Talk:Ananda Mahidol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Untitled

per Wikipedia´s rules on naming monarchs, this needs to be changed [1]

Rama VIII of Thailand
.

Please see the result of the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)#Article names for Thai royals/Thai with honorary titles first. andy
11:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thai names are indeed a swamp of confusion for ignorant farangs. The problem here is that "Rama" is not a name, it is a description. As I understand it is a contraction of "Raja Maha," which means "great king" in Sanscrit. Thus, the current king's name is Bhumipol Adulyadej, and he is the ninth Great King (Rama) of the Chakri dynasty. Thus although he is conventionally called "King Rama IX" this is not cognate with "King Louis IX." My prefered article title would be

Bhumipol Adulyadej, King of Thailand. Adam
11:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For this article, I would prefer

Bhumipol Adulyadej of Thailand. --Henrygb 18:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I have now been given a different version of the meaning of the Rama title. According to this version Rama III became convinced he was a reincarnation or emanation of the god

Rama (King of Thailand). The current king is therefore the Ninth Rama. This formulation might be better to use than Rama IX, which looks like a European personal name and regnal number. Adam 05:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I have hereby decided to deny the requested move to Rama VIII of Thailand. Arrigo 12:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My view is still that the title should be

Ananda Mahidol, King of Thailand. Adam 13:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


I have rewritten the section on the king's death. Comments welcome. I am Bangkok for the next few days. If any Thai Wikipedians are about, I would be interested in discussing this and other questions, so feel free to email me ([email protected]). Adam 13:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Name of Rama VIII should be Anandha Mahidol than Ananda Mahidol. --Pudtipong Nawasornyuttana 08:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ananda Mahidol is right, as d is used for ท and dh is used for ธ. CW32 16:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article says the King's pistol "was not nearby" and then in the next paragraph says it was found in his left hand. Confusing.

Removed Thai language link

I moved the following external link to the Thai Wikipedia as it is entirely written in Thai and would be better served in that language. It is nice that it has a lot of photographs but without the ability to read the captions of the photos they have no context.

Epolk 19:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon edits

I posted the following message to the Talk page of the anonymous person who has been editing this article. I have had no reply.

I note the edits you are making to this article, in which you say that Stevenson's book is an unreliable source. I make the following points:

  • Stevenson's book is the only recent account of the king's death in English. We therefore have to rely on it unless we have a better source.
  • You have not in fact challenged any of the points in Stevenson's account, just added comments to the effect that you don't believe them.
  • If you think Stevenson's account is wrong, you should say where it is wrong, and why you think this, and cite other sources if you have them.
  • You are an anonymous user who has a record of vandalism. Why should I take your word over the word of a published author who is a personal friend of the King of Thailand?
  • I am currently in Luang Prabang and don't have access to my books, so I won't revert your edits now. But I will do so when I get home unless you can show why the current article should be changed.

Unless the anon editor has some answers to these points, I will revert his edits. Adam 15:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I have now done so. Adam 07:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumipol ?

In the Mysterious Death topic, the name Bhumibol is replaced by Bhumipol in many places. Should they be edited? CW32 14:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious death

This section seems to do nothing but rehash the contents of a particular book and attempt to smear the name of Pridi Banomyong. There are a number of theories about the death, but there is no evidence that actually connects Pridi Banomyong with his death. There were just rumours spread after the king's death to smear Pridi's name. The more likely cause of the king's death is not something that people want to publish, but documentary evidence implying who was responsible for the death does exist. --Davidreid 04:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "he more likely cause of the king's death is not something that people want to publish, but documentary evidence implying who was responsible for the death does exist" I was very surprised that neither the article or even the talk page contained any direct references to what you are so obviously referring to here. I wont state it as I live in Thailand and don't want to go to jail - however I think some discussion should take place, and some sources found, related to this more likely cause of which you speak - one that every Thai I have ever delicately broached the subject with has conceded is indeed how he was killed. Sorry for being so cryptic, this is a delicate matter in Thailand - however I think it needs to be discussed and included in the article if relevant sources can be found. DegenFarang (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any fair reading of the section can be seen as a smear on Pridi, or as suggesting that Pridi was behind the King's death. That's not Stevenson's view or mine. Adam 04:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me if I'm misinterpretting wikipedia reference guidelines, but I think a specific citation should be given to the sentence that refers to the "official explanation" of his death. The article by the Hua Hin Tourist Information Center merely notes a radio announcement on the day of his death, which speculated that the King was playing with his pistol when it accidently went off. I don't think that really qualifies as an "official explanation". Patiwat 15:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "official explanation" of Ananda's death anywhere, and I can't imagine where this came from. Even the Stevenson book -- which is so full of errors, including the fantasy of Tsuji's role, that is is embarassing that someone here would call it reliable -- even the Stevenson book has the king calling his brother's death a mystery. A far more accurate, reasonable and still incomplete account of the Ananda case is in "Devil's Discus". This "official explanation" is a gross error.

