Talk:Wat Phra Kaew

Not confuse
His name is Dhosa Kiridhorn (ทศคีรีธร) he guarded an exit to grand palace on the south-western gate with Dhosa Kiriwan (ทศคีรีวัน) (his twins). Not confuse with Indrajit (อินทรชิต) the green demon who guarded the northeastern gate with Suriyabhop (สุริยาภพ) the difference is nose, Suriyabhop who similar to Dhosa Kiriwan also has no elephant nose too.

Also of the mythological creatures which placed surround the Royal Pantheon (Thai:ปราสาทพระเทพบิดร Prasat Phra Thep Bidon) there are both male and female creatures, the Kinora (กินร) is male term of Kinaree (กินรี). user:thanyakij | talk page -- 202.133.135.23 -- 13:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of building Wat Phra Kaew
I think this article talk about Emerald Buddha too much. But author forgot to talk about these issues

- Why King Ram I built Wat Pra Kaew on the ground of Grand Palace?

Normally, Buddhist temple or Wat will be located separately from houses. But King Rama I of Chakri Dynasty followed the tradition of former Kings in Ayudhaya period to build the royal temple located in Royal palace. (See Wat Phra Sri Sanphet (วัดพระศรีสรรเพชญ์) http://www.bangkoksite.com/AyutthayaPage/WatPhraSiSanphet.htm)

- No monks or priests live in Wat Pra Kaew. It is the only one temple in Thailand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxiczero (talk • contribs) 02:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wat Phra Kaew
This section is misspelt and should be Wat Phra Kaeo and some links in wikipedia use Wat Phra Kaeo correctly. Wat Phra Kaew is in Chiang Rai City. See http://gotour-thailand.com/chiang-rai/wat-phra-kaew. The Emerald Buddah was originally in Chiang Rai but moved to Bangkok in 1678. In 1990 Chiang Rai had their own Emerald Buddha sculptured and placed in Wat Phra Kaew. Made of jade and called the Jade Buddha of Chiang Rai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.63.112 (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Need serious rewrite
It doesn't appear to be clear what is legend and what is history, and most of the history appears to be about the Buddha statue. It needs an overhaul. Hzh (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I'll start the rewrite, there seem to be some wrong information in the article. Hzh (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Map of Wat Phra Kaew
Can it be that the names of the Temple Guardians are confused? In Google Pictures I found Sahatsadecha with the white hands and face, but Thotsakan with green and so on. There are discrepancys between Google Pictures - Street View - WP:Links. ErwinMeier (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I try unsuccessfully to find out the right names of the guardians in File:Bangkok Großer Palast 11.jpg ErwinMeier (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * In your photo are Maiyarap and Wirunchambang. See here and here for visual guides. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Can someone educated rewrite this trash?
It is too bad even for written-off school essay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.102.211 (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead image


(Continuing a discussion from in a more appropriate forum.)

A couple of weeks ago changed the lead image, previously a view of the temple from the outer court of the palace (image 1), for a new one showing the entrance to the Royal Pantheon flanked by two golden chedis (image 2).

This is clearly a very attractive shot, well-taken, and a popular view of the site (e.g. the Lonely Planet website) and I think definitely has a place in the article.

