 30 millions, whereas Thailando pop. is about 60 millions. I could'nt delete this myself because the page is partially protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.28.201 (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

agreed --Franjesus (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Thailand

Someone needs to revert this section to its previous save. Last I checked Thailand wasn't a fantasy story about robots named ANA. - Apokriphos

stupid family guy. Rds865 (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Demographic Section needs to be looked at

I am not sure what to make of the demographic section. The Thai People entry says that tai people are the dominent ethnic group in Thailand, while the demographic section in the page says it's the Lao people. So which one is it?

Tai people include Lao, Central Thai, and many other groups. I agree that this section needs to be revised. The first part of it is simply inaccurate. Ethic Lao/Isan do NOT make up over half the population of the nation. The demographics article says that native speakers of Isan or Lao is 34.2% of the population. They outnumber native speakers of central Thai by only 0.5%, not to mention the facts that Lao-speakers typically also speak Central Thai, while Central Thai speakers do not speak Lao. It is simply misleading to say "Thailand's population is dominated by ethnic Lao." --Vincecny 16:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Vincencny. Kuson

I have just fixed the section. Now it is shorter and more in line with the Demographics of Thailand article. The previous version was not only misleading, but also simply inaccurate at several parts. Besides the Lao-Tai thing as discussed above, I also revised the Chinese part and changed "indigenous hill tribes" to just "hill tribes" as they are actually one of the last groups to arrive in Thailand, rarely "indigenous" at all. --Melanochromis 12:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Majority ethnic group

The intro says that Thai are the majority ethnic group. But the Demographics says that the Lao/Isan are. Which is it? Could we get some cites for this, to avoid edit wars? Ashmoo 02:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a highly politicized, but not completely inaccurate, way of stating things. Lao/Northeasterners/Isaan people haven't been considered a separate ethnicity by the government since the early 1900's, when Rama VI and subsequent fascist dictatorships shaped the myth that all the people of Thailand were of one ethnicity: Thai. Today, most people don't consider Lao a separate ethnicity - but if they did, they would probably consider Northerners, Southerners, Chinese, and Muslims as separate ethnicities as well. Patiwat 02:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Revised the section already. Please see discussion in the "Demographic Section needs to be looked at" --Melanochromis 12:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

September 19, 2006 Coup

Removed the NPOV opening clause of the 9/19/06 section..."even though the army promised" Tarpy 20:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sex Trade?

No discussion of the sex trade, and exploitation of women and children? (not to mention young boys) Isn't it analagous to the "beer that made Milwaukee famous"? No mention of the sex tourists? Is this some kind of whitewash? Porphyria 05:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In contrast what the tabloid media try to make everyone believe, Thailand is much more than the sex business - but as "sex sells" you'll see much more stories about it than e.g. about the political situation in Thailand. And most tourists that visit Thailand aren't sex tourists, even though the percentage of sex tourists is probably higher than e.g. for those visiting Japan. But anyway. it is of course one aspect of the country, that's why we have the article Prostitution in Thailand, but IMHO it doesn't need to be mentioned with much higher prominence. andy 11:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sex tourism is among one of the major issue in Thailand, but is NOT the primary. As with many other topic, anything controversial is likely to be popular. I agree with Ahoerstemeier that most of tourists in Thailand isn't go there just for sex; it's merely one aspect of the industry. --Underexpose 00:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There is sex trade everywhere in the world!! If one is included in article about Thailand, that same statement should be included in New-York article as well. dhanakorn 00:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

**There is more prostitution per captita in the US then there is in Thailand. Does the US page mention it?** —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.83.72 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC).

**Exactly, then shut up. Stop picking on Thailand just because it's in Asia.** —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.196.235.246 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

Then write that, add a section writing about how Thailand is mistreated in media, cite some sources. Voila.--NoNo 03:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with all the comments above. Thailand SHOULD have a section on prostitution because is unique not because its in Asia, but because it differs from other Asian nations in that prostitution is ready available in major tourist areas and touts pester even the non sex tourists to death, and are far bolder than in other asian nations, the level of organization and openness of prostitution locales, the fact that males are prostituted in organized bars, the fact that discotheques and bars that are open to the general public are dominated by prostitution, and the general complete acceptance, tolerance, and view of prostitution in the country. In most of asia, prostitution carries a stigma, but in Thailand, prostitutes are reached out to by the public.

If u dont believe me, believe Reuters.com http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=inDepthNews&storyID=2006-12-14T203831Z_01_BKK81927_RTRUKOC_0_US-CHILDREN-THAILAND-SEX.xml

To say that prostitution in Thai society doesn't carry a stigma is to exemplify your gross lack of understanding of how most Thais live and think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.110.211 (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thai Gem Scam

Though Thai Gem Scam does exist in bangkok and other large city in Thailand; I don't believe that it is a primary issue presenting in Thailand. Should it be move to topic "issue" or something? I don't think it is appropriate to place it under "Misc topic". What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Underexpose (talk • contribs) 23:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC).

