Talk:Bhumibol Adulyadej/Archive 3

Marshal of the Royal Thai Air Force
Does Bhumibol Adulyadej hold the rank of Marshal of the Royal Thai Air Force? Greenshed (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This page is blocked in Thailand (2008-10-10)
the link to this page Bhumibol Adulyadej is currently blocked when access from Thailand, as of 10 Oct 2008 14:43 local time.

the blockage is likely to be at ISP level, as users of TOT and True cannot make an access, while users of UniNet (university network) and CS Loxinfo are able to.

see reports in http://itshee.exteen.com/20081010/entry-1 's comment (1 = cannot access, 0 = can access; follows by ISP name (TOT, True, etc.)) 58.136.52.240 (talk) Under Construction
 * I use CAT, and trying to access the article redirects to w3.mict.go.th/ saying:

The site you are trying to view does not currently have a default page. It may be in the process of being upgraded and configured.

Please try this site again later. If you still experience the problem, try contacting the Web site administrator.

If you are the Web site administrator and feel you have received this message in error, please see "Enabling and Disabling Dynamic Content" in IIS Help. To access IIS Help

1. Click Start, and then click Run. 2. In the Open text box, type inetmgr. IIS Manager appears. 3. From the Help menu, click Help Topics. 4. Click Internet Information Services. Pawyilee (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Using Firefox to access 2007 Constitution of Thailand and clicking on its link to www.ect.go.th/english/files/2007-constitution-english%5B1%5D.pdf Draft Constitution B.E. 2550 (2007)(Referendum Version) Official Translation by the Council of State, gets this result: Reported Attack Site! This web site at www.ect.go.th has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences. Attack sites try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system. Some attack sites intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners.


 * Advisory provided by Google:"Diagnostic page for www.ect.go.th/english What is the current listing status for www.ect.go.th/english? Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer. Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 3 time(s) over the past 90 days. What happened when Google visited this site? Of the 207 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 9 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2008-10-10, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2008-09-29. Malicious software includes 7 scripting exploit(s), 5 trojan(s), 3 exploit(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 6 new processes on the target machine. Malicious software is hosted on 17 domain(s), including aolcounter.com, neiron2009.com, 58.65.239.0. 11 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including opana.cn, jezl0.com, p0llo.com. Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware? Over the past 90 days, www.ect.go.th/english did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites. Has this site hosted malware? No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days. How did this happen? In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message."

Pawyilee (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is not an attack site. Blocking this article is mere censorship. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is not blocked in Thailand. It can be accessed from Internet cafes, school, and from home. I haven't come across a computer, or ISP that has blocked this page specifically. It is purely informative, and is used by many kids for projects about his majesty. User:Capt_Flash —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC).


 * As of this moment, if I click the "Article" button at the top of this page, my server, CAT/CDMA, sends me to w3.mict.go.th/ saying: Under Construction. Only the en.wikipedia article is blocked, not any of the other languages. Kids doing projects about His Majesty are almost surely Thai, and almost as surely use the article at th.wikipedia. I do not "read" Thai, but painfully "decode" it, so don't know how much it differs from the one in English. Perhaps someone fluent in both Thai and English could enlighten us. Pawyilee (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I currently study at Saint John's International School, and my older sister studies at Mahidol University, we are both able to access this from school and home. When asked to write a piece about his majesty, they recommended using Wikipedia as a partial, non-bias site. My girlfriend's school, Assumption Suksa, can also access the English page too, however she using the Thai page mostly as she is not as fluent at English as me. I think it is just a CAT ISP thing, as TOT, and True have full access. The Thai wiki page about his majesty is mostly the same as the English page, it focuses on where he was born, projects he has funded. It briefly mentions coups, but not to an extent that the English page does.Capt Flash —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

500-million Baht Firewall
BangkokPost breaking news - The Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) plans to spend about 100 million to 500 million baht to build a gateway to block websites with contents defaming the royal institution. (Retrieved 2008-10-29) Wikipedia's English-language article on King Bhumibol continues to be blocked. Pawyilee (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So much for free speech in Thailand.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 10:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep it real
Thank you for all of you who made this page a history. One day people in my country will see through it. We've been brainwashed since I remember, everyday, everywhere, every time -- it's been yellow fever here.

I believe that it is our right to think different. They can keep blocking the pages with contents defaming royal institution but they can't block my thought.

Peace --Hstmd (talk)


 * CAT/CDMA still sends me to ict's "Under Constriction" page, though I can still get around it by re-direct. Meanwhile, I have a question and would like to know where to ask it. It strikes me that those who make false accusations of insults offered to the king or the royal institution, or even merely flaky ones, are themselves offering insult to king and country. In some jurisdictions, false or flaky accusations get accusers in serious trouble with the law; why doesn't that happen here? Or put it another way: it is my understanding that anyone except His Majesty can bring charges of lese majeste, so why doesn't someone so charge those who wasted the courts' time by failing to prove their case? (I can prove mine against CAT/CDMA with a date-time-stamped screen capture.) Pawyilee (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you mean why aren't they dealt with on wiki, you need to report them to the appropriate noticeboard/an admin. Keep in mind wiki is not censored, so if it's true and a reliable source can be found, it can usually be used as long as it doesn't violate WP:BLP. — Rlevse •  Talk  • 10:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Rama IX
At the moment, it is possible to get to the article in Thailand by being redirected from Rama IX. Pawyilee (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was blocked right after Manop posted :Image:King_Rama_IX_of_Thailand.jpg that is cropped from a scan of a 1000-baht note. Dunno if there's a connection -- it is above my pay-grade to figure this out. Pawyilee (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that the article was blocked since October 1st (as in the forum here ). In Thai Wikipedia village pump, there are some discussions about this situation as well. So I blogged finding out which ISPs have been blocked since I'm not in Thailand; someone already posted my blog above.


