Talk:Triam Udom Suksa School

Early History
The following is based on ML Pin Malakul's account of the School's early history, which was republished in the School's 70th anniversary book. Without more details on recent history, though, it seemed to be too long to place in the article yet.

The founding of Triam Udom Suksa School relates to the revised National Education Plan of BE 2479 (1936 CE), which imposed four and six years of primary and secondary education respectively, with an additional two years of precollegiate schooling required of students who were to continue to university level. This precollegiate level of education was to be initially provided by the students' prospective universities, and accordingly the University Council of Chulalongkorn University authorized the establishment of the school on 3 January 1938. The school took over the location of Mathayom Horwang School on Phaya Thai Road in the vicinity of the University, and became known as the "University Preparatory School, Chulalongkorn University", or Rong Rian Triam Udom Suksa Haeng Chulalongkorn Maha Witthayalai (โรงเรียนเตรียมอุดมศึกษาแห่งจุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย; triam udom suksa translates as university-preparatory [school]). Mom Luang Pin Malakul was appointed as the first director, and the school opened on 16 May 1938; classes began on 19 May 1938.

The school rapidly grew over the first few years, admitting up to 568 students in the 1940 academic year. In December 1941, however, the school became occupied by Japanese forces invading Thailand in the course of World War II, forcing the staff and students to relocate to temporary locations around Bangkok. Teaching quality was hence affected throughout the time of war. Teaching briefly returned to the school in 1943, but had to again leave after the school was damaged by Allied bombing in 19 January 1944. Part of the staff and students were transferred to various cities over the country, where preparations had already taken place for the establishment of additional preparatory school campuses. (Changes of government policy would however later cause these campuses to close down.)

Teaching finally returned to normal in 1946 after Allied forces withdrew from the school. During that period, government policy favored expanding precollegiate-level teaching to public schools under the Department of General Education instead of being provided by the universities. As a result, authority over the school was transferred from Chulalongkorn University to the Department of General Education on 1 July 1947. The students have since been required to take university entrance examinations as regular students, and the name of the school was shortened to "Triam Udom Suksa School". The school, however, retained use of the Phra Kiao as its symbol.

In June 1947, just prior to the transfer, a Teacher Training Department was created under the school to accommodate the expansion of the national school system. This department would expand teaching to Mathayom 1–6 levels, and was later transferred to the Higher Teacher Training School at Prasanmit. It presently exists as Patumwan Demonstration School, Srinakharinwirot University. Paul_012 (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Already added to the article. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment
I am assessing this as B / Mid. Overall, this is a good article. Plenty of content, an infobox, pictures, and some references. This article could eventually reach GA status with further work. The biggest issue with the article at the moment is references - it has enough for B class, but not enough for anything higher. In particular some sections such as Campus have no references at all, and with WP:BLP it is important the alumni section is well referenced. When adding more references try and add as much variety as possible, both primary and secondary sources can be used as necessary. The article contains pretty much all the sections a school article needs, but if it is possible to expand Curriculum all the better. Also, the introduction might need to be a bit longer for a long article such as this. The article contains plenty of pictures, but if more can be added in sections lower down the article, then that would be a good addition. I am giving this article Mid importance for the schools reputation and alumni. Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable people
It seems to me that anyone can add any name to a list of notable people, the result being a red link. I have nothing against red links. But if they are notable enough to be listed, then surely insisting on a citation is not too much to ask. After all, they're notable. It is not at all unusual, as I am sure you're aware, that notable people lists frequently ask for inclusions to be blue linked or to be sourced (giving editors a leg up on creating an article). You are telling me, in effect, that unsourced material is OK. I don't buy that and I don't intend to let it happen. Seligne (talk) 14:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm aware. Which is why I added &#123;&#123;Citation needed&#125;&#125; tags to the entries when I restored them. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Japanese invasion
The following query is part of a comment originally made at my talk page, to which I'll reply below. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you really change the history of the school back to text that is demonstrably false? The school was not invaded. Thailand itself was only invaded for something on the order of six hours. The text you favour makes it sound like the school was a victim of Japanese aggression whereas in reality it was part of an elite Thai society that collaborated with the Axis. Seligne (talk) 13:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Demonstrably false in what way? I don't currently have the book at hand, but I'm positive the source cited at the end of the paragraph clearly mentioned that, yes, the school was a victim of Japanese aggression. The citation you added is only about Thailand's declaration of war a month later, which is irrelevant to the school's fate. I'm sure you know that Thailand's wartime alliance with Japan is a complicated topic. It was superficially an alliance in name, but in many ways was effectively an occupation. The Japanese army made its own moves to seize government buildings for its own use, to the displeasure of the Thai government, which was not in any position to protest. I insist that "raided and occupied" is an accurate description of the situation. I understand your objection to "Japanese forces invading Thailand", though your replacement, "Thailand's Japanese ally" is, IMO, worse. I'm open to suggestions for a better way to succinctly describe the situation. (I also realise that the link to Japanese invasion of Thailand that I added wasn't really appropriate, since it covers only the events of the landing.) --Paul_012 (talk) 14:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Japan invaded. By roughly noon of the day of the invasion Phibun ordered an immediate cease-fire. The price he paid was that Thailand lost control of its "territories and facilities". Facilities would presumably include this school. So, in what sense was the school raided? The government gave away the school in effect. It took until 21 December to sign a formal mutual defense pact, presumably due to working out the text, translations, etc. It took another month for Thailand to declare war. Those were mere formalities for our purpose here. It was the cease-fire that turned the school and everything else over to the Japanese. The text as written is historical revisionism designed to portray Thailand as a victim instead of a willing victim. I will circle back and document this. The existing citation is useless if no one can see it.