-- I agree, is a detail, not a primary major heading representing Thailand, though definitely a disgrace and a clue of corruption effecting not only Thai people. Agree, it should be a link to a topic of its own --Kuson--Kuson 03:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)13th Nov 2006

Editing

Please remember that Wikipedia is an international resource and that the use of either British English, American English, or any other variety is acceptable. Editing out words from one variety of English with an exact synonym from another is counter-productive and stupid. Henry, Soccer means association football. Please refer to the wikipedia definition of such for further clarification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.145.110.211 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

Belated reply: I seem to have started a minor revert war back then. My rationale was that the sport's known as football in Thailand. Paul C 12:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is more commonly known as "Bon" (ball) in Thailand. My initial assertation still stands - substitution of BrE for AmE or vice versa is not a useful way of improving the resource. With this in mind, I have chosen to leave the reference as it stands now. In the future, I hope all will refrain from this practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.110.211 (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Map with Myanmar

I think it would be the PC thing to do to include a map with myanmar instead of burma as thailand's neighbor mostly because if they want to be called myanmar, who are we to say no? So I found a few but I figured before changing it I'll put up some options!

1.[3] 2.[4] 3.[5]

personally I think i go with #2. I'm kind of a newb though so if someone who prefers one ot another could also tell me how to change it if it's not going to be obvious, i'd be grateful! user:omishark 05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hell no. Following the diktats of murderous thugs is not PC. In any case, the current map is used because it's PD- we can't just steal content from other websites. Henry^Flower 07:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The English name of Myanmar is Burma, just as the English name of Muang Thai is Thailand. Maps from the CIA Fact Book are not copyright. Adam 09:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicate issue which even has it's separate article Explanation of the names of Burma/Myanmar. But as here the article on the country is at Myanmar IMHO the map should be changed accordingly - we don't need to follow the US to ignore the name (or actually it's a more like a spelling change) for political reasons. andy 12:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not more complicated at all. The country's name in Burmese has always been Myanmar, while its name in English has always been Burma. The Burmese government announced in 1989 that henceforth the country's English name would be Mynanmar. But that government has no more right to dictate English usage than the German government would have to demand that we call Germany Deutschland. English usage is a matter for English-speakers, not Burmese dictators. Adam 13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If Germany asked for those who speak English to call their country Deutschland I seriously doubt any english speaking country would simply say "no." This matter has a lot more to do with politics and the USA's relationship with Myanmar than who has the right to change the English name of their country. What should be considered is: if Myanmar doesn't have the right than what country does? Can the USA decide to call Myanmar something completely different then without their consent as well? You don't have to necessarily respect those in charge but they do have the necessary authority to specify what the name of their country is, in any language. Omishark 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The people of Burma have the right to call their country anything they like. If a democratically elected Burmese government announced that the country was now called Xakghwui, that is what I would call it. But the democratically elected leader of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi, calls the country Burma, and so long as she does so, so should everyone else. The gang of murderers currently in control of Burma have no right to decide anything. Adam 00:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Burmese passports say Myanmar on them. That little plaque at the United Nations General Assembly room says Myanmar on it. Just because certain individuals don't recognize the legitimacy of the military regime doesn't mean that Wikipedia should use the antiquated name for it. The fact that unelected dictator Marshal Phibulsongram changed the name of the Siam to Thailand didn't stop people from using Thailand. Patiwat 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That was an actual change to the name of the country. This is a question of whether to use the Burmese language name (Myanmar) or the English name (Burma). The equivalent would have been a military regime in Thailand, having annulled a democratic election and locked up the country's elected leader, demanding that the English-speaking world call Thailand "Muang Thai." Adam 03:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it should be standardized, so as to prevent confusion. Why not let Google decide? Search results for Myanmar almost double those of Burma. 70.41.230.90 23:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't about what the Burmese(or Myanmarians?) call their nation. both are correct, in their own way. so a map with either works. neither is really PC. currently the article on it is called Burma, therefore that example should be followed. Rds865 (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thailand's coat of arms

There is some controversy, started in the Bhumibol article about Thailand's coat of arms. The image shown at "Coat of arms of Thailand.png" is not the Thai coat of arms. It is just a generic garuda. The wings are wrong. The toes are wrong. The ornamentation is wrong. The face is wrong. I have deleted the image from the infobox until we can find a free license COA. Patiwat 18:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the COA parameters screws up the Country Infobox. Could somebody else who has better editing skills make this edit for me. Patiwat 18:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I temporarily put the old image in its place; should be at least better than a glaring red cross. Paul C 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

th:Image:Emblem thailand garuda1.gif seems to be the correct representation Patiwat is referring to. It's uploaded there under fair use now, but perhaps someone would like to look into the copyright status of the image? Paul C 09:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bangkok AID

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive is featuring the article Bangkok as a candidate for the Article improvement Drive. Vote if you wish! Felixboy 14:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC) aaa123.19.49.233 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of Thai government publications

Could somebody explain (or point me to some source documents) that explain what the copyright status of Thai government publications is? Specifically, are all Thai government documents by law considered to be in the public domain (like in the US)? Also, does this include contents on Thai government websites? Patiwat 01:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

According to wikisource:th:พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗#มาตรา ๗,

สิ่งต่อไปนี้ไม่ถือว่าเป็นงานอันมีลิขสิทธิ์ตามพระราชบัญญัตินี้
(๑)ข่าวประจำวัน และข้อเท็จจริงต่างๆ ที่มีลักษณะเป็นเพียงข่าวสารอันมิใช่งานในแผนกวรรณคดี แผนกวิทยาศาสตร์ หรือแผนกศิลปะ
(๒)รัฐธรรมนูญ และกฎหมาย
(๓)ระเบียบ ข้อบังคับ ประกาศ คำสั่ง คำชี้แจง และหนังสือโต้ตอบของกระทรวง ทบวง กรม หรือหน่วยงานอื่นใดของรัฐหรือของท้องถิ่น
(๔)คำพิพากษา คำสั่ง คำวินิจฉัย และรายงานของทางราชการ
(๕)คำแปลและการรวบรวมสิ่งต่าง ๆ ตาม (๑) ถึง (๔) ที่กระทรวง ทบวง กรม หรือหน่วยงานอื่นใดของรัฐหรือของท้องถิ่นจัดทำขึ้น