 * So far users from True and some universities (Chulalongkorn and Kasetsart) networks cannot access this page. It currently displays HTTP 404. Users from TOT and Loxinfo have no problem accessing this page. --Manop - TH (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wealth Section
Hi. I made some edits to the Wealth section, but I am not able to save them, apparently due to the semi-protected status of the page. (It occurs to me that I may also be encountering difficulty because I am posting from Thailand, and the page on King Bhumibol is blocked. I accessed the page indirectly, via another page.) Can anyone help? Should I post the edited section here, where someone with higher privileges can review them and then insert them? Thanks.

estéban (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You could try logging in through the secure server. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is blocked in Thailand due to national security concerns. See |Freedom Against Censorship Thailand.Patiwat (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

interventions in Thai politics when there were bloodshed
Someone change this to when there 'had been' or 'was' - 'were' is wrong and it really knocks down the quality of the article seen as it is right at the very beginning.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.178.156 (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Real wealth
The article mentions his wealth as $5b, however the cited reference from Forbes mentions $35b and so do some other pages on Wikipedia. I see that there has been some controversy on what Forbes reported and what Thailand claims. So is this discrepancy because of that? What is the real figure?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by VinnieCool (talk • contribs) 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Article name
Why is this article's title (and other kings of Thailand) seemingly unlike that of every other monarch on wikipedia that take the form of [Regnal-name] of [Country] ? Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I had a quick look through talk and couldn't see anything about it. Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand would be a title far more immediately easily understood for those unfamiliar with the subject. 86.29.201.193 (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was wondering that, too. Shouldn't the title of the article be "Rama IX of Thailand," similar to "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom"? In Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles) it states that using "of Thailand" is not necessary, as they have unique given names. However, it does not mention how to address reigning royalty, so shouldin't we just use the western-style address by default, without adding "of Thailand"? That seems like the best judgement. Plus, he is likely better known as Rama IX than by his given name; I know that I recognize him by the former, as an American observing a foreign leader, and Thais likely would prefer to use their monarch's proper regnal name.JosCol (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 ailment
I don't know how to source the news on it, but the King has been in hospital for the last few days, with a fever. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Rama IX
It is stated:

Although Bhumibol is sometimes referred to as King Rama IX in English, the name "Rama" is never used in Thai.

This is not entirely true. Although Rama IX is not normally used to refer to the person of the King directly, Rama 9 (or พระรามที่ 9 in Thai) is commonly used as a name in Thailand for names of streets, bridges, hospitals, etc. eg. Rama 9 Road, Rama 9 Hospital. It is understood that these places are named for the current King.

Can someone please edit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.147.118 (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Birthplace of Bhumibol
I was surprised to read that the king of Thailand was born in Massachusetts. I presume he has renounced American citizenship or some such thing, because otherwise he'd be an American citizen under ius soli - if he was, indeed, born on American soil. So was he, and can we confirm that? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, probably not. "The Constitution makes citizens of all persons born in the United States, provided they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of their birth - that is, they are not the children of foreign diplomats and like persons who, having diplomatic immunity, are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction while they are in the country for diplomatic purposes." One can argue that the royals, as being sovereigns/ foreign diplomats, were under the jurisdiction of Thailand. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * At the time of their births, and neither Bhumibol, Anandamahidol, nor Prince Mahidol were sovereigns. Bhumibol's father was a royal of moderate rank (made relatively higher when several of his higher ranked brothers passed away).Patiwat (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof... (emphasis added.)"
 * Should he become subject to the jurisdiction thereof, he could rightfully claim citizenship. Until then ... he has a few million subjects, but is subject to no earthly power. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Banned internet pages.
"This very Wikipedia article has been blocked in Thailand."

I am an expat in Thailand and although I can't source on pages that have been blocked, this page is definitely not blocked by any internet company in Thailand, both in BK and Phuket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.53.76.130 (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The page can still be seen by using an intererned page that anonymizes the links, like http://de.smarthide.com. I have checked it and it works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.202.138 (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is blocked by True Internet, among others. --58.10.216.246 (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is currently blocked by when access is attempted via CyberPoint in Phuket, and replaced with this message:


 * ขออภัย ทางสำนักงานตำรวจแห่งชาติขอระงับการเชื่อมต่อมาที่เวบไซต์นี้
 * เนื่องจากมีรูปภาพ หรือข้อความที่ไม่เหมาะสม เช่น ลามกอนาจาร การพนัน

which (very) roughly translates as
 * We're sorry, but access to this site is blocked by order of the Royal Thai Police due to obscene content.

58.147.52.14 (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * AIS redirects to:

"The page was prohibited because of the court order. It could have an affect on or be against the security of the Kingdom, public order or good morals. ท่านไม่สามารถเข้าชม web page ที่ต้องการ เนืองจาก มีคำสั่งศาลให้ปิดกั้น หรือ มีลักษณะเข้าข่ายที่อาจกระทบต่อความมั่นคงแห่งราชอาณาจักร หรืออาจขัดต่อความสงบเรียบร้อยหรือศีลธรรมอันดีของประชาชน" --Pawyilee (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Should the king's name be used as a commoner?
I would like the editors to change all "Bhumibol" to either "King Bhumibol" or "HM Bhumibol" since he is the KING. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.193.165 (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Repeating "Bhumibol" throughout the article sounds awkward actually. It's in virtually every sentence in some paragraph (where "he" or "him" should be used). A quick look at Akihito shows that the Japanese emperor is most often referred in that article as "the Emperor" or "Emperor Akihito". I'd say for the sake of language as well as being respectful to the living person and the Thai culture, let's use "the King" or at least "he" to refer to him instead of repeating "Bhumibol" in every sentence, except in the early life section (before he became king) of course. --Melanochromis 18:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that not everybody supports this clown. Let's not be so quick to generalize across Thai culture--do Muslims support him? (Some do, some don't.) And what about the people jailed for criticizing him? What would they say if Thailand had freedom of speech (i.e., if Bhimipol hadn't supported the coup)? Anyway, we don't go around saying "His Excellency, Mr. President George Bush" do we? Dawud —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.167.173.75 (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't know who you are, but you definitely have never been to Thailand. As of right now, we knows for a fact that there is zero person in jail for lese majeste.Suredeath 16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * People in jailed for criticizing him ? He said himself, that he is not beyond criticism, and also, he granted a royal pardon for the swiss man who sprayed his picture. I can assure you, right now, no one is in jail for critizing him and also for the muslims thing, the only group of people that goes against him, are the terrorists in the south. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.8.17.13 (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Nevertheless, countless people have been jailed in the past for criticizing him. Back to the point: the reasons for and against referring to him as Bhumibol vs. HRH King Bhumibol Adulyadej vs. The King have been debated time and time again.  Check the archives.  The current choice is not an accident.  Patiwat 03:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There are several grammatical conventions, I believe, that call for the king's name and/or address not to be used colloquially, especially his first name as it connotes a first-name basis familiarity with a non-monarch. That the king is a monarch means that he should always be addressed in formal manner, such as is “Mr. Prime Minister” or “Mr. President,” etc. The rules on titles, honorifics (a grammatical form of speech used when speaking to or addressing a social superior) are long-established and call for the formal reference to be used in addressing persons of stature and those who have received special honors, such as Sir Edmund Hillary or Khunying Kalaya Sophonpanich, etc. When one lowers the honorific or deletes it altogether, such as is done when using ‘Bhumibol’ rather that His Majesty the king or HM Bhumibol Adulyadej, then it becomes a violation of various sorts, social and even stepping into the iconoclastic social moré-busting category [in short, viewed either as impolite, ignorant or even derogatory]. Until societies get quite a bit further along, it seems as if we need to understand required conventions and then to use them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.36.47 (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you first that I am Thai. And for sure I have high respect to my King. So that I certainly want you to show respect to my King by using HM in front of his majesty name. You may thank that Thai people don't pay respect to his majesty. You are wrong because you are not Thai and I can garantee to you tha all of real Thai people(I mean Thai people is one who love Thailand) also love Thai king. And that laws is not for protecting his majesty but for protecting one who do that instead. I have read some of imappropriate words and I can say you the truth that I fell suddenly angry! And do you know all of Thai feeling when meet such these people who don't respect his beloved one. As religin, this story is very deligate. We can die for King and we can do all thing to protect his majesty. So if those one don't get something back; who know they may not have healthy life with full of organs like nowaday. So far, you may think that Thais people are very cruel; one thing you should know is that our culture is different and we are polite in all story except this. Please understand us. His majesty is our father who is so love us. [Although these people was arrested in some time but his majesty give royal pardon to all of them, isn't it his majesty high generousity?] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.151.125 (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Thais have a particular way of referring to the king to show respect is irrelevant to how he should be referred to in an English-language encyclopedia. DeCausa (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Health
The article mentions that the King was hospitalised on 29th September 2009and discharged on 27th February 2010.

This is factually incorrect. The "discharge" in February was only a temporary one of a few hours, he returned to the hospital in the small housr as eventusally reported in the press. He has remained hospitalised sine then. 112.142.93.212 (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 112.142.140.132 (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In the pink is an English idiomatic expression for in good condition or in good health. Thailand's much-revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej, 79, left Bangkok's Siriraj Hospital Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2007, wearing a pink blazer, shirt and tie, to the great confusion of HM's yellow-shirted subjects: as noted above under Calendars, pink is associated with Tuesday on the Thai solar calendar, while yellow is associated with Monday, the day on which HM was born. The English phrase in the pink is largely unknown. Coverage by the Bangkok Post noted that "Thais believe that pink is an auspicious colour for those who were born in the Year of the Rabbit ...[and] the King..."was born under that sign." Whatever the reason for HM's choice, it has caused an upsurge in the sale of pink shirts (published on November 9, 2007).


 * Pink just had the above added by me, Pawyilee 13:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
 * corrected heading Pawyilee 07:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments about the article
I have some issues with the neutrality of the article in certain places, as well as its completeness in regards to the last 3-5 years and in the spots referred to below. I am posting them here in the hopes that whoever is actively involved in maintaing this article can address them, so that a FAR can be avoided.

First, the article makes several claims about the king’s alleged public popularity with Thais: One wonder’s what the basis for these claims is. Independently-conducted, scentific public opinon polls? The say-so of newspaper staff writers? The article should focus on clearer, narrower, more verifiable claims, rather than trite and vague haigiography. In fact, buried in the text of the article is a source that disputes the idea that the king is universally adored. The body of the article should devote some space to a serious decision of the king’s approval rating, with some focus on the how it has been measured (if it has been at all). What it should not do is take sides early and often.
 * “Publicly acclaimed "the Great"”
 * “Bhumibol is highly revered by the public”
 * “Bhumibol retains enormous powers, partly because of his immense popularity”
 * “Although Bhumibol is held in great respect by many Thais, he is also protected by lèse majesté laws”

Second, lèse majesté.
 * “He has been accused of interfering in politics, although this would be unconstitutional of him and accusers are liable to be charged with lèse majesté.” My issue with this sentence is that it mixes the issues sufficiently to editorialize. First, “although” implies a counterpoint—but the fact that it would be unconstitutional in no way contradicts the accusation. It would be more accurate to say: “he has been accused of unconstituitonaly interferering with politics.” Second, lèse majesté is a national criminal law only. It may be true that those who state this accusation in Thailand may be charged, but to wedge this into this part of the intro only confuses the issue.
 * Standing to bring a lèse majesté claim. The article says “anyone”. Anyone in the world? Any Thai citizen? At the very least it should say “anyone else” because the king is the one person we no cannot bring a claim.
 * An offhand comment by the king at a birthday speech five years ago is featured in the intro rather than summarizing the overall position of the king towards the law. This birthday speech should go in the body of the article, or even a footnote. It is not intro material. Has he tried to get it repealed? Has he tried to grant clemency? Has to spoken out against high profile cases? Etc. Otherwise, the article as it is currently written constitutes overemphasis.