Anonymous comments seldom get considered replies. Adam 04:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There were two sets of findings that I would technically consider "official". The first was the result of the first trial of the royal pages, which found that the death could not be due to an accident, but didn't find enough grounds to find the pages guilty. The second occured when, soon afterwards, Marshall Plaek staged a coup and ordered a retrial which found the royal pages guilty. Appeals were unsuccessful and the pages were executed. Given the politicized and tainted nature of these trials (especially the second one), I don't think the article should give too much credibility to the official explanation. To me, that sentence about the official explanation has to go. Patiwat 05:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The "Mysterious death" section currently seems a bit unstructured - we've got some good info, but right now it seems mixed up and a bit hard to follow. I'd like to suggest dividing up the curent text (little re-writing neccesary) into some sub-sections: 1) A short introduction, 2) Circumstances of the death - this would describe the events of that day, 3) Aftermath - this would discuss the key investigation results, trial, coup, retrial, and executions, 4) Theories explaining the death. Patiwat 12:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current section is based on Stevenson, which is the only source I had. Mr Anonymous keeps saying that Stevenson is unreliable, but doesn't say exactly why or how. What other source do you have? Adam 14:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd ignore Anon, given that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. My major issue with Stevenson (and Kruger, too) is that his book was banned in Thailand. Thus, its contents can not be reasonably verified by a Thai reader. This isn't that much of an issue though, because Stevenson's only original contribution to the mystery is the Tsuji Masanobu-hypothesis. Nearly all of his other information (the events of 9 June 2489, reasons why suicide was highly improbable) coincides with the court testimony of the key figures and the forensic analysis of Keith Simpson. Dr. Simpson's book is already cited in the article. Give me a chance to dig around for the court testimony. Any thoughts on the restructuring? Patiwat 02:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gather the main reason Stevenson is banned in Thailand is not that he is unreliable (it's pretty obvious that his major source for much of the book is the King), but that he calls the King "Lek," which is considered disrespectful. Adam 02:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"At 9am, Prince Bhumibol visited King Ananda. He said afterwards that he had found the King dozing in his bed. At 9.20am, a single shot rang out from the King's bedroom." This reads as though Bhumibol was with the King when he was killed. I'm assuming he wasn't, or he would know how the King died. Kernow 00:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This reads as though Bhumibol was with the King when he was killed. I'm assuming he wasn't, or he would know how the King died." I'd say you read it correctly, and that your subsequent assumption is incorrect. There's an alternative explanation, and this is why it's such a political and delicate matter in Thailand. 82.92.62.48 (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some references on the death of King Ananda

Many books have been written in Thai concerning the death of King Ananda. Very few of them are available online, and most of them are out of print. None of the them, to my knowledge, have been completely translated into English, and none of them are directly used as references in the article. I've translated the titles and author names and included online versions when available.