Paul C 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Great! Thanks a bunch. Although it doesn't specifically cover government websites, I think that point 3 can reasonably be interpretted to include websites. This has a big influence on how images from government websites can be used in Wikipedia. Patiwat 22:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been giving that law a read in some detail, and would appreciat it if you could tell me how article 7 does or does not conflict with article 14, which states

กระทรวง ทบวง กรม หรือหน่วยงานอื่นใดของรัฐหรือของท้องถิ่นย่อมมีลิขสิทธิ์ในงานที่ได้สร้างสรรค์ขึ้นโดยการจ้างหรือตามคำสั่งหรือในความควบคุมของตน เว้นแต่จะได้ตกลงกันไว้เป็นอย่างอื่นเป็นลายลักษณ์อักษร

This appears to grant any state agency the copyright over any of its creative work. Is there therefore a difference between "creative work" (งานที่ได้สร้างสรรค์ขึ้น) and publications (e.g., ระเบียบ ข้อบังคับ ประกาศ คำสั่ง คำชี้แจง และหนังสือโต้ตอบ, ระเบียบ ข้อบังคับ ประกาศ คำสั่ง คำชี้แจง และหนังสือโต้ตอบ, รัฐธรรมนูญ และกฎหมาย, etc.)? Patiwat 23:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Simplification of History

Thailand was never colonised by a European power. There are two main reasons for this. First, it was left as a buffer state between parts of Asia that were colonised by the French and the British.

• The Simplification of history continues, as a history buff I'm pretty sure the British and the French would have taken more out of Thailand, if they were able to.

Devraj Singh 11:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• They didn't do it because they were "nice." They did it because it was in both their mutual self interest. After the last French and British territorial grab in 1909, they decided to retain Siam as a buffer state because the rising threat of Germany in Europe led them to a mutual desire to settle their differences in the colonial world. If France and Britain had wanted to partition Siam at that time they could have done so very easily. Please spare us cheap sarcasm, it is very overused at Wikipedia, and wins no arguments. Adam 11:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I took out the Cheap Sarcasm bit. I am aware of the concession of the 3 Southern Provinces to the British in 1909, and the loss of the land east of the Mekong to the French from 1893-1907. I am also quite aware of the history of Europe prior to world war I. Thought of the Berlin-Baghdad railway must have been quite unnerving for the British and the French to say the least. By the way What reference do you have to your claim? If France and Britain had wanted to partition Siam at that time they could have done so very easily. The simplification was bad enough in my opinion, which was the reason why I raised the issue, and now this.Devraj Singh 11:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"In the first decade of the 20th century, conditions were much improved for a final settlement with Britain and France... Anglo-French rivalry had abated with the exhaustion of new opportunities, the necessity of concentrating on current possessions, and the increasing dangers of the situation in Europe." (David K Wyatt, Thailand: a Short History, 190)

Before World War I Britain and France were two of the world's leading military powers, and Britain was the world's leading naval power. Siam was a semi-feudal third-world comic-opera kingdom (no offence). The French alone defeated them with little difficulty in 1893. If the two powers had decided to partition Siam, they could have done so in a few months. Adam 12:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly the British and the French were never able to do so, so the issue (of the sentence I objected) is based on an 'If' scenario written by a non-Thai. Ok, well that pretty much explains it. 'If'.

As I said earlier, I am quite aware of the situation in Europe or conditions of European armies prior to the advent of WWI. However, I also feel that most Thais would find your (further) simplification of siam as a 'semi-feudal third-world comic-opera kingdom' quite offensive. Not so much the 'Semi-feudal' bit or the 'thirdworld' bit (nothing wrong with that, in my opinion), but the 'Comic-opera Kingdom' bit (so much with sparing Cheap Sarcasms in wikipedia..). Seems that I sense some Eurocentrism here.Devraj Singh 13:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is untrue that they were "never able to do so." They never tried to do so, for reasons I have explained and given a source for, as requested.
• 19th century Siam has been the subject of a comic opera (The King and I), as I'm sure you know.
• As for Eurocentrism, it was a Eurocentric era - why else is Chulalongkorn a national hero for Europeanising Siam as fast as he could? Adam 13:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

They were never able to do so because they never tried to do so, they never tried to do so because they were never able to do so, both are equally true in my opinion. As you said, in those days modernization meant westernization, until recently it was either capitalism or socialism, Left or Right, democracy or feudalism, today we are in a post-modern age and the boundaries are startinig to disappear. In many ways it is still a eurocentrist era, albeit Neo-liberalism has passed its peak (how much worst could it get for the world’s poor..).

For any Ruler in any age, the greatest honour is to follow one’s duty. King, Rama V and his predecessors are greatly honoured not only for their ability to uphold the nation’s sovereignty in the age of Colonialism but also for the upholding of Dharma in accordance to Thai belief.