I'd suggest, however, that it's not the most encyclopedic choice for lead image, because it primarily depicts a relatively minor 19th century building; the main building (phra ubosot), which houses the Emerald Buddha, is the black roof just seen on the right of the photo. I'd suggest the previous lead image (a Wikipedia Featured Picture) is a better lead image, because it shows the whole temple including the phra ubosot. Any other views? TSP (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * TSP changed the image as I was typing this, but I agree that the current FP is better as the lead image identifying the temple. (It's the iconic view featured on the previous one-baht coin after all.) Either that, or the classic bird's-eye view from across Lak Mueang Intersection (a crop of File:Temple of the Emerald of buddha or Wat Phra Kaew.jpg maybe). --Paul_012 (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks - it had been about three days without feedback so I decided to go for it. I didn't know about the coin, that does add to the argument. The view across the intersection is a great overview of the temple and its position in the city, but I think the pillar shrine in the foreground is rather too prominent for it to be the lead image for Wat Phra Kaew. TSP (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Wat Phra Kaew by Ninara TSP edit crop.jpg}} to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File: will be appearing as picture of the day on May 7, 2020. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2020-05-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 revision
I've done a bit of copyediting, and there are some more points I'll raise later, but right now I'm wondering a bit about the spelling of proper names. Quite a few names are not spelled following RTGS, e.g. Phra Buddha Yotfa Chulaloke, Cheewaka Komarapach, Than Phaithee, Prasat Phra Thep Bidorn. Is this deliberate, in order to follow the sources (and do the sources always agree in these cases)? The RTGS spelling Prasat Phra Thep Bidon, for example, does seem to match much more Google hits. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * These are how the names are spelt according to Suksri et al. --Sodacan (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't touched them just yet, but the issue will probably have to decided on somewhere down the road. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do it now, just use RTGS. I don't know how. Otherwise someone will add RTGS after the Thai text and it will be messy. Keep it clean. --Sodacan (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Most readers will not care about it as much as us. As long as they get the content and facts they need, that is good enough. Sodacan (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've converted the names to RTGS. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking there should be some sort of Architecture section serving as an overview and introducing the main features before they are individually mentioned. This could also be used to introduce how the Ramakien forms a motif in several of the features, so that the reader will know about the story before encountering the mention of monkeys and yaksha at the golden chedi section. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There's also some other stuff I'm not quite sure about: --Paul_012 (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pediment is used for the Ubosot but gable elsewhere. Should they be consistent?
 * Which parts exactly should "altar" refer to? The top part with the Buddha, the base, or the entire structure? The part mentioning ฐานชุกชี is inaccurate, though, since ฐานชุกชี is just the base, and would exclude the butsabok and throne. I think "pedestal" would be closer to ฐานชุกชี.
 * The Thai names for the Buddha image halls are really confusing. The official website has it as หอพระราชกรมานุสร/หอพระราชพงศานุสร, but there seems to be little agreement among sources, not least whether or not พระราช is included. Also, is it pronounced กอ-ระ-มา or กรม-มา?
 * Should we just say Guanyin instead of Chao Mae Kuan Im? Or is the Thai tradition specific enough to make the Thai name more relevant?
 * "Two Golden Phra Chedi" reads rather awkwardly. I'd say this is a descriptive phrase, not proper name, so "two golden chedi" (uncapitalised, and leaving out the phra) would be better. Same with "Four decorated Chedi".
 * "Phra Borom Ratcha Sanyalak" doesn't match บุษบกพระราชลัญจกร. Which should it be?