 * I agree with you that Thailand's alliance is a complicated topic. But opinions matter not a bit: the diplomatic agreements between the two powers are what matter. I would go so far as to say Thailand was effectively a reluctant "colony" of Japan. But that is another matter. Seligne (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The Thai government did not order the school vacated so that Japanese troops may move in. When they moved into Bangkok on 9 December, militarily unopposed, the Japanese took it upon themselves to take what buildings they wanted, forcing out the occupants, despite an agreement to the effect not yet having been made, nor the Thai government having had the chance to notify its citizens of the situation. (It was only the following day, 10 December, that the government made a radio announcement asking citizens to overlook encroachments made by the Japanese, while a provisional agreement was concluded yet a day later, on 11 December.) So the Japanese acted without the school's staff knowing of the situation, and without the consent of the Thai government. I'd say the school was raided in every sense of the word. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the remark, "The existing citation is useless if no one can see it," The citation is to a published book, which anyone can check at a library where it's available. Offline sources are perfectly acceptable. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the cite meets the letter of the law. But try finding a copy of this self-published book other than at the school or maybe the national library. Seligne (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I had meant to check my copy and provide quotes, but forgot. (Yes, I have a copy of the book, so access is (currently) not an issue.) The relevant passage is: "... รุ่งขึ้นสงครามโลกครั้งที่สองก็ขยายตัวมาถึงประเทศไทย และทหารญี่ปุ่นเข้าครอบครองอาคารสถานที่ของโรงเรียนเตรียมอุดมศึกษาที่ถนนพญาไท เช้าวันที่ 8 ธันวาคมนั้น พอได้ข่าวว่าเกิดสงคราม ข้าพเจ้าก็ไปโรงเรียนไม่มีอะไรเกิดขึ้น นอกจากเห็นเครื่องบินญี่ปุ่นมาบินอยู่เหนือจุฬาลงกรณมหาวิทยาลัยในระยะต่ำ รุ่งขึ้นเช้ามืดนายทหารญี่ปุ่นราว 25 คน บุกรุกข้ามคลองเข้ามาทางถนนสนามม้ามาตรวจดูสถานที่ ขณะที่นายทหารญี่ปุ่นอยู่ทางหน้าโรงเรียน อาจารย์หลายคนแอบเข้าทางหลังโรงเรียนเพื่อระบายเอกสารสำคัญและทรัพย์สินออกไปให้พ้นมือญี่ปุ่นเท่าที่จะทำได้ บางอย่างก็เผาเสีย แล้วไปเปิดสำนักงานย่อยอยู่ตามบ้านอาจารย์หลายบ้านด้วยกัน รีบทำบัญชีทรัพย์สินสิ่งของที่โยกย้ายไว้เป็นหลักฐานเพราะเกรงจะถูกหาว่าขโมยของหลวงในภายหลัง ในวันนั้น ทหารญี่ปุ่นตรวจดูอาคารสถานที่แล้วก็กลับไป บอกกับอาจารย์ที่อยู่เวรและคอยรับหน้าญี่ปุ่นอยู่ว่า 'แล้วพบกันใหม่' ทหารญี่ปุ่นไม่เสียสัญญา มาพบใหม่จริงๆ ในวันรุ่งขึ้น ซึ่งตรงกับวันรัฐธรรมนูญ 10 ธันวาคม โรงเรียนถูกยึดครองตั้งแต่บัดนั้น"
 * Google Translate doesn't do too bad a job with the passage, though it leaves out the word บุกรุก (trespass) used to describe the Japanese troops' entry. I will concede, though, that 'raid' might not accurately reflect the course of events, since they paid multiple visits.
 * I don't think, though, Seligne, that your additions are pertinent or suitable in this article about the school (which is mentioned in none of your sources, save indirectly in the State Department one). It should be perfectly adequate to link to Thailand in World War II, without going into detail on sovereignty issues. Readers with a basic knowledge of 20th-century Thai history will already know about the wartime alliance, and readers unfamiliar with the topic will find it more useful to be directed to the article dealing directly with the subject. Please instead consider adding the content to that article, which does need more citations.
 * Also, in case you'd like to see more substantiation that the occupation was not authorised by Thai government, please see this article from the King Prajadhipok Institute, from which I quote: "กรณีที่กองทัพญี่ปุ่นพยายามเข้าใช้อาคารของจุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัยโดยพลการก็ได้สร้างความไม่พอใจให้กับรัฐบาลไทย ซึ่งกองทัพญี่ปุ่นประจำประเทศไทยเองก็รับรู้ถึงปัญหาดังกล่าวเป็นอย่างดี"
 * I suggest restoring the previous text, minus the word 'raided': "In December 1941, however, the school was occupied by Japanee forces in the course of World War II, forcing the staff and students to relocate to temporary locationss around Bangkok." I'm not opposed to leaving out the "adversely affected..." sentence. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Fine. This has occupied too much of our time already. The word "raided" is definitely inappropriate, so remove. The word "however" adds no value. Please proceed. Seligne (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)