Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bhumibol Adulyadej/archive1

Bhumibol Adulyadej
Current GA on the present King of Thailand, the longest reigning monarch in Thai history.Rlevse 10:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Minor Object Support - Expand the lead to at least three paragraphs please. Fieari 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have expanded the lead. Thanks for the input. Rlevse 18:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me now. Impressive work... you've done your homework!  It looks to me like you've submitted an FA right out of the gate.  Nice job. Fieari 18:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your positive comments. Rlevse 18:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent biography. --JohnDBuell 03:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, good article, well done. :) --Ter e nce Ong (Chat 07:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why is there no photograph of what he looks like now? The most recent one looks like it's a couple of decades old (though the photograph itself was taken in 2006). There should be plenty of available images of an important world leader like him, no? -Silence 13:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Response Actually no. The Thai government is very protective of the King's public image. For example, the Thai currency, stamps, etc still uses images that are probably 40-50 years old. Finding a modern image that is not copyrighted and suitable for wikipedia use is very difficult, but I shall keep looking for one. All the recent ones I've found in the past are from news agencies and copyrighted. Rlevse 13:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that a fair-use image would be acceptable here. Although we should avoid fair use whenever possible, in some cases it is necessary, even in Featured Articles, to make use of them when something is important to depict and an appropriate free-use image is unavailable. For example, if we didn't have any free-use images of George W. Bush from the last few years, it would be appropriate to use a fair-use one because of his importance as a public figure; the greater time-difference for Bhumibol (the most recent depiction of him we have, at the top of the page, looks at least 30 years old, considering that he's about 80 years old now) renders it even more important. Besides, information (both textual and pictorial) that is harder to come by is that much more important to include; people come here to learn things they can't find out from more conventional print sources. -Silence 14:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll pick one, come up with a FU rationale as best I can. Feel free to add to the FU rationale, I'm not that good at that part.Rlevse 14:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)...Done, please review it. Rlevse 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The copyright holder is noted as the BBC, but the lower right hand corner of the photo shows "AP". So is it AP or BBC? Patiwat 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good catch, it should be AP. I changed the image info.Rlevse 20:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The copyright tag on the AP photo claims that it's a publicity photo from a press kit. This is not true. HenryFlower 14:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It also says "or a similar source", which I interpreted as including a news agency such as the AP. If this is not the correct tag, please advise which is as I have no idea which other to used. It seemed to be the best one to use of the ones I could find.Rlevse 14:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A news agency photo is not a 'publicity photograph'. A publicity photograph is one issued by a body to publicise themselves, an event, etc.  This is completely different.  If we don't have a boilerplate template for this kind of use, that might be a hint that this use is unjustified. HenryFlower 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I've changed it to a FU tag like I've seen in other FAs.Rlevse 15:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Response Good news, guys and gals. Devraj Rangsit has generously scanned and GFDL'ed Mahidols-1938.jpg, a photograph taken in 1938 showing King Ananda Mahidol, Prince Bhumibol, and there grandmother Savang Vadhana.  The photograph was taken by Prince Rangsit Prayoonsak, uncle of the Kings and an ancestor of Devraj Rangsit.  The photograph was published in the book First Trip Abroad (Priyananda Rangsit, ed.) along with many others of great historical value.  The photo is a welcome contribution to Wikipedia and definitely should be used in the article.  Much thanks to Devraj Rangsit!  Patiwat 21:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't know what the manual of style says, but should the article mention by its name Bhumibol or using the title King Bhumibol? CG 13:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Response Per MOS as I read it and seeing other articles, King does not go in the title and should not open the article, but it may be discussed in the article. Ex, in the article on Elizabeth II, it refers to her as Elizabeth in the text and in George VI it refers to him as George VI in the body. It also says there is much controversy on this. See Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29. Rlevse 15:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - from Khompat. I disagree in any cases to put so many details about Thai politics on this article. I think, the authors (who contributed this article) should not even talk much in this article about him as a politician, but rather as a person. Politics can be discussed in more details in the other articles. On the other hand something should be mentioned anywayin order to enable links to other articles, so that people can easily find them.