 * I have made some of the changes you suggested, please review them. three points are left;
 * For the Buddha images halls, these are the spelling from sources:
 * Hongvivat: "Ratchaphongsanusorn" and "Ratchakoramanusorn" (หอพระราชกรมานุสรณ์ หอพระราชพงศานุสร), uses Buddha image hall, no Ho or Phra
 * Suksri et al.: "Ho Rajbongsanusorn" and "Ho Rajkoramanusorn"
 * I added the Phra to them, to correspond to their full names in Thai. Unless we eliminate Ho Phra altogether and just use Buddha image hall after the names. กอ-ระ-มา is correct pronunciation in this case. Otherwise their would be one more ม, i.e. กรมมลพิษ - หอพระราชกรมมานุสรณ์.
 * Chao Mae Kuan Im is the Thai name for the deity, can be eliminated if confusing.
 * The two golden chedi and the four decorated chedi, have Thai names which could be used instead of the descriptive English. The two chedi or Phra Suvarnachedi (พระสุวรรณเจดีย์) and Phra Chedi Songkhrueang (พระเจดีย์ทรงเครื่อง). Thoughts? Sodacan (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * An architecture section would be great, but more sources are needed for the analysis. The different structures within already have architectural description and significance included in them. Will have to find a way so that it does not repeat itself. A functions or ceremonies section could definitely be included and I can work on this soon. Sodacan (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding the chedi, I understand that those two formal names aren't as widely used? (I assumed that was why you didn't use them to begin with.) If they're common enough, I'd say either "Two golden chedi"/"Four decorated chedi" (descriptive, lowercase) or "Phra Suwannachedi"/"Phra Chedi Songkhrueang" would be fine. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Common name
If it is "commonly known in English as the Temple of the Emerald Buddha", then why isn't the article at that name. --Khajidha (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't say "most commonly known", so we'll have to check reliable sources first. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To me "commonly known as" and "most commonly known as" are the same thing. If it isn't the usual form in English it should be rephrased.--Khajidha (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Chofa
What was the reason of reverting that revision? It is obviously the chofa of Garuda type, see for instance that. 5.18.238.114 (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above is correct. Chofa usually stylistically represent Garuda heads. I suspect though that the reference to Naga heads are supposed to be about hanghong (หางหงส์), which decorate the corners of the eaves. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * So what to do next? Start an edit war for one cent? BTW, here is another proof. 5.18.238.114 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * We're already discussing here, so it won't be an edit war. I'd like to see some clarification from Sodacan though as to what the sources were saying. I'm thinking changing chofa to hanghong might be more in line with the original intent. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * [IMHO], encyclopedic approach implies that if we decide that the description of decorative elements is essential for the article we should describe all elements not only one or two selected somehow. So if we bring here "chofa" we have to describe "lamyong", "bai raka", "nag sadung", etc. (if that description is too complicated we have to create the separate article for that). Any other approach leads to situation above than we have to guess what the author actually means. If we have no reliable source for that it would be better to just skip incomplete data than publish the snippets. 5.18.238.114 (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Paul_012, it seems Sodacan is not interested, so "hang hong" or Garuda?


 * The above suggestion to skip incomplete data sounds reasonable. Since both are common architectural elements and nothing mentioned is particularly specific to the building, I've removed the sentence. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 5.18.199.183 (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Problem with dates
I just looked into the date of the Emerald Buddha's enshrinement, and it is a mess. Most Thai sources report the date as 22 March BE 2327, and the English-language sources cited in the article give 1784, which was clearly converted directly by subtracting 543 and fails to account for the difference in the reckoning of the new year, which should really be 1785.

The main primary source here appears to be the Rattanakosin Royal Chronicle, which states that the temple was completed in the year of the dragon, Chulasakkarat 1146, and that the Emerald Buddha was installed on Monday, 4th month, 14th waning moon. That's nearly at the end of the year (the new year was reckoned on the 1st waxing moon of the 5th month), so 1785 must be the correct Gregorian year. But 22 March 1785 was a waxing gibbous moon, so the 22 March date, wherever the conversion came from, must be incorrect. (22 March 1784 was a waxing crescent moon, so it can't have come from there either.) And checking with the historical calendar, the 14th waning moon wasn't a Monday either, but a Wednesday! This points to there having been a copying error in the Royal Chronicle itself. Indeed, there are some sources that correct this to either 5th waning (this was added to the Thai Wikipedia in 2011, citing the book จดหมายเหตุการสร้างเครื่องทรงพระพุทธมหามณีรัตนปฏิมากร by the Treasury Department) or 12th waning (e.g. this article, which has been copied into a lot of websites and forum posts).

So the correct date would be Monday 28 February 1785 for 5th waning, or 7 March 1785 for 12th waning. But we can't use them since practically every source out there has the incorrect date. I guess the best bet would be to get hold of the Treasury Department book and cite it for the lunar date, with a footnote explaining why the widely reported date is incorrect.

As for the 22 June 1784 date in the article, cited to M.R. Naengnoi's book, that must be either an error in the book or ours. Sodacan doesn't seem to be currently active, so I'll have to look for it to confirm. But I think it can just be removed in the meantime. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)