I actually heard about this (buffer state) theory from my history teacher many years back. I objected to it back then, and I felt inclined to do so again today. Therefore from a historian’s (realpolitik?) perspective I can see where you are coming from. However, it may seem less biased if there were some sort of official consensus/document between (or by)the British and the French to back up this claim, (rather than a general perception based on a short history of Thailand text). Since there is none, I still feel that this view is being imposed upon Thailand by eurocentrist history, I have thus made small changes in the section, from:

First, it was left as a buffer state between parts of Asia that were colonised by the French and the British. Second, Thailand had a series of very able rulers in the 1800s.

To:

First, Thailand had a series of very able rulers in the 1800s. Secondly, it was able to exploit the tension and rivalry between the French and the British and thus remained as a buffer state between parts of S.E.Asia that were colonised by the two colonial powers.

Regards, Devraj Singh 19:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't for a moment dispute that Siam had two very able rulers in Rama IV and V. That is also the view of Wyatt, whom I cited above. (See his essay "King Chulalongkorn the Great: Founder of Modern Thailand" in his Sudies in Thai History, 273). But as he makes clear, the main evidence of their ability was their perception that Siam must westernise as rapidly as possible it was to avoid the fate of the Vietnamese states and Burma, which had historically been stronger military powers than Siam. The Japanese were the only other Asian state to grasp this fact in time. I don't think it is correct to say that Rama V was able to "exploit the tension and rivalry between the French and the British" - he certainly tried to, but the British were no help to him at all when the French made their demands in 1893. What led to the final settlement in 1909 was not Rama V's diplomatic skills, but the desire of Britain and France to settle their differences in the region and concentrate on European affairs. Siam was the fortunate beneficiary of this, and would have been so even if its king was a complete blockhead. Adam 06:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Let any unbiased historian decide for himself whether Siam was a mere beneficiary of this or the extent of the King's role in ensuring the nation's sovereignty, regards Devraj Singh 08:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

I'm sure Britian didn't want to share a border with Thailand. As mentioned above, it functioned as a buffer state betweeen British Burma and French IndoChina. King Monkut saw what happened to Myanmar before it got annexed by Britian(they made the British ambassador bow to the King and do all sorts of funny things), read up on the West and allowed the West to come and negotiate a trade treaty. The British accepted because Thailand is rich in teak, a strong wood, and also they did not want to have any border disputes with the French. If they had had a border dispute there, tensions would rise, and that might lead to a face off. The European's purpose of colonising was to exploit the natural resources of SouthEast Asia, which were rich in teak and land and so on. But if they had a war with each other, their economy would suffer(look at what happened to Queen Elizabeth I's wealth when Britian went into World War I).

But if the British or the French wanted to, I'm sure they pretty much could. Joshywawa (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that my English skill is not good.
Actually, the French did. In 1842, the French troops sent fleet to the front of the French Embassy in Chao Praya River, but King Rama V used principle of lost portion better than lost all. Therefore, he surrendered and paid a lot of compensated to the French.

(This call วิกฤตการณ์ ร.ศ. ๑๑๒--may be "112nd Bangkok year crisis" make Thai people hated the French. Before world war II, Thai knew that French army in Laos Indochina had to come back to protected the home, so we attacked French troop in Indochina--Laos, Cambodia. Then we built the Victory Monument in the Bangkok.)

Visarute (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Anarchy

Has the situation in Thailand really deteriorated so significantly that the countries government can be described as Anarchy. I would hope that Thailand is not in the same situation as anarchical Somalia. Someone with more enlightment on the subject could determine whether Anarchy is the best description of Thailand's current government situation. It currently describes it as such in the infobox. Basser g 17:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the word Anarchy anywhere in the infobox. Zazaban 22:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Check: 2006 Thailand coup, Devraj Singh 08:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

Anarchy means two things: the political ideaology, and a situation of chaos. The latter may likely, but the first is not. Therefore, the government cannot be called an Anarchy - but rather a junta or still a democracy - but you can say the political situation is in anarchy. However, I wish to further add that there is no chaos currently occuring within Thailand apart from the brief coup and even Thaksin hasn't fought back. So, no. No anarchy occuring within Thailand either. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 14:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

THE CAPITAL?

Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Ayuthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Piman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanukam Prasit1?not bankok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.27.93.186 (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops

Sorry for the double popups revert, I'm busy reverting an IP who is spamming links to his forum, and I'm becoming a bot... Yandman 12:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Japan?

Thailand's origin is traditionally tied to the short-lived kingdom of Sukhothai founded in 1238, after which the larger kingdom of Ayutthaya was established in the mid-14th century. Thai culture was greatly influenced by Cambodia, Japan and India.

Most people know that much of Thailand's culture and power in S.E. Asia was inherited through Cambodia along with much influence of India and China. So the above sentence must have been some kind of Joke. There was quite a lively Japanese community in Siam during the Ayutthaya period, remains of the Japanese quarters is still to be found amidst the monuments of Ayutthaya. Ayutthaya Kings also enjoyed the employment of Japanse mercenaries in their armies, particularly after the end of the civil war period in Japan at the end of the 16th century, check:[[6]].

For this reason, I have obviously changed the sentence to:

The origin of the Siam/Thailand is traditionally tied to the short-lived kingdom of Sukhothai founded in 1238 after which the larger kingdom of Ayutthaya was established in the mid-14th century. Thai culture was greatly influenced by Cambodia, China and India, although various indegenous cultures have existed in the area since the the early bronze age from the time of Ban Chiang (4420 BC-3400 BC) onwards.