 * Comment I strongly disagree. The King has made critical interventions in Thai politics over the decades, and such interventions have had a major impact on both Thailand's political development as well as how the King is perceived by the Thai people.  Even his non-political activities (ceremonies, charity, rural tours) have been the result of political relationships.  For instance, he was only allowed a handful of rural tours during his difficult relationship with dictator Plaek Pibulsonggram, but when the much more accomodating Sarit Dhanarajata seized power, his rural tours increased many-fold; the rural tours where critical in increasing his visibility to the Thai people and are a fundamental part of his mythos. To have an article on King Bhumibol without discussing his role in politics would turn it into a fantasy-land hagiography.  As to the level of political detail that is appropriate for the main biographical article, this has been debated in the Discussion page.  The current consensus seems to be that the current amount of detail is good, although further additions about specific issues might be useful - however, caution should be taken not to significantly increase the size of the article. Patiwat 21:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Comprehensive article, very informative. Coffeeboy 15:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - from Khompat. I think, this article is not so good to some respects because some contents are not true, therefore I could not consider this is the nice biography. Moreover, the references used here are unconvincing, for example "The King Never Smiles". The authors who contributed this article are unknown. They all hided themself. So, this fact already looks suspicious to me. I think, someone here tried to write something in a wrong and disrespect way. I suggest that the author must be only a reliable and reachable person, not just like a gangster. This is very important point because in the case if I have doubt, I can contact him or her easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khompat (talk • contribs)
 * That is uncalled for, see WP:AGF. The article is very well documented, even though you may not agree with it. Please sign your posts and login.Rlevse 15:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. If any of my edits have seemed gangsterly, I do apologize, although I would appreciate some specificity in any accusations.  As for reliability and reachability, by definition, all registered Wikipedia users are reachable on their Talk pages.  Regarding editor reliability, the article has lately been under a barrage of vandalism, and it might be wise to examine the edit record of individual editors to see whether they have a good record of constructive edits.  The problems of vandalism and sockpuppetry wont go away, but vigilance can help reduce it.  As for "The King Never Smiles", I have tried to use this reference as little as possible, because editors based in Thailand will find it difficult to verify the source (the book has been banned - however, Amazon.com will still ship it).  Because of that, care should be taken to corraborate it with facts from other sources, preferably, those available in Thailand.  Specific concerns about accuracy of sources would better be discussed in the article discussion page, not here. Patiwat 19:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be enormous edit version since the falling of the current caretake government popularity "Thaksin Shinawatra". By my rough estimate, over 500+ versions since the December 2005 version. When compare with the December 2005 version, the current version seems to be very much polically motivated. The most frequent contributor is user name'Patiwat' which makes me wondering whether Patiwat is under the falling regime payroll or try to insert some of his political idea to defame the King? Giving the fact that the last Thai election is only one party election which was totally undemocratic way and it seems to bethe same opinion with the King that the last Thai election was unjustified and need to be invalid. I guess it's true that the King has a lot of influence in Thai politics. However, in the past long record, this special influence has saved Thai fragile democracy and slowly nurture the Thai democracy system. When I checked the info on the user 'Patiwat' the most frequent contributor to this article (from Dec 2005 - current), Patiwat's statements stated that "No, I don't love Thaksin. In fact, I have more valid reasons for hating him than most Thai people. But I love democracy more than I hate Thaksin. And I have nothing but scorn for an elite that belittles the plight of the poor. I'd rather have a corrupt democracy over an efficient aristocracy any day." I think for the sake of the validity of Wikepedia, I'd appreciate it very much if the user'Patiwat' could state his motive to edit this particular article daily. Plus, are ther any financial support for the current caretaker government of doing so. I could imagine that one would do daily edit, multiple times a day without paid. This really make you wonder how bias is this current version of this article from political motive? And is Wikepedia the right venue for anyone to take over and express their own polical view point? Why not write your own blog instead. Thanks, Jim Thompson (ex-expat)
 * This page is for discussion of the merit of the Bhumibol Adulyadej article. It is not for political discussion, nor is it a trial of my political views or my economic means.
 * You claim that my edits have defamed the subject of the article. This a serious allegation in Wikipedia.  I will assume good faith on your part in making this accusation, and would like to request that you specify where exactly I have defamed the subject.  I stand by my edit record.  If I have defamed him, I request that the Wikipedia administrators to immediately and permanently remove such defamations from the edit record. Patiwat 03:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - from Khompat. I am sorry to say that I would like to leave my comment here. To make any discussion with all of you is useless and wasting of my time. Either to post or to contribute this kind of article is also beyound my ability. You all will try to change it back as you wish anyway. This is disadvantage of free website. I do not want to waste my time for that. I should rather make a comment or remark. I think, the readers have their own judgment, so I am sure that most of Thai people would not believe this article much anyway. We all know the truth.
