Talk:History of Thailand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Southeast Asia (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Thailand (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

I don't think it's a good idea to merge all of the thai history into one article. I would prefer that article to give a rough overview, while the list of kings as well as the more detailed history should go into Ayutthaya kingdom and Sukhothai kingdom - that's why those article were already created in that style. Somewhat similar to how it is arranged in History of Brazil. At the moment the amount of text is around my threshold when splitting is a good idea, it is nearly too long for a single article already, and there is still a lot of topics left uncovered. andy 16:40, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree. People come to encyclopaedias expecting to find narrative history. If the article gets too big I will split it in the middle, that is chronologically, as is done at History of Australia and History of Greece, for example. I agree that the list of Kings should be sent off to List of kings of Siam and Thailand or something. Let me finish the rewrite and then we can discuss the format. Adam 03:17, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
We have already List of Kings of Thailand. andy 07:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
History of Australia basically follows the usual format, which andy suggested. There are only two parts because Austrailia's history is brief, but there are main articles on the periods, with summaries (albeit in that case very brief) on the main page. Since we already have articles on each of the main periods, that seems to me the way to go. Markalexander100 05:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, no. History of Australia is a straightforward narrative article, split in half because it is too long. It does not have spin-off articles dealing with particular periods as the Ayutthaya and Sukhothai articles did. That is what I am doing with History of Thailand. Let me finish the rewrite and then we can discuss the format. Adam 05:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It does have spin-off articles: they are for Australia in the periods before and after de facto independence. The only difference is that Thailand has more than two logical divisions. One linear history is not an option, because we need, have and will keep the articles on each individual period.Markalexander100 05:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's a completely circular argument. It says we have to have them because we have them. Why do we need them? History of Australia does not have spin-off articles. (I wrote a lot of it so I know). It is one narrative, split into two articles at 1901 only because the file was too long. History of Greece is divided into five sequential articles in the same way. This article by the time I finish will probably be two or three articles, but it will be one narrative. The Ayutthaya and Sukhothai articles will then be redundant. If you won't let me redirect them I'm not going to argue with you about it, but they will just duplicate what will be in the main article. Adam 07:29, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If I check a encyclopedia for a topic and find a many page long narrative which goes into many details I won't read it fully for sure, I would get scared away by to many contents. IMHO we need two things - a brief overview which mentions all the main things on Thai history (i.e. this page) - as well as detailled articles on the various parts of the history. As Thailand isn't just a linear follow-up Sukhothai-Ayutthaya-Rattanakosin, but the various parts of the country have sometime rather distinct history (that's why Mark already split of the History of Isan, or we have an article on Lannathai), the same can be done for Sukhothai and Ayutthaya. I doubt that all the single wars between Burma and Ayutthaya would be appropiate for an overview article, yet in a detailed Ayutthaya article they would have their space. As I said above - the current amount of text is at the threshold were I would prefer the splitting, we can also leave it in one article for the time being, and split it again later. andy 07:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Consider it this way: we should, somewhere, have a reasonably short account of all Thai history (<30k). That summary can only go here. Detail can then go in the histories of the various kingdoms, periods, regions and so on, as it does now. If you think the complete history of everything according to Dr Adam must go somewhere, you could make a Complete History of Thailand Part 1, Part 2 and so on separate from the existing structure. That then leaves History of Thailand free for a summary and links to all the Thai history pages. It's pig-ugly, but at least we won't be butting heads. How about it? Markalexander100 08:29, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well my main interest is in writing, so I will just write the article and others can format it as they like. Adam 08:08, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Deal. Let me know when you're done. Markalexander100 08:21, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Since this has been dragging on for a couple of weeks now, I've split off the monolith (pre and post 1768), which seemed as good a place as any) which can continue to be worked on there. Markalexander100 08:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't History of Thailand (overview) belong here? --Jiang 11:44, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't really belong anywhere. It's an alternative version of this page which doesn't link to articles Adam finds objectionable. Markalexander100 00:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The current History of Thailand article is full of errors and irrelevancies, but I am not allowed to edit it, so I created an alternative to it to link from my User page. Adam 01:26, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good job, Adam. But your work seems to have several mistakes and too short as a encyclopedic artcle. This areticle must be on the page, Kingdom of Thailand. How do you think? --Ramendra 20:37, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"After the end of the absolute monarchy in 1932, Thailand endured sixty years of almost permanent military rule before the establishment of a democratic system." or "Military rule (1932 - 1973) Democracy (1973 - present)" - which is it forty one years or sixty years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.100 (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Division of article[edit]