-Devraj Singh

The article on Ban Chiang says that the original dates for that culture were estimated at 4420 BC - 3400 BC (based on thermoluminescence), but that radiocarbon dating revised the estimates to around 2100 BC. So, I think we should drop the dates and just say that indigenous cultures have existed since the time of Ban Chiang. I'm not an expert. I just noticed the discrepancy when I read the two articles. Does someone else have an opinion?

--Wechselstrom 05:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the dates should be dropped for now, until more substantial info is available in the Ban Chiang article.Maharaj Devraj 08:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Completely unsourced and uncited

This article is without sources and is not cited.—Who123 12:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical context after the coup

This article is one of several articles that will go through a contextual crisis in the aftermath of the 2006 Thailand coup. The junta has promised a new Constitution, which implies a different form of government with different institutions. If you take the junta's word for it, the deficiencies of the 1997 People's Constitution (No. XVI) were so significant that major changes will need to occur in Constitution XVII.

With that being said, after Constitution XVII comes out, should this article still retain any information about the forms and institutions of the government based on the 1997 Constitution? If not, should the content just be deleted? Or should it be moved to a different article? Or should information about the Constitution XVI, XV, XIV, ... governments be kept in this article?

p.s., These questions also apply for the Politics of Thailand article, the List of political parties in Thailand article, the National Assembly of Thailand article, and a couple of others as well. Patiwat 02:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Put the old info in a section about recent history.

Thai characters prevent line wrapping

In my browser, Thai characters prevent lines from wrapping when they are rendered. The browser is Firefox 1.5.0.3 (renderer Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.3) Gecko/20060523 Ubuntu/dapper Firefox/1.5.0.3). I do not have access to other renderers to try this with. The wrapping is prevented both in view mdoe and in edit mode. It results in lines about 10 pages long. Thai words also break onto a new line after a preceding parenthesis that stays on the preceding line. It can be fixed temporarily by manually breaking the line after a thai word and joining it back, but when it is re-rendered, it is again not wrapped. Apparently, this is known to the Mozilla team: http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.8b1/known-issues-int.html -Pgan002 22:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation: Narai Ratcha Niwet?

Does anybody know, how to pronounce the Name of the Temple "Narai Ratcha Niwet"? Or do you know where I can find help on that matter? I'm writing a TV-Text on that matter and need to be able to tell the narrator how to pronounce it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kommitanz (talk • contribs) 11:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

WWII Fighting with Japan and France

I think some text should be added regarding Thailand's brief wars with French forces in Indochina, and with Thailand's usual ally the Japanese. I'm going to dig up a little on that subject and see if I can put together something worthwhile. Boris B 07:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't realize there was a separate "History of Thailand (1932-1973)" article. Boris B 08:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

maps

I came looking for a map of thailand I can download and use with my pocketpc, but found no relevant. can anyone help?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.187.241 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Insulting the king

My uncle goes to Thailand frequently, and while he says that insulting the king is extremely dangerous, it is not illegal per se. Most of the censorship is carried out personally by newspapers, publishing houses, etc. A citation would be nice.

Your uncle is wrong. There is a law about that. --84.142.170.246 21:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

See also the wikipedia article lèse majesté that confirms the illegality in Thailand. You may also do a simple Google search on "lese majeste thailand" to find many recent accounts of prosecution. −Woodstone 21:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Trying to prove the validity of one wikipedia article with another is not a very good idea. Nevertheless, apparently you're right. I apologize.Lehi 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of template in See Also

The template Thailand topics is now used for "see also." This is far more efficient than the typical plain list. There are 50-70 links using much smaller space. If you'd like to add more see also, you will have to add in the template, not in the article. The template, however, might look complicated, so if you don't know much about the template format, it's better to ask someone else to add it for you. Note that this template is also used for the Thailand portal --Melanochromis 20:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

where is the "Contents" summary on this page?

How come this article does not have a "Contents" list? Where does it go? --Zack2007 07:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's gone because the new included Portal:Thailand topics adds a __NOTOC__ via the Portal:Thailand/box-header. I will try to fix it... andy 12:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

September 2006 coup d'état is getting way too long

This is just a subtopic but it's already longer than many other topics. Plus, there's also a main article for this topic too. --Melanochromis 09:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's also biased. Not saying it is wrong. But it is biased. 210.10.221.160 15:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Tommy.

I'd simply delete most parts of this subsection, it's nonsense to have more on this single coup, more than on the last 500 years of history. A single paragraph should be more than enough for this overview article - all the 30 earlier coups and the much more notable 6 October 1976 Massacre or Black May are covered by a single sentence within the history section. If noone complains I'll be bold soon and cut that subsection to a reasonable size... andy 22:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've converted it into a short paragraph. The removed contents can be seen here. Maybe someone might want to transfer it to the 2006 Thai coup d'état article. --Melanochromis 21:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Southeastern Asia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southeastern Asia whose scope would include Thailand. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea. I already left my comments on the proposal page. Good luck !! --Melanochromis 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

yea this fits for a wiki project do it it'd be good Tu-49 03:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thailand was a constitutional monarchy?

Thailand was a constitutional monarchy until the sudden coup on September 19, 2006.