The following sections lack citations:
 * Thanom Kittikachorn era
 * The key paragraph in the “Crisis of 1992” section
 * Several paragraphs in the “Crisis of 2005–2006 and the September 2006 coup”
 * Much of the history of royal projects section, including a few of the examples.
 * Much of the 60th anniversary section
 * The private life section, in particular about the Enligh language books

Other issues:
 * “He is seen as so important by the Thai people that his ill-health has affected the financial markets.” There are several things wrong with stating this as an objective fact rather than subjective conjecture. First, financial markets are not a public opinion poll. Most Thais own no stock whatsoever. Second, it is very hard to know why stock markets move the way they do. Correlation is a fact; causation is a guess. Statements like these belong on quack finance shows like “Mad Money”, not the lead of featured articles.
 * “Bhumibol switched over his field of study to law and political science in order to prepare himself more effectively for his new position as ruler.” What I take issue with is the attribution of internal motivation. Examples of a objecitvely neutral statements would be that he stated this, someone else stated this, etc.
 * The intro states: “He has also used his influence to stop military coups, including attempts in 1981 and 1985.” The basis for these claims is that the king did not endorse these two particular military coups and they did not succeed. However, a claim of causation should be attributed and cited to a source. Preferably, unless all the commentators are in agreement that the situation is so simple, one would want to see some discussion of the circumstances of the coup and any other factors at play.
 * In both the intro and the body the article claims the king played a “key role” in the transition to democracy. However, it waffles on providing any specific details that would allow one to assess this claim. The relevant paragraph in the body of the article contains no citations. That he appeared on TV with the two parties is a fact. However, that this event “made a strong impression on the nation, and led to Suchinda's resignation soon afterwards” is an opinion. It should be attributed and cited, not passed off as objective fact without references. Without more details and sources, it would appear the intro has overclaimed the king’s role.

Finally, the aritcle is in need of updating on the King’s role in Thai politics since 2006, especially since 2008. Savidan 06:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please respond on the FAR page linked above rather than here. Savidan 21:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

+I'm not sure that many/any of these criticisms have been answered. Two issues jump out at me: 1. "publicly acclaimed 'the Great'". This is without citation and smacks of propaganda. I suspect (but don't know) that it is one of his formal titles. If so, this should be explained rather letting the reader think he is in the company of Alexander the Great, Alfred the Great, Peter the Great etc. Until this is done I'm deleting it. 2. The reference to him switching his university courses to law and politics to "better prepare himself" for rule also smacks of propaganda - as though he was the model monarch and model monarch-in-waiting. It would be ok if his motivation was with citation, but it's not. I'm deleting the reference to his motivation. Generally, I notice that anything positive in this article is with no/poor citation. Not sure of the history of the article but overall it looks like some pro-monarchist Thai wrote a hagiograpy which has been chipped away over time. DeCausa (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thai people of Chinese descent
Hi. This article used to categorize that the king is a Thai person of Chinese descent. Have anyone got references for this? I doubt that it might be incorrect information. I also open this discussion at Thai Wikipedia either. --Octra Bond (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul Handley in The King Never Smiles (Yale University Press, 2006) says several times the Chinese ancestry is from his mother, Srinagarindra (pages 3, 13, and 54). Although, the book doesn't say whether both or only one of her parents were ethnically Chinese. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

King Bhumibol implicated in the murder of his brother and predecessor Ananda Mahidol?
Apparently this was an allegation in Thailand at the time of the succession - and was what prompted the lese majeste law. It's a belief still in circulation (although never publicly voiced for obvious reasons). The king visited Ananda minutes before the shot that killed him was heard. I think some reference needs to be made to it in this article. Can someone provide further info? DeCausa (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been living in Thailand on and off for 25 years, and I've heard all sorts of theories about who might have been responsible, but I've never heard any suggestions it was the current King who did it (I've read plenty of non-Thai sources too, and never seen any mention in any of those). And it's almost certainly not the reason for the lese majeste law - that's pretty much been around for generations in one form or another, and the current highly-revered status of the king was driven by military governments early in his reign trying to cement authoritarian control. Still, if you can find reliable sources... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know one way or other. There were 3 oblique comments from farangs to that effect on the talk page on the Ananda article. I googled...and there it were the claims. a reference to them is in this piece: http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2010/10/11/thailand%E2%80%99s-emergency-who-killed-the-king/. DeCausa (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting link, even if it doesn't offer any support for its "some considered" claim - though there certainly was a serious clampdown on discussion of the incident at the time. While I applaud the freedom of speech apparently championed by a site calling itself "a global anti-censorship network of bloggers and online activists", I'm not sure if that would be considered a reliable source as per WP:RS. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * May be, may be not. But I think the comments on the talk page plus what i saw from google means, I think, there is something to be discussed and, at minimum, checked further for sources by someone who knows the subject (which I don't). I have to say that there is something odd about Bhumibol visiting him at 9 o'clock and the shot being heard at 9.20...and then it all being declared a "mystery".DeCausa (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the fact that the king was shot is sufficient explanation for the "mystery" and for shutting down all public discussion - both murder and suicide of a king were considered unthinkable, at least in terms of public thinkability, no matter who might have been involved. But yes, if someone can find reliable sources rather than vague suggestions in a blog, they can run with it and see how it goes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's some further clues for someone to follow up (and remember I think the point is that the allegations exist not that they are proven). Handley (referenced several times in the Article) discusses the ‘theory’ that Bhumibol was involved in the murder on pages 78 and 79 of his book the King Never Smiles. He also says that at the time “most foreign missions concluded that either Ananda killed himself or Bhumibol did it accidentally”. Handley also says in response to a review of his book (http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2006/11/07/handley-responds-to-evans/) that the reviewer “strongly suggests I assert that Bhumibol himself killed Ananda because he “coveted the throne.” There is nothing in the book to support this borderline libelous statement. I have no idea whether Ananda shot himself or was killed by Bhumibol, the two possibilities most accepted among historians. If the latter, I clearly term it an accident that occurred in play.” So it's one of the two possibilities "accepted by most historians". Also, William Stevenson (author of The Revolutionary King) in this article - http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/813032--thailand-s-silent-monarch - says “there have been attempts to smear Bhumibol with gossip that he shot his brother, the Eighth Rama, in 1946”. So I think the allegations are definitely out there.DeCausa (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you have access to reliable sources, feel free to update the article - that's how it works here ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, done. I was really only raising the question - and wasn't originally expecting to readily turn up a source! DeCausa (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC) 14:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