 * Comment - from Khompat. One more comment from me. I think, the editors here did not understand my point completely. My concern is that here in this article contained too much politic thing. I prefere that the editors make a link for the other topics, for instance "Crisis 2005-2006 in Thailand" and so on. Because this is supposed to be a biography, so it should contain only the general aspects about King's life. Why don't editors just translate from the article in this Wikipedia in the topic of "พระบาทสมเด็จพระปรมินทรมหาภูมิพลอดุลยเดช" (Thai version of King Bhumibol Adulyadej).
 * Khompat, please don't be discouraged. Wikipedia welcomes people of diverse perspectives, as long as they provide citations for their contributions, strive for the representation of all points of view, and are respectful of others.
 * Khompat, you have noted yourself that "the King has a lot of influence in Thai politics" and that "this special influence has saved Thai fragile democracy and slowly nurture the Thai democracy system." Given your views, how can you reasonably expect that the article not discuss his role in politics?
 * I do not think this article should strive to be an enlish translation of the Thai Wikipedia article. For one, the Thai article does not contain a single citation.  The accuracy of the article can not be validated.  In addition, the images on that article are not sourced and are presumably copyrighted images that are being used in the article without permission.  Third, the article does not contain any mention of his private life and hobbies, his future succession, his royal prerogatives and how he has used them, nor his role in politics.  In summary, the Thai language article could really use improvement as a biographical article, and should not be compared against the article in the English language wikipedia.  Any further discussion on this topic really belongs in the Discussion page of that article. Patiwat 22:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - from Khompat. I could only say that I have many objections to this article as mentioned above. You do your duty to edit this. I also do my duty to comment. That's all - I would like to say. One more thing, I agree that the language written here is very good. For this I have no doubt because you used some books as your references which the authors are supposed to be English host. Maybe I should stay abroad in one country for 10 years, then I will write the book to criticize that country by myself or my own opinion. Later, someone in that country will appreciate my work untill he could copy it and use it as reference. Well, anyway I have a doubt that it is a good idea to do so.


 * Support. I have kept an eye on this article for a long time. It has improved a lot over the past couple of months. Anagnorisis  06:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This article just doesn't seem right. Why is it being edited on such a regular basis; is King Bhumibol of Thailand that much of a motivation for the wikipedian editors involved? I would love to see these people working on HM Queen Elizabeth of the UK or perhaps the Sultan of Brunei as well. Also, I notice that this particular encyclopedic entry contains to many irrelavant information as well as non-subjective information--why go into so much details about those "incidents" or particular issues of interest. The entry also features tidbits of informations gathered from here and there for no apparent reasons. I have read the exact article on Encarta 2006 DVD Encyclopedia and it reads much better, and does not contains the non-subjective information like here. I think that this particular entry is quite unreliable, unlike that of Encarta which was written by college professors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.240.219 (talk • contribs)
 * The above logic implies Bhumipol is not worthy of a FA and that Wikipedia is substandard to Encarta. All articles have the potential to be FA and most editors are not professors.Rlevse 01:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with Rlevse. I'd also like to point out that non-subjective content in the article improves its quality; objective facts, backed by citations, representing multiple points of view are what a wikipedia article should strive for.  If there are any specific topics that 125.24.240.219 finds unreliable, please feel free to mention them.  And please, don't vandalize the Discussion page - doing so serves no constructive purpose. Patiwat 02:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment An editor should comb through the article and ensure that it refers to the King as either "Bhumibol", "King Bhumibol", or "The King". Right now, a mix of all three is used. The editors have discussed this a few times, but no one has ever gotten down to doing it.  Patiwat 03:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The other articles on Royals I've looked at use first name only, so I'll go change it.Rlevse 11:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Very nice and informative. Sumoeagle179 20:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Could you make the lead image smaller? it's too encumbering. CG 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Cut by 17%. Is that enough? I agree it looks better now. Good idea.Rlevse 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)