Talk:Bhumibol Adulyadej

Internet blocking of Wikipedia

I've noticed a mild edit war (which I've not been involved in) on this subject with a number of IPs (don't know if they are socks or not) putting in a line that this article is blocked. Thought I'd just chip in that if there is evidence that this page is blocked because of the 'lese majeste blocking' then I think it is relevant to this article and worth including. I think the issue is that no secondary source has been cited evidencing it is so blocked - unless it is sourced, no reference could be made to it. But someone should spend some time looking for a source because, if true, I think it would be of interest to readers. I'll revert the edit now, pending inclusion of a source. DeCausa (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No edit war, just my mistake - I'm happy for it to stay (but yes, it does really need sourcing - though perhaps it should be written more generally to say some pages are blocked, and doesn't really need a specific "this page" statement?) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Boing! Your comments popped up on my Watchlist, and clicking on DIFF brought me right to it. When I clicked DISCUSSION to add my comments, I found the talk is now blocked, too! The article has been blocked since at least since December 2009, but today was the first time I was blocked from here. I logged off and back on via the secure serverto get here, but the only source I have for the blockage information is what shows up on my screen. Would uploading a screen capture be a copy vio? Would that even help? It does not cite the specific court order ordering it to block these pages. I'm using a tabbed browser that put web site tile on the tab, and that one has the Thai word for COURT. You should be able to see it from outside Thailand by clicking on URL http://sbn.co.th/prohibit1.html --Pawyilee (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think under the rules that's WP:OR! Strictly, there should be a secondary source reporting it. DeCausa (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Discovering it blocked oneself and providing first hand evidence is not good enough - we need an actual source which says it's blocked. (When I was last in Thailand a few months ago the blockage was intermittent - sometimes pages like this were accessible, sometimes not). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So you two agree that SBN.CO.TH is engaged in original research? And, as it is the primary source saying this talk page and its article are blocked due to a court order, but give no cite, they then therefore cannot be cited? What about the bare naked URL I posted above linking this page to it for those outside of Thailand? I did not put in an assess date, but it can be inferred from the date/time I posted it. You agree that a {{cite web hyperlink or URL is NOT sufficient attribution because the accessd image lacks a Creative Commons license? Are you going to expunge that, too? --Pawyilee (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No, nobody is saying that sbn.co.th is engaged in original research. What we're saying is that an editor who adds it as a result of trying it and discovering it for himself is doing original research, as it is from first hand experience and there are no sources given to support it. The http://sbn.co.th/prohibit1.html URL is no use as a source, as it is just the URL of the warning page - it says nothing at all about which specific pages are blocked. What we need is a reliable independent source which actually says that the Bhumibol Adulyadej page is blocked, or that some Wikipedia pages are blocked, and then we can state whatever the source actually says - if sbn.co.th published a list of what is blocked, that would probably do -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It would have to be published anonymously, as a publisher in Thailand could get 15 years in prison, and one abroad, declared persona non grata. I'm dropping out of this discourse, as connecting via Wiki's secure server makes my computer act weird on other sites.i.e., opening up multiple windows. Bye bye. --Pawyilee (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? The Bangkok Post is cited as reporting the blocking. Why would reporting the blocking of individual pages be different? In any case, I'm sure European/North American press would have no qualms at reporting it if they thought it was newsworthy. DeCausa (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As a Thai citizen living in Thailand I can assure you that we have full access to this article, and that it is not blocked. --Rattakorn c (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be intermittent - sometimes it's accessible, and sometimes it's blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good example of why 'original research', even if provided with good faith and is apparently 'clear-cut', is unsafe as a source. DeCausa (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

For me, in Thailand, with provider True, the URL:

• "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhumibol_Adulyadej" or Bhumibol Adulyadej is blocked, but
• "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhumibol_Adulyadej" is not.
• Phumiphon and Bhumibol redirect to Bhumibol Adulyadej and do not encounter the block.

−Woodstone (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)~and Woodstone (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Donations

it would be interesting if we can have some information on where's the King donations go, and also how much money his majesty receive 'in donation' from other people & organizations.

Thais have a tradition of giving money to the King in praise of his virtues. (and also make a good PR for their organization) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.234.58 (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

พระเจ้าตากสิน

สมเด็จพระเจ้าตากสินมหาราช ทรงสถาปนาอาณาจักรธนบุรีเมื่อ พ.ศ. 2310 - 2325 หรือ ปี (ค.ศ. 1767 - 1782) ไม่ใช่ค.ศ. 1768 กรุณาแก้ด้วย — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.229.39 (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

First name instead of last name

I'm curious to know why Bhumibol is used throughout the article instead of Adulyadej? It seems rather unprofessional to use his first name rather than his last name. Most other prominent figures are referred to by their last name, except in the case of monarchs who use a royal name--and in this article that would be Rama IX, not Bhumibol. There may be a good reason, though, so perhaps someone could explain. If not, perhaps it could be changed. I don't have access to edit the introduction.

Foxi tails (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

All Thai are known by their first names. Though the usual Thai practice is to prefix name or nickname with an appropriate honorific, addressing a Thai by last name is unacceptable. The big surprise, however, is that I'm not blocked from this talk page! --Pawyilee (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the king's name does not include a surname. The royal family surname, when used, is Mahidol. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Also for the record, while I'm now able to go directly to this discussion, I'm still unable to go directly to the article, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. The new Minister for Communication and Technology (MICT) Captain Anudith Nakornthap of the Pheu Thai Party has gone on record by declaring (in translation) "...from now on, the ministry’s officials and staff members of every level have been urged to be more stringent in the pursuing of violations against the Computer Crimes Act and lèse majesté on websites, by enforcing the law to the fullest."

--Pawyilee (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I can see your point about Thais not generally addressing people by their last names. It still sounds unprofessional and informal to me when I read it, but I am not disputing the validity of your assertion. Perhaps prefacing instances of "Adulyadej" with "King" would help?Foxi tails (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)