DeCausa, the lese majeste law has been in existent since even before King Ananda was born, it was older than King Bhumibol himself. --Rattakorn c (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that. I think the point is that the Ananda 'mystery' caused it to be revitalised and as a result Phibun made greater use of it in the 50s. DeCausa (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you just 19 years old you can kill someone like this? you can kill your brother?--笹久保1717 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

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.
 * &minus;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)


 * I seem to remember that one of the MOS pages (MOS:HONORIFIC?) said that after the first mention, the name shouldn't be prefixed by King or Queen. However, I can't now find it. Certainly in Elizabeth II and Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden (as examples) they are referred to for the most part as simply the Queen and the King respectively. DeCausa (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You might have missed my above comment, but think about it: monarchs generally don't use surnames (Queen Elizabeth II is not referred to as Elizabeth Windsor). Bhumibol Adulyadej is a two-word name, both of which form the first name (although it is commonly shortened to just the first half). --Paul_012 (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure who that post was for. I was addressing a different point: last post by Foxi tails that referring him simply by his name sounds "unprofessional". DeCausa (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Source conflict in the "Succession and marriage" section
I can't help but notice in the "Succession and marriage" portion of the article there's a place where the given source conflicts with what the article says (and a possible bit of spin-doctoring on top of that). Specifically, the source offered for the section that discusses that Bhumibol may have killed his brother is Paul Handley, who does indeed discuss the possibility but notes that if it did occur it would have been an accident. The text preceding the source, however, is phrased in such a way that it implies Bhumibol shot his brother with malicious intent. Belgium EO (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

King Bhumibol's purported involvement in brother's death
''Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.''

This article should not show interest in rumors that King Bhumibol was "involved in or responsible for" his brother's death. Being involved in one's own brother's death is a severe claim and should, not even allusively, be in a BLP. --RJFF (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Also "mysterious circumstances" is inartfully expressed. This wording belongs in the sensational press rather than in an encyclopedia. How could we phrase it more apt? --RJFF (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Compare Juan Carlos I of Spain, where such matters may be openly discussed. Thailand does have its "sensational press," the inartfully–named Daily News being particularly egregious, but printing anything at all about "mysterious circumstances" would get the staff 15 years to meditate on  why they shouldn't of done that. This, BTW, is not the fault of HM, but of what is inartfully called in English, "The Institution." It will take not a dynasty but a "die-nasty" change to change that, and no one is in a hurry to get it done. &mdash;Pawyilee (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: The helicopter mentioned above crashed under "mysterious circumstances" and HRH's misstep was to publicly call for an investigation of same. &mdash;Pawyilee (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a common illness among princes... Never clean your gun if you're keen on becoming king! Back on topic: what synonym/alternative would you propose instead of "mysterious" to make it sound more objective, and less pseudo-mystical? I am asking that because I am not a native speaker and I am not sure which adjectives you usually combine with "circumstances". Unexplained, uncertain, unclear, unknown? --RJFF (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unclear what you are driving at, but "unclear circumstances" would not work as well as "under circumstances that remain unclear." Circumstances at the time were certainly unclear. --Pawyilee (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of 20 medical examiners, 16 said murder was the most likely possibility. The forensic report is here. One examiner after another writes, "I entirely exclude accident." Ananda was lying on his bed when it happened, probably asleep. If it was murder, Bhumipol is the only plausible suspect. Kauffner (talk) 00:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you please stop speculating? You are not a judge and this is not a courtroom. I have cited the rules for BLPs above, and you should know them. --RJFF (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * SUSFU!--Pawyilee (talk) 12:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Keith Simpson book is good source to support the claim that the wound could not have been self-inflicted, (insofar as gun to the forehead while lying down is a most unnatural suicide position). I think all the standard accounts admit that Bhumibol entered the room and found Ananda sleeping shortly before the shot was fired. We can give those two facts and the reader can figure out the rest out. Kauffner (talk) 17:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the circumstances of the death of Ananda Mahidol should be discussed in the article Ananda Mahidol and not at Bhumibol Adulyadej. --RJFF (talk) 22:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Length of reign
User:Therequiembellishere removed the length of Bhumibol's reign (which used the Age in years and days template) from the infobox with no edit summary, and when I reverted (as an unexplained removal, asking "what's wrong with having reign duration in the infobox?"), reverted me with the summary "Because they aren't in any other infobox. There needs to be a 'why for' argument before you raise 'why not'". As Bhumibol is currently the world's longest reigning monarch and longest serving head of state, I think people who read about him will want to know how long his reign currently is without having to work it out for themselves, and I think it makes sense to have it there. I'd like to hear what other people think. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I second that. In Bhumibol's case the length of reign is of special notability. --RJFF (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd be in favor of showing the length of reign for every monarch, but the template fits especially well for Bhumibol. Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I think that's a consensus - I've reinstated it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this article biased against the king
"Bhumibol is credited with a social-economic theory of self-sufficiency. His personal wealth is tremendous"

- The author should study the theory of self-sufficiency well before writing this article.

The main idea of this theory is not spending over how much you gain, saving money and not gaining debt (Of course, if you save money, you can gain wealth.). But after the coup during PM Taksin, his theory was changed for Politics reason. This theory is against Government's policy in PM Taksin. His policy is Populism and need Thais to make debts. Some tried to say the his theory is the best for farmers. But the King confirmed on His Birthday's speech that his theory can be applied for all people.

