Talk:Thailand

For coordinating the editing of Thailand-related topics please visit Wikipedia:Thailand-related topics notice board

---

You can't just redirect. Siam is different than Thailand so it should have its own page.

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)

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)

---

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)

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.

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'.

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)

• • 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

• • There is more prostitution per captita in the US then there is in Thailand. Does the US page mention it?**

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!

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!

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

very upset with fairness fo somebody

I dont understand why the foriegners always changing the contents of our histoty.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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)

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.