Talk:Thailand
|
|
For coordinating the editing of Thailand-related topics please visit Wikipedia:Thailand-related topics notice board
You can't just redirect. Siam is different than Thailand so it should have its own page.
Why not? In the last century the name of the country was changed from Siam to Thailand to Siam back to Thailand, and all of the enduring institutions of today's Thailand are inheritances from Siam. "Thailand" covers more than "Siam", but includes all of it; the best place to cover Siam would seem to be under Thailand. David K 11:55, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The information on municipalities is seriously obsolete: nowadays every amphoe has at least one municipality, thesaban tambon <name of amphoe> . That means there are nearly a thousand. As far as I know, all the sukhaaphibaan were eliminated in the process of creating the new municipalities. Is there someone with access to current government data who can update this?David K 11:55, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I could find numbers from the census 2000, which suggest that there were 7,408 Tambon (including the 154 kwaeng (แขวง) in Bangkok) and 69,307 Mubaan. Yet sadly those lists did not say about how many of the tambon are thesaban tambon, nor what happened with the Sukhaphiban. Once I find more information I will update those numbers (and
probablywrite up those information into a article tambon). andy 22:50, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I came here via the 'Featured Article' link on the main page and I'm somewhat surprised to find absolutely nothing here on these topics which brought Thailand into world attention during the last year or so:
- problems with the Islamic minority in the south (including terrorist attacks, leading up to the recent clashes where according to cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/04/28/thailand.violence/) over 100 insurgents were killed)
- the controversial "war on drugs" in 2002/2003 with over 2000 deaths (according to the bbc (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2953533.stm)) and 90,000 arrested. There is a small paragraph on illicit drugs in Foreign_relations_of_Thailand, but it mentions nothing of this.
- Foreign_relations_of_Thailand should surely mention the involvement in the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq (involving 443 Thai troops according to that entry)?
- tourism just gets 2 dry sentences in Economy of Thailand (and a bit in umm, this and other entries about places which are popular destinations)
etc. I know that Rome wasn't edited in a day, but this being a featured article I was hoping to find something to put those media reports in perspective. In all fairness, the stuff which is already there looks like very serious work. regards, High on a tree 05:07, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- Well, the featured article was Provinces of Thailand, not all our articles about Thailand. That one article by itself (plus all the province articles) should be fairly complete, yet for Thailand by itself it has many holes yet for sure. You are of course right that those points you list are missing, so why not be bold and add something on them where it fits. As I am the main contributor of Thai topics I simply haven't found the time or enough background information to writeup something good. E.g. for the problems in the deep south - I know about the recent problems for sure, as well as some bits about the inclusion of the Pattani sultanate into Siam in beginning of the 20th century, but I am ignorant about all the developement during the 20th century. andy 09:22, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- I see, seems I clicked on the wrong link then - apologies... in any case, I definitely respect your fine work. My issue was that maybe the decision to make this a 'featured' article was a bit premature, because one would expect some sort of completeness. (Btw the CNN article I linked mentioned incidents in Yala, Pattani and Songkla, and to be fair in two of those articles the separatist movement is briefly mentioned.) I felt hesitant to enter things I only read in the newspaper into articles which already seem quite polished. (Actually I spent a day in Hat Yai once and I've read Platform by Houellebecq, but that doesnt make me an expert in Thai moslem separatism... ;) ) grüße, High on a tree 03:25, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Map
I just noticed the map here still lists neighbouring country Myanmar as Burma. This should be updated.
- I disagree, but if you feel the urge, feel free. Markalexander100 03:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- It isn't much surprising, as that map is from the CIA world fact book (and thus PD) - and the USA is one of the few countries which did not accept the renaming to Myanmar. andy 07:44, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I started the comment, just forgot to put on my sig. I don't know much about East Asian politics but I do know that the official name for Burma is Myanmar. As long as the Myanmar is the official name, we should be using it. I won't bother finding a new map. If another agrees with me and is willing to update it, that would be great. --Will2k 14:54, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
Provinces
"The name of each province is derived from its capital city." Isn't this the wrong way round? --Bobbagum 15:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think so- the provinces take after the old-style meuang, where there was a city-state (maybe more accurately, "town-state") which had an undefined, fluctuating hinterland. The city/town was always primary. Markalexander100 00:35, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thailand has 75 provinces, not 76 provinces. See the Ministry of Interior's web site - http://www.moi.go.th/province.htm .Bangkok is special administration area - the capital city, not province.
Muang or Prathet?
I've never seen anything other than prathet Thai used in official contexts, surely this should be the local formal name of the country in the infobox? Jpatokal 17:09, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'd like both at least to be mentioned (more info is always good!). We could always note that muang is informal, but it might get a bit cluttered. Markalexander100 01:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
'Muang' is informal. Prathet (literally means 'country') is more formal. But the real official name of Thailand is 'Raja-anachakra Thai'(ราชอาณาจักรไทย - Pronounced as Rat-cha-ar-nar-chak-thai), it means 'Kingdom of Thailand'. And this should be mentioned, not 'Muang Thai'.
Sex Trade?
No discussion of the sex trade, and exploitation of women and children? (not to mention young boys) Isn't it analagous to the "beer that made Milwaukee famous"? No mention of the sex tourists? Is this some kind of whitewash? Porphyria 05:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- In contrast what the tabloid media try to make everyone believe, Thailand is much more than the sex business - but as "sex sells" you'll see much more stories about it than e.g. about the political situation in Thailand. And most tourists that visit Thailand aren't sex tourists, even though the percentage of sex tourists is probably higher than e.g. for those visiting Japan. But anyway. it is of course one aspect of the country, that's why we have the article Prostitution in Thailand, but IMHO it doesn't need to be mentioned with much higher prominence. andy 11:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ONLY STUPIDs?
I CAN SEE THAT LOTS OF IDIOTS ARE HERE!!!
PLS DONT CHANGE THAILAND (SIAM) HISTOTY UNLESS YOU KNOW BEST!
SOME ARE VERY STUPID AND DONT EVEN KNOW OUR HISTOTY; PLS WORK HARDER ON BOOKS AND REFERENCES!
ANY ADMINS; BEFORE CHANGING ANY DETAILS; PLS BE CAREFUL OF VANDALISM!
PLS READ PS
The sensitive case is that Thailand was the (informal) British colony, which it actually never was, and we cannot accept that. And the truth is that we also used to own the areas around which was later became the new territoties under the British Empire by an unfiar threats (in many historians' opinions). I think this page should not be changed by anybody anymore unless he/she knows what is behind the true story and understand OUR history well.
PS1: I HATE IDIOTS! PS2: SIAM HAS NOT BEEN COLONIZED BY ANY COUNTRY (FORMAL OR INFORMAL) PS3: PLS DONT CHANGE ANYTHING IF YOU DONT KNOW SIAM HISTORY!