What if someone said that the king could go eat a. . . ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.212.32 (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

- The author wrote how much the king earned but he should state how much the king spent. As the chief of state, he has thousand of private projects and charities. Some of his projects made the better life for Thais but this is not included on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxiczero (talk • contribs) 00:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but, we are factual here and need sourced for such material. We do not abide by the Thai pandering to him. --Nutthida (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

== The article is very narrow viewed and only talk about one-sided story without proof.
 * The New theory and the Sufficiency Economy --Pawyilee (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, this article is just a series of cited, well-supported facts. If you are in Thailand, the links have most likely been censored and you seriously risk violating Lese Majeste laws if you say the "wrong" thing here. This is unfortunate as there is almost nothing positive you could add while still being truthful. Neutrality, facts and free speech are a real inconvenience huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.181.119 (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's not talk about general stuff but the sentences that are originally brought up. "Bhumibol is credited with a social-economic theory of self-sufficiency. His personal wealth is tremendous" This does not even make logical sense, and it leads people to believe that King Bhumibol is hypocritical (which we cannot deal with due to lack of evidence). I suggest someone at least elaborate his theory a bit (1 sentence, probably) and summarize his wealth-related stuff to also 1-2 sentences. The summary of the page will look much more neutral. 128.12.217.192 (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe that this sentence "Although Bhumibol is legally a constitutional monarch, he has made several decisive interventions in Thai politics" is not based on a strong evidence. Therefore, it should be changed to "Although Bhumibol is legally a constitutional monarch, it is believed that he has made several decisive interventions in Thai politics." --Pasitnat (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP
"During the 1970s, Bhumibol was a key figure in the Village Scouts and Red Gaur paramilitary organisations." Should stay removed. He might be characterized as key figurehead, as I sincerely doubt any active involvement, and there is no way to document it either way. A critical omission in the series of events that precipitated the events described was then call The Hat Yai Incident, which involved the crash of an Army helicopter with Thailand's then most beloved movie star aboard, along with one of Bangkok's wealthiest Chinese tycoons; the rumors that ensued; and the public statement about it by HRH who was then a university student, herself. I read about in a daily on Guam, but can't find a trace of the reportage now. Lesson learned: HRH's don't make statements like that, and HM doesn't. &mdash;Pawyilee (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Key figure" is not proper terminology when writing about royalty. But we can say that these organizations were beneficiaries of royal favor. Kauffner (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The new theory and the sufficiency economy
Recommend an editor with better access than mine, include information from The new theory and the sufficiency economy.--Pawyilee (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the theory should be explained in this article more thoroughly and not only mentioned in passing. But I don't think that a Thai government source can be considered neutral in this context. You won't expect the Thai government to scrutinize a theory by His Majesty the King in an academic or questioning or only neutral way. From the government you can only expect hymns of praise, no matter if justified or not, right? Are there any sources by neutral scholars? --RJFF (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You rightly suspect that one can't lay plans from a hymnal, but quotes from HM can be used without singing, and some critiques can be found here Cashing Out: A Return to Organic Practices and here [Organic Farmers Get Raw Deal. HM's theory arose from the 1997 economic crisis of the "Five Tigers" when the Baht lost half its value almost overnight. The crisis arose from the "if you build it, they will come" mentality that subsequently infected new Eurozone members, and the landscape's still littered with hulks where nobody came. HM's motto at the time was "Thai help Thai," subsequently echoed in the name of Thaksin's new "Thai love Thai" party. Thak also echoed with [[OTOP]], One-Tambon-One-Product, formed with advice from Japan, which had a pilot program. Japan also had an organic farming pilot, so there was a lot of cross-feed. HM also promotes fish farming, an ancient practice combining carp with rice farming, which resulted in the late 19th-centry introduction of carp to the US, where folks don't have a clue how to make them edible. International researchers went to modern Laos, where wars so depleted the male population that Lao women devised new methods of their own. Here, however, fish farms are almost the province of the giant CP Group, overseen by Abhisit's father. All sing from different sheets, and I can't carry a tune. --Pawyilee (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

CPB Annual report
Article entry citing CPB annual report is only for the King's eyes only is outdated and incorrect. The annual report is available online at the CPB website 94.202.56.83 (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Page blocked by Thai Ministry of Communication?
An OTRS correspondent writes:

"Thought you should know that the Thai Ministry of Communication has just blocked the King of Thailand page (Bhumibol Adulyadej). That's on the English and Thai Wikipedias when trying to view from within Thailand. Checked a few other languages (German, French, Spanish) and they are still working."

Obviously, I'm not in a position to verify that. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am Thai residing in Thailand, using True Internet. I affirmed that the page "Bhumibol Adulyadej" were blocked from ICT, though only for English Wikipedia, and only if accessed by the name. Redirects to the page were not blocked (such as Rama IX), as well as alternative access through the secure server by the name. Talk page also not being blocked from access. --G(x) (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I have just accessed this article, as well as the talk page from Thailand, check my IP. I will try to make a null edit on the article as well 115.67.6.77 (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to make a null edit, then an edit consisting of a space and carriage return, but was unable to edit the article from Thailand IP. See history. I don't see that this article is blocked in any way to prevent IP edits. 115.67.6.77 (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is odd. I was just able to edit a subsection.  115.67.6.77 (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And now I have made a small copyedit to the piece as a whole. 115.67.6.77 (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's still blocked for users in Thailand, but there are still easy-to-use work-arounds. —Pawyilee (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The changeover to "https" may make no difference to NSA, but it has made an end run around Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (Thailand). —Pawyilee (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Style and title of the king.
Can we get an accurate translation please of the King's style and title? Google translate gave me this from the Thai:

"His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej on Cummins Navy. Thi La Belle Ramathibodi Mahidol keys. Chakri Narula on Navy land Drugs including fungi Open University Hmmmm"

Could this be a case of vandalism of the original Thai that has remained undetected? or is it simply bad translation?Llanforda (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Google Translate shall not be used in any way, as it will give an almost unreadable context. As the full title is not in plain Thai language but also a combination of Sanskrit, it will be more difficult for the machine to translate.