Isn't it still a constitutional monarchy? Why? The infobox states that the current government type of Thailand is military dictatorship under constitutional monarchy. I am sure that Thailand is not considered absolute monarchy, and the military dictatorship does not rule out the problability of constitutional monarchy, as stated here. Can someone check this? I don't know how to fix it, though. kinkku ananas ^(talk) 11:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with kinkku ananas ^(talk) on this matter. Maharaj Devraj 08:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

From 19 September 2006 to 1 October 2006, Thailand did not have a constitution. The very first act of the 19 September rebels was to abrogate the constitution. Therefore, for that period of time, Thailand was not a constitutional monarchy. Patiwat 07:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is true, thanks to Patiwat for clearing it up for us. Hope all will go well after the elections in December. Maharaj Devraj 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Division between Politics and Government

The article currently contains one section on Government and another section on Politics. The Government section talks about the popularity of the King and the details of the 2006 coup. The Politics section mentions the structure of government under the 1997 constitution. No mention of the structure of government prior to 1997. No mention of the ban on political activities after the 2006 coup. Both sections need a big re-write. Patiwat 08:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have merged the two sections, provided numerous references, gave some historical context, and described the forms of government under the 1997 Constitution (1997-2006) and current Constitution. Patiwat 09:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I just put NPOV in this article because it not neutral. It need to be clean up please. Jet123 23:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Jet123, can you be more specific about what portion(s) of the article you believe are not neutral? Other than the section on the Coup, the article appears to me to be factually neutral and objectively encyclopedic. - Thaimoss 00:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Press freedom

Am I the only person put off by the last graf under Culture ("Thai culture has been greatly shaped in recent years by its vibrant and free press."), which happens to be just above the rankings section that lists the country as 122nd out of 167 in press freedom by Reporters without borders? (Added by 68.228.8.68 on March 25, 2007, 04:22)

Agree with your impression of the phrase "vibrant and free" in light of the nearby comment, which is pretty hard to interpret that same way. However, that organization is probably not "the" authority on press and/or press freedom, just one voice. Have toned down a bit, focusing on breadth of market of newsprint. - Thaimoss 15:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of protection from Thailand ?

Tizio, Respect the DumbBOT, and clearly see the edit comment "removing a protection template from a non-protected page" but I think there is a disconnect. I requested that the page be protected from non-registered edits, as a result of vandalism. The protection was implemented (although maybe not correctly, from your BOT response). The vandalism on this page all but stopped. So, this was all good, and at least according to the process.

Then, DumbBOT came in and removed that protection template, and here is the result, within hours:

16:47 Thailand‎ (14 changes) . . (-588) . . (Page history) [66.141.178.154‎; Zack2007‎; Gtg204y‎; Prolog‎; 59.100.255.60‎ (2×); 68.223.108.85‎ (2×); Houserat125‎ (3×); 217.60.120.11‎ (3×)]

           16:47 (cur; last) . . (-270) . . 66.141.178.154 (Talk)
           16:15 (cur; last) . . (+30) . . 68.223.108.85 (Talk) (→Etmology)
           16:14 (cur; last) . . (-348) . . 68.223.108.85 (Talk) (→Etmology)
       m   10:22 (cur; last) . . (+987) . . Gtg204y (Talk | contribs) (rvv)
           10:22 (cur; last) . . (-987) . . 217.60.120.11 (Talk) (→YouTube Controversy)
       m   10:20 (cur; last) . . (-475) . . Prolog (Talk | contribs) (Reverted 2 edits by 217.60.120.11 to last revision by Zack2007. (TW))
           10:20 (cur; last) . . (-14) . . 217.60.120.11 (Talk) (→Headline text)
           10:19 (cur; last) . . (+489) . . 217.60.120.11 (Talk) (→Demographics)
       m   10:02 (cur; last) . . (-65) . . Zack2007 (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 122231834 by Houserat125 (talk))
           09:57 (cur; last) . . (+65) . . Houserat125 (Talk | contribs) (→History)
           09:47 (cur; last) . . (-13) . . Houserat125 (Talk | contribs) (→History)
           09:47 (cur; last) . . (+12) . . Houserat125 (Talk | contribs) (→History)
           07:19 (cur; last) . . (-60) . . 59.100.255.60 (Talk)
           07:17 (cur; last) . . (+61) . . 59.100.255.60 (Talk)
        b  05:58 (cur; last) . . (-22) . . DumbBOT (Talk | contribs) (removing a protection template from a non-protected page)

What was wrong with the protection template? Can you undo that BOT "fix" while we work to get that protection done the "right" way? The protection was requested, and implemented, and is legit, we just need to get it set up right (I guess) - Thaimoss 22:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC) (talk)

I have removed the protection template, but the page was already unprotected. See User_talk:DumbBOT#Q&A about unprotection for details. Tizio 13:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it doesn't look like a huge amount of vandalism. If it increases, we may semi-protect the article again. Tizio 13:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

YouTube

This is a minor event in comparison with the history of a nation, so it certainly does not deserve to be mentioned in the main article of the involved nation. It's like I write about the close-down of Napster on the United States article. I have moved it to Media of Thailand, not even sure its sufficiently significant there`. Tizio 13:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My immediate reaction was to disagree. But upon further reflection, I see some merits in Tizio's example of Napster of writing about "the close-down of Napster on the United States article" with one exception. In this case here, we are not dealing with private disputes between private corporations. The YouTube shutdown was initiated by the Thai government, so I maintain that the YouTube controversial should be part of Thailand "somewhere" and not just in the Media of Thailand section. So my suggestion is this - would a brief text and a link from Politics of Thailand to Media of Thailand make sense and work? Just my 2 cents. – Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 23:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Media of Thailand is an article about Thailand, so I don't know why that could not be the somewhere where this event is mentioned; IMO that's the most reasonable place where one would expect to find Internet-related events concerning Thailand. On the contrary, this articles contains the more significant facts about the nation, and mentioning the YouTube event here is like attributing it the same importance. A mention from Politics of Thailand might be worth a try, however. Tizio 13:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Government

Shouldn't the government be "in transition (currently military junta)"? QZXA2 23:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

-- No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.64.26.46 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

really? this is one of the major weaknesses of Wikipedia. Obviously, listing Thailand as a constitutional monarchy/parliamentary democracy lends a legitimacy to the government that it doesn't deserve. And I am certain there are plenty in the Thai military/royal family that want it to appear legitimate. an interim constitution enforced by a military junta, that has outlawed the party that won an election... hardly legitimate. samnyasa , 15 may 2007 (UTC) —Preceding comment was added at 03:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

lacks historical stuff!!

hey it lacks the thai invasion of french indochina episode resulting in the vichy french-thai conflict of 1941 and the involvement of the thai along the french against the communist viet minh in the 1st indochinese war. there were thai infantery and airborne thai battalions in the french union figfhters at dien bien phu 1954. Shame On You 21:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Economy and Long Stay Foreign Residents

In the section about economy, the following line stands out:

"Long stay foreign residents also contribute heavily to GDP."

Without a source to confirm this, this line really should be removed from the article. I don't believe it is accurate.(124.120.111.19 06:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinobert06 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

missing text between first paragraphs?

Between the first two paragraphs, there appears to be information missing. The first paragraph is about the country's name, which was Siam until 1939, and then changed several times, the last time on May 11, 1949. However, the next paragraph starts with "A century later, Sukhothai's power was overshadowed by the larger Siamese kingdom of Ayutthaya, established in the mid-14th century", which seems totally out of context, since the first paragraph is only about events in the 20th century. 202.154.150.222 08:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, the first paragraph of the history section was lost in one of the vandalism edits. Thanks for spotting it. andy 09:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thai history

both Ayutthaya and Ayuthaya appear here but i'm not sure if both are right because Ayudhaya is also widely used to call the same kingdom. moreover, where is Dhavaravati, Srivijaya and Lanna?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.150.193.60 (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I reverted the edits from the past few days that exemplify Thanksin's wrongdoings and overuse filler words to glorify the junta. If some editors are not appeased, the Government entry in the main box may be changed from "Military Junta" to "Military Junta, planned to re-establish Democracy" or something along those lines. I don't care about the wording, but I do believe that Thailand is still under military rule. Wikky Horse 03:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably related with this, but from the other side - there's an anonymous user who repeatedly adds "under Royal Patronage" to the "Military Junta" in the infobox. To me the only reason to add it is to discredit the King as being behind the coup and supporting a non-democratic government. Any Thai government must get formal acceptance by the King, thus it is not necessary to add this into the infobox (or do we add it for United Kingdom, where the Queen also has this formal right). andy 16:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

English as language?

I strongly doubt English should be listed in the infobox. It is not more common in Thailand than in other non-English countries to find someone speaking a reasonable English, as English is teached every child in school. However outside Bangkok and the other tourist areas one would have a lot of difficulty to find anyone able to speak an understandable English, much more than e.g. in rural Germany or Netherlands. But noone would think of adding English in the infobox for these countries. If any additional language to Thai should be added, Lao, Chinese, Khmer, Yawi and other minority group languages would be more appropiate. I have no idea why the CIA lists it as a second language, but do we have to use the CIA factbook as the only and authorative source? andy 19:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The item in the Demographics box is labeled as "Official languages", and because English is not used in official documents or recognized as an official language by Thailand, I removed it. Wikky Horse 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Flag - color is poor

The image of the Thai flag at the head of the article has a central band that is the wrong color. The true color is a much brighter blue. There's a photo of a Thai flag at http://www.kohsamui.org/thailand-flag.jpg, which shows its correct color. I don't have a suitable high-res image to replace the current one with - does anyone have one? Oscroft 19:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

However in the book referenced in Flag of Thailand it is printed in a rather dark blue, not far from the one in the SVG in this article. Sadly I don't know if/how the colors are officially defined in the Thai law in a normalized color space, or if it just says "blue". andy 20:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting book reference, but I have to say I think it has got it wrong. I don't know if there is a specification in Thai law - I just know what the Thai flag looks like in practice (I live there about half the year) and it is never that dark blue colour. Oscroft —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

For further information, I have found several more web sources showing the correct color, http://www.worldflags101.com/t/thailand-flag.aspx, http://www.thailandlife.com/flag.html (weird shape, but a good color), http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Stu/ckunjara/, and http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/th.html. It is worth noting that that last page says "The reasons for the suggested change were that blue was the colour of the King and the red/white/blue-coloured flag, which was similar to the national flags of the Allies, would remind Thailand of its participation in World War I.", so the blue should be similar to the blue of the flags of the allies in WW1. I'll see if I can produce better versions of the images currently in use on the relevant wiki pages when I have time. Oscroft 07:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You might like to see Commons:Image talk:Flag of Thailand.svg. Commons:User:Plenz once uploaded another version with a brighter blue, but I thought it was too bright and the red was still too dark, and reverted it. Most of your non-photograph examples all have too bright reds to me. Thai law only specifies that the colours are red, white and dark blue, so there isn't really any standard. I'm for using the same colours as those specified for the Union Flag or the Flag of France, but even the latter's image on Commons is incorrect, and I know absolutely nothing about SVGs. Paul_012 ^(talk) 12:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

This paragraph is messed up really bad. Whoever fixes this should consider that Thai dictionaries define Thai TH:

ไทย (pronounced ไท) n. adj.free, freedom-loving; Thai, pertaining to the Thai or Thailand; a Thaiman, a Thailander; the Thai language S. อิสระ ; สยาม

เป็นไทยแก่ตัว vi.to be free, to be independent ไทยทาน (pronounced ไทยะทาน) n.(P) offerings, gifts, charity

ไท n.ไท้ n.(P) a lord, a boss เป็นไท vi.to be lord, to be boss S. ใหญ่

The expression ไทยไท is not to be found, but I've been told it means "We Thai", or the ungrammatical but more expressive, "us Thai".

Looking up free yields ( ฟรี ) adj. adv. vt. freely ( ฟรี - ลิ ) adv. freedom ( ฟรี - ดัม ) n. 1. อิสระ , อิสรภาพ , มีอิสระ , เสรีภาพ , เป็น ไทย , ปล่อย ให้ เป็นไท ย แก่ตัว , สิทธิ เข้าออก ได้ โดยอิสระ 2. ตาม สมัครใจ , ไม่มี มี ข้อจำกัด , สาธารณะ , ไม่ หวงห้าม , ไม่มี กฎเกณฑ์ 3. สนุกสนาน , สำมะเลเทเมา , ไม่มี พิธีรีตอง 4. ทะลึ่ง , ล่วงเกิน , ถือวิสาสะ , ถือวิสาสะ หยิบ เอา 5. โลน , ( พูดจา ) เปิดเผย , ไม่ ปิดบัง , พล่อย , ฟุ่มเฟือย , ไม่อั้น 6. สะดวก , คล่องแคล่ว , ( ไหล ) พลั่ง 7. ( เชือก ) แกว่ง ไปมา , ไม่ ผูก กับ สิ่งใด 8. ว่าง , เปล่า 9. ไม่ต้อง เสีย ค่า เข้า , ไม่ต้อง เสียค่าเช่า , ไม่ เก็บ ค่าธรรมเนียม , ไม่ต้อง เสียภาษี 10. ปราศจาก , เปลื้อง , ปลด , ปลอด , แก้ , พ้น

สยาม (สะหฺยาม) n. Siam, old name of Thailand สยามเทวาธิราช (สะหฺยามเทวาทิราด) n.The guardian spirit of Thailand

User:Panabol in his Initial states of Thailand gives alternate spellings of Siam as Sama / Sayam / Assam / Shan / Xian. I've stumbled over sources that said Siam meant Colored in a Burman language, and another that said Siam meant earth mixed with water, i.e., Black Earth, but I can't find them write now. Pawyilee 16:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of adding the colloquial names of Thailand, ประเทศไทย and เมืองไทย, to the Etymology section. This is how Thais most commonly refer to their country, so we want the casual Wikipedian to know that there are terms to use other than ราชอาณาจักรไทย. The terms ประเทศ and เมือง mean "country" or "land", so the combination ประเทศไทย or เมืองไทย means Land of Thai, or Thailand. If this info is added, the Etymology section may also need to be reworded as just "Name" or "Country Name". Would this addition to the article add confusion and clutter or would it be worth its space? Wikky Horse 22:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

ราชอาณาจักร is Thai for empire, so ราชอาณาจักรไทย really means The Thai Empire'. Pawyilee 01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually no. ราชอาณาจักร translates as kingdom. Empire is จักรวรรดิ

I was going to say I didn't see why we needed an etymology section at the beginning of the article, but it seems most other country articles do have such sections, so I'm not going to dispute its existence. However, unless there is actually something to say about the names apart from the dates they came to use, it probably would suffice to mention the country's names in the history section rather than dedicating a whole one-paragraph section. Paul_012 ^(talk) 19:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Disproportionate amount of Jewish history

User:TShilo12 recently added content regarding Jewish history in Thailand, which seems rather disproportionate given the fewer than 1,000 Jewish population. Perhaps it should be moved to another article, and half a sentence here would suffice. Paul_012 ^(talk) 12:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:TShilo12 is not inclined to disagree. However, the Demographics of Thailand article doesn't seem like it fits any better there, and the History of the Jews in Thailand or Jews and Judaism in Thailand article seems to have yet to be written. Perhaps User:IZAK has some valuable insight on what might go into such an article. Tomer^talk 22:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I believe I've addressed the "problem". Commentary welcomed. Tomer^talk 09:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm racial slur?

Acentury later chinese gooks came when Sukhothai's power was overshadowed by the larger Siamese kingdom of Ayutthaya, established in the mid-14th century.

I'm pretty sure that this word only has one meaning and it derogatory. I'd delete it but I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.228.193 (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It was done here and undone here. You can remove it by clicking the [edit this page] tab on top of the article. Cheers, Tomer^talk 02:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of "Siam"

What is the etymology of the word "Siam"? It does not seem to be given here, but should be, as "Siam" redirects to Thailand. Badagnani 06:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As noted above under Etymology, the etymology of the word "Siam" is unknown. If you search hard enough, you may encounter speculation that it from Burmese, or Mon, for 'colored', in the sense of 'black', in the sense of 'black earth', but there is no scholarly consensus. Pawyilee 07:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--like Kemet for Ancient Egypt. One editor believes it may be related to "Shan" and "Assam," i.e. an autocthonous Tai word. Badagnani 08:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The article fails to mention the reason of the name-change. What was wrong with the name Siam? Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Thailand/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Please update the page about politics of Thailand

Last edited at 03:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)