The current division into two is completely unacceptable: I didn't even notice the little links to the main content the first time I read the article! I agree with Mark, Andy and others that the article should be split off into sections by logical era, so that the main headings in the "History of Thailand" article can be turned into links to detailed content. Jpatokal 07:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've redirected History of Thailand before 1768, having incorporated its content into the more specific articles. The post-1768 article will need a bit more disentangling, and probably division to match the headings on this page. Markalexander100 02:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I split History of Thailand since 1768 into three articles: History of Thailand (1768-1932) for the "Bangkok period" under the rule of the Rama dynasty, History of Thailand (1932-1973) for the period of military rule between the 1932 and 1973 revolutions, and History of Thailand since 1973 for the modern history. I also added a navigation box to the articles in the series. Gdr 08:46, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Why do all the articles referring to Thailand stick to the fallacy that "it was the only SEA country never colonised by a European power"? Siam *had* to renounce by treaty to all the lands East to the Mekong river (Laos) as a result of French demands/threats. The Lao kingdoms were as much "Thailand" as any other part of the country at the time, and were not for the "European disruption" today we would be talking about a bigger Thailand including Laos, plus probably the Tai provinces of Burma and the Western parts of Cambodja.

Not to mention the Japanese occupation/collaboration era. Maybe the Japanese were not "European", but they were a definitely imperialistic foreign power.

I think helping sustain the chauvinistic Thai view of history doesnt do any good, especially when its does nothing but feed an annoying and mostly dangerous superiority attitude of Thai people towards their not so lucky neighbours. 80.34.157.243 08:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Che

Tonburi and Bangkok should be seperated[edit]

Thonburi and Bangkok are different kingdoms and we, Thais, divide the periods into four. I think that yuo should seperate them and put more details to it.

(Please sign your name using four tildes after posting.) Okay, yes, I'm another Thai here. We split it into four, but Thonburi is not as dominant as others. I mean, only 15 years (2310 B.E. to 2325 B.E.) of existence before the capital was moved to Bangkok. It might not be a major subject for foreigners, so I think... maybe, use a lesser heading for it instead?Thaimodz 15:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Map[edit]

Some sort of geographical map would go well at the top of this page. Robogymnast 14:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading[edit]

I'm sorry but the first two paragraphs will confuse people. You can't say Thailand's history begins with China and then say it began with Indianized kingdoms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.203.15 (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirects[edit]

At the top of the page, it clearly says 'Siam redirects here.' It doesn't. I did once edit that page such that it did, and it was rather quickly reverted back. Then, I thought to change the tag at the top of this article instead, since it was wrong, and that was changed back too. What is going on, or is it just my computer that follows this link differently? 148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"Siamese" history[edit]

I stuck historical references to "Siamese" in between Sukhothai-Lanna and Ayutthaya, because by all accounts it was at the beginning of Portugese contact with Ayutthaya in 1511 that what had been a derogatory epithet for Tai people began to be used as a country designation, though it wasn't firmly established until the time of extensive European contact towards the end of the 19th century. This placement is only tentative, until someone has a better idea. Wherever it lands, it may be linked to Siam and Siamese disambiguation pages as See History_of_Thailand#Siamese. --Pawyilee (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved it into the lede , so it appears directly after "Siam redirects here"> --Pawyilee (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:LEAD. The lead should summarise the article; information should be in a distinct section. The hatnote is unrelated to the text of the article. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That origin of the name from "brown people" thing really needs better sourcing, I'm getting the Chinese "Sien" and a lot of unknowns, and suspect this is a modern and meant to be derogatory "fact". Hard to believe the king would name his kingdom after such a usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.20.0.136 (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Graphic[edit]

GoogleBooks graph of Siam vs. Thailand usage in English-language books --Pawyilee (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Disappointingly focused on politics[edit]

I hoped to learn more about the history of Thailand here, but instead find what is largely a list of political succession. It's so normative: like histories of the USA which focus solely on its presidencies, or histories of Britain that focus on its royals. Where is the people's history of Thailand? What of its farmers and blacksmiths, its monks and teachers, its rituals and social movements? I hope that future editors can help to enrich this history. --Smilo Don (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Taksin?[edit]

"The King Taksin ordained as a monk and ventured into the forest and never to be seen again" Taksins own article claims that he was executed by traditional means and beheaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taksin#Final_years_and_death which is the same that the german WIKI has about him. Taksin ordaining as a monk and vanishing into the forest never to be seen again sounds more like the legend of Barbarossa ;-) ConjurerDragon (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Brown[edit]

"The oldest known mention of their existence in the region by the exonym Siamese is in a 12th-century A.D. inscription at the Khmer temple complex of Angkor Wat in Cambodia, which refers to syam, or "dark brown" people.[1] It was believed that Siam derived from the Sanskrit word syam, or brown race, with a contemptuous signification. Sien in Chinese writings is the name for the northern kingdom that centered around Sukhothai and Sawankalok; but to the Siamese themselves, the name of the country has always been Mueang Thai.[2]"

Are they really darker than the Khmer, or did the Khmer just copy the name from the Chinese or Indian Aryans? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Chiang Saen[edit]

"Around 1000 AD, Chiang Saen was destroyed by an earthquake with all the inhabitants killed." This sounds really quite crazy. If a city is totally destroyed by an earthquake and abandoned, that is normal in history. But the idea that "all the inhabitants [were] killed" is crazy, and presumably original research. 76.105.216.34 (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)