 * I gave a translated description (which should not be used in any way as it is my original research) as His Excellency Bhumibol Adulyadej, Son of Mahidol, the great ruler of Chakri, the sheltered King of Siam, while I am aware that this is not the all-inclusive translation of the name, as some literal translations in English was omitted due to repetitive manner. --G(x) (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Chakri Mahaprasad Hall guard photo
I think the addition of this photo lacks relevance. The entire article doesn't even mention any of the King's Guard regiments. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Title
Why is the King not listed under his royal title (Rama IX)? It seems weird that Juan Carlos I and Elizabeth II are listed by their royal (numerical) titles but Adulyadej isn't. It's akin to writing 'Elizabeth Windsor', which just seems weird (and is incorrect). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.117.226 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 30 November 2014‎ (UTC)


 * As has been mentioned before, "Bhumibol Adulyadej" is the king's royal name, equivalent to the "Elizabeth" part. The family name (surname), when used, is "Mahidol", and that is equivalent to "Windsor". Rama n is a form of numerical notation, but not a formal royal title. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Why no RTGS romanization
Does someone know why the name of the King is romanized as Bhumibol and not as Phumiphon? --FredTC (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The RTGS was never widely adopted for personal names. Most royal names use transliterations based on their Pali/Sanskrit roots. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Accidental American
"Baby Songkla" is an accidental American as his parents were in student rather than diplomat status, and there is no record of part of the hospital have been given temporary extraterritorial status. Effect of the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act on "accidental Americans" makes it interesting that the lead has recently changed to add:
 * Officially the assets managed by the CPB are owned by the crown as an institution, not Bhumibol Adulyadej as an individual.

—Pawyilee (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's overwhelmingly likely he ceased to be a US citizen by 1960 at the latest and would have a certificate of loss of nationality to prove it, meaning all he'd have to do under FATCA is self-certify that he's not a US citizen (both for any accounts he owns personally and any trusts of which he is a beneficiary and which are deemed to be FFIs under FATCA),


 * Taking a position in a foreign government has always been a potentially-expatriating act, both back in the 1940s and today. Back then, the US Department of State would "involuntarily expatriate" you and send you a CLN by mail if they found out you so much as became a foreign government file clerk, let alone a foreign head of state. Only difference today, post Afroyim v. Rusk and Vance v. Terrazas, is that thet law requires there be demonstrated intent to give up citizenship. However, per 7 FAM 1285, DoS folks lean towards the position that being king or president is an overriding demonstration of intent (unlike for lower level positions where they presume you intend to keep US citizenship unless you explicitly tell them otherwise).


 * If DoS did not clear up the question of his nationality when he ascended to the throne, they almost certainly did before he ever visited the US, because of the immunity issues (notice that the  article has a picture of him speaking to the US Congress in 1960 &mdash; before the Afroyim case). quant18 (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bhumibol Adulyadej. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071006090211/http://bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=120634 to http://bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=120634

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Thai American" cats
First and foremost, this is a BLP. If you do not know (and do not have any reliable source stating directly whether or not he is a US citizen now, the article and its categories should not take any stand on matter at all; it should be limited to noting the facts which reliable sources have consistently noted, e.g. his place of birth, by which he is already categorised.

Second, as WP:CATDEF points out, articles are not categorised by every single characteristic of the subject, but the defining ones: "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". The categories "Thai American" or "American of Thai descent" clearly fail that test. quant18 (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Bhumibol Adulyadej. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071010025047/http://bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=109508_19114638.html to http://bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=109508_19114638.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929124659/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30008905 to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30008905

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Bhumibol Adulyadej. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091227103144/http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/26/1689630.aspx to http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/26/1689630.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061026025644/http://www.bangkokpost.net:80/60yrsthrone/art/index.html to http://www.bangkokpost.net/60yrsthrone/art/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Bhumibol Adulyadej. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928061102/http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3690777&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection= to http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3690777&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110516073334/http://www.thai2arab.com/eng/content.php?page=sub&category=4&subcategory=43&id=31 to http://www.thai2arab.com/eng/content.php?page=sub&category=4&subcategory=43&id=31

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bhumibol Adulyadej. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214498,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

What is going on in this page?
This article looks fine if you're logged in. Here's what this page looks like if you're not logged in.

http://imgur.com/jNF57Kz (NSFW)

On this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhumibol_Adulyadej, if you're not logged in

is replaced with this

Same thing happens to cite_note-99 in the reflist.

I've copied the source of this article to another and I could not reproduce this behaviour. Seems to be happening in this article only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumibo (talk • contribs) 05:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This isn't happening anymore but someone might want to do some auditing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumibo (talk • contribs) 06:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Health crisis
Owing to recent news reports, I have updated the health section and put a Current tag on it and another on the article itself. I am following this story closely & can continue to update. --Bluejay Young (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This article may need protection, until his death is confirmed. GoodDay (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It already has pending changes protection, which looks to have been sufficient so far... Qwfp (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Andrew MacGregor Marshall reports His Majesty has died. Waiting to put in anything more on the article until the official announcement from the Palace. --Bluejay Young (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not quite the official announcement but related. 60.242.1.97 (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * First English language news service to report it as official. 60.242.1.97 (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

MacGregor Marshall
The question which journalist reported his death first is irrelevant for an encyclopedic article. This information should stay out, not only for irreverence but also for a lack of notability. This is nothing but undue advertisement for this publicist. --RJFF (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Name
Why dont we use the title instead of full name?--Lão Ngoan Đồng (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Successor
Why are we not listing Vajiralongkorn as the new King? I thought the succession was automatic. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Vajiralongkorn said Prayut Chan-o-cha but 2014 Constitution write " When not have king or prince (Prince not ready) privy will be regents until have Rama X --Pitpisit (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Which makes Prem Tinsulanonda regent. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 01:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * He is regent de facto. --Pitpisit (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