  • กรณีสวรรคต 6 มิถุนายน 2489 (สรรใจ แสงวิเชียร, วิมลพรรณ ปีตธวัชชัย) (http://anandamahidol.bravehost.com/) "The Case of the Royal Death, 6 June B.E. 2489" (Sanchai Saengwichian and Wimonphan Pitathawatchai)
  • คำพิพากษาศาลอาญาคดีประทุษฐ์ร้ายต่อพระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัว รัชกาลที่ 8 (ตีพิมพ์ 2517) "The Criminal Court Ruling on the Case of the Harming of the 8th King"
  • คำพิพากษาศาลอุทธรณ์ ศาลฎีกา คดีประทุษฐ์ร้ายต่อพระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัวรัชกาลที่ 8 (ตีพิมพ์ 2517) "The Appeals Court and Supreme Court Rulings on the Case of the Harming of the 8th King"
  • ความเห็นแย้ง (หลวงปริพนธ์พจนพิสุทธิ์) "Minority Ruling" (Luang Pariphonphotchanaphisut)
  • บันทึกการสอบสวนกรณีสวรรคตรัชกาลที่ 8 (รวบรวมพิมพ์จากบันทึกการสอบสวนที่ตีพิมพ์ในหนังสือพิมพ์ข่าวโฆษณการ จัดพิมพ์เนื่องใน โอกาสฉลองครบรอบ 100 ปี ชาตกาล นายปรีดี พนมยงค์) "Investigative Records Regarding the Death of the 8th King" (Collected as part of the Pridi Bhanomyong Centenary)
  • พระเจ้าอยู่หัวอานันทมหิดลของปวงชนชาวไทย (ไข่มุกด์ ชูโต) "King Ananda Mahidol and the Thai People" (Khaimook Chooto)
  • โต้คุณไข่มุกด์ ชูโต กรณีสวรรคต (สุพจน์ ด่านตระกูล) "Disputing Khaimook Chooto" (Supot Dantrakoon)
  • กระบวนการสร้างพยานเท็จอันเนื่องมาจากกรณีสวรรคตในหลวงอานันท์ฯ (สุพจน์ ด่านตระกูล) "The Process of Creating False Witnesses Due to the Death of King Ananda" (Supot Dantrakoon)
  • ข้อเท็จจริงเกี่ยวกับ ท่านปรีดีฯ และกรณีสวรรคต (สุพจน์ ด่านตระกูล) (http://www.geocities.com/pbanomyong/articles_th/sarakadee09.html) "The Truth Regarding Pridi and the Royal Death" (Supot Dantrakoon)
  • ในหลวงอานันท์กับคดีลอบปลงพระชนม์ (ชาลี เอี่ยมกระสินธุ์) "King Ananda and the Assassination Case" (Chalee Iamkrasin)
  • ในหลวงอานันทฯ กับปรีดี (ดำริห์ ปัทมะศิร) "King Ananda and Pridi" (Damri Pathamasiri)
  • กงจักรปีศาจ (ร.อ.ชลิต ชัยสิทธิเวช ร.น. แปลจาก The Devil's Discus by Rayne Kruger)

The following books in English also investigate the death of King Ananda.

  • The Devil's Discus (Rayne Kruger) - banned in Thailand. Used copies are extremely rare.
  • The Revolutionary King (William Stevenson) - banned in Thailand.
  • Forty Years of Murder (Keith Simpson)
  • The King Never Smiles (Paul M Handley) - provides a good objective overview of theories, including obscure ones.

-- Patiwat 23:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ananda Mahidol portrait photograph.jpg

fair use
.

Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was Ananda murdered by Bhumibol?

There are three oblique contributions above which imply that a belief exists that the King murdered his brother. There is no reference to this in the article. I know to say this would be a serious crime in Thailand, but surely there is someone somewhere in the world (outside Thai jurisdiction) who has some information on this that can be at least openly discussed on the talk page (or ideally, if there are citations, included in the article). Equally, nothing can be said which is libellous. But saying that an allegation exists (if it does) should not be libellous. If it is true that the King visited him just before the shot was heard, this is something that needs to be explored regardless of Thai sensibilities DeCausa (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK found a ref., and have added into article (stub really just to get the subject going and hopefully someone can add to it). DeCausa (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Handley's formulation is, "Ananda shot himself or was killed by Bhumibol." But even under the suicide theory, Bhumibol knew the truth, but blamed Pridi and allowed three innocent servants to be executed. In any case, Simpson's account seems to rule out the possibility that Ananda could have shot himself, either by accident or by suicide. The Thai doctors are said to have concurred with this opinion, although it would be more satisfying if their actual testimony was available. Ananda was asleep and someone came into the room, shot him in the forehead at close range, and then put a gun in his hand. That's the only explanation consistent with the medical evidence, but no published writer draws the obvious conclusion. Kauffner (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OAS?

From the article: "During the war, many members of the Thai Government, including the Ambassadorial staff in Japan acted as 'de-facto' spies on the side of the Allies, funneling secret information to the OAS."

What is the OAS? I went to the disambiguation page and there is nothing this sentence could be referring to. Perhaps it should be OSS? The whole section of the article this sentence is in is unsourced anyway. Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Further cleanup of Mysterious Death

Right now, there are a couple of problems with the death section. The first one is how the last section, "Alternative explanations of the death," is organized. The title implies that it should be organized by the different explanations, instead of the somewhat random way it is currently organized. Some of the sub-sections are people accused of being involved in the death, and others are those who advanced their own theories. It doesn't matter how it is organized as much as that it has to be consistent.

The second problem is that the section briefly mentions Stevenson's theory that Tsuji Masanobu, a Japanese spy, killed the king. The article presents no evidence for this theory except that Tsuji was in Thailand at the time. If that's all the evidence Stevenson had, I don't think that that opinion even belongs in this article.

The biggest problem is the way this