"Bhumibol's Thirty"
The claim that "During his reign, he was served by a total of 30 prime ministers beginning with Pridi Banomyong and ending with Prayut Chan-o-cha. They are otherwise known as Bhumibol's Thirty" is not backed up by the citation to http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/13/thailand-s-king-bhumibol-dies-triggering-anguish-and-fears-of-unrest.html Google doesn't have any mention of the term "Bhumibol's Thirty." Erasing this. --Patiwat (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Image
Is there a particular reason why the image should be the one taken in 2015? Given now the situation isn't it better to have an image that shows the subject at a relatively younger age and in royal uniform that is more representative for his role, and his life? --Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 01:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * as above. --Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 05:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The best-known images of the king are probably those from the 1960s-70s, when he widely toured the country. However, images from that period aren't old enough to be in the Public Domain yet. I think a recent photo, which most people would recognise, is preferable to one from his early years, before most readers of the article were born. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But I also think that a photo of him wearing a royal uniform is more appropriate than the one that is the "newest." --Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 14:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thammasat University massacre
There is a long section in our article on the 1976 Thammasat University massacre that details Bhumibol's involvement in the event and the paramilitary forces that carried it out - specifically the "Village Scouts" anticommunist paramilitaries, the Nawaphon anticommunist group, and the Red Gaurs gang. The section is abundantly sourced if someone has time to work on it. -Darouet (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a brief mention, but have not added information on his relationship with the paramilitary forces. -Darouet (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have included a sentence on the king's alleged sponsorship of the royalist Nawaphon group, and a photo of the coup. I've also added a few sentences reviewing the King's activity from 1963-73 (we previously had no information on this decade). -Darouet (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Having heard his name pronounced on news media recently why is his name transcribed as Bhumibol which would appear to be pronounced Bum-e-bol. Poo-nee-pon seems to be the correct pronunciation, this doesn't seem to happen with other Thai names transcribed to Latin alphabets so how/why has it happened in this case? 85.255.236.75 (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's quite common for Thai names to be romanised partially according to their Pali/Sanskrit root. The late King's name is formed by the roots bhūmi+bala. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of personal choice. Some people like romanising their names this way, some like that way. As for Bhumibol, he preferred rendering his name in the way explained by Paul_012 above. You will also see many other Thai names romanised in a similar way, such as:
 * Dipangkorn Rasmijoti ,
 * Dhasanawalaya ,
 * Srirasmi ,
 * Shinawatra ,
 * Ubolratana ,
 * Vajiralongkorn ,
 * etc.
 * --YURi (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

King Bhumibol the Great
I've spent a fair amount of time in Thailand, and have never heard him called "Bhumibol the Great". If we're going to have this in the lead, perhaps "known by some as King Bhumibol the Great". Thoughts? Edwardx (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As stated in the cited sources, it's an official title bestowed by the Thai government. I've edited to make that clear. DeCausa (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DeCausa. If government PR is all it amounts to, then it really should NOT be in the lead section. I will move it further down the article, unless anyone can come up with a good reason why not.

Lead
I find the lead section imbalanced. It only focuses on the negative aspects of his rule (which, of course, exist and have to be mentioned). But there is barely any mention of his positive achievements (which exist as well, and are not even denied by his critics) and the immense popularity, or love, he enjoyed among widest parts of the population. --RJFF (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi I wouldn't write the lead "focuses" on "negative" aspects of his rule. Now, the lead has only two sentences documenting his relationship with Lèse majesté in Thailand in Thailand, and one about his role in numerous dictatorships that are the chapters of the vast majority of his political career. The lead also contains two sentences that note his popularity. I think that's sufficient.


 * If you believe that more information could be introduced related to his popularity, I wouldn't object to that, as long as the lead remains appropriate for a biography, not hagiography. One potential method for incorporating more information on both his popularity and his political history would be by having another sentence or two about his reconstruction of old monarchical traditions and institutions, and the manner in which these contributed to his popularity, and helped bolster a series of otherwise quite unpopular and anti-democratic military regimes. -Darouet (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. all relevant histories suggest that Bhumibol truly did "support" the massacre, in that he was instrumental in tirelessly building the paramilitary forces and movement that carried it out, his very person was it's precipitating cause (defense of the throne), he stated in the aftermath that the massacre was the "will of the people," and he never called for any justice for the perpetrators. It would be false to write that he "organized" the massacre, so far as we know, but not that he "supported" it. -Darouet (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "Malley" (i.e. Kraisak Choonhavan) writes that In the New Year speech to the nation, King Phumiphon referred to the October 6 coup as "a manifestation of what the people clearly wanted". The coup, not the massacre! "All relevant histories suggest..." No, only Handley does, and authors who base their accounts on Handley's. The whole article has a neutrality problem for citing Handley's biography sixteen times, while the other standard biography, edited by Grossman and Faulder, is only cited in the "early life" section, and standard references on modern Thai history like Baker/Pasuk's, B.J. Terwiel's or D.K. Wyatt's are not cited at all. While Handley's work is immensely important for countering and correcting the usual hagiographies by Thai officials, it also has some flaws and we cannot simply take his assumptions (which unfortunately in many cases lack verifiable references) as definite facts. In David K. Wyatt's Thailand—A Short History, Bhumibol is not blamed for supporting or being responsible for the massacre in any way at all. Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit (who are certainly very critical of the Thai establishment and its whitewashed historiography) only mention that the Village Scouts were rewarded "with a neckscarf and pin" but do not write anything about the king being—in your words—instrumental in tirelessly building the paramilitary forces and movement that carried out the massacre. To me, it seems that Handley over-estimates the role of the king (in this regard, ironically, being a little similar to the ultra-royalists). --RJFF (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your attention. Since I don't have time to do more research on Bhumibol's life, whatever improvements you make are welcomed by me. If I object to changes you make I can let you know here, later. -Darouet (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Honours
The article on the king's son has a section on Vajiralongkorn, but this article does not. I think this would be a lovely addition... --Rebroad (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Bhumibol Adulyadej. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015183041/http://kanchanapisek.or.th/speeches/ to http://kanchanapisek.or.th/speeches/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402164354/http://thailandtimes.asia/thailand-news/thaksins-drug-murders-investigated/ to http://thailandtimes.asia/thailand-news/thaksins-drug-murders-investigated/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010030203/http://bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=111195 to http://bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=111195
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160125033305/http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/world/8266-feared-thai-ex-general-warns-of-bloodshed to http://themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/world/8266-feared-thai-ex-general-warns-of-bloodshed
 * Added tag to http://www.mcot.net/content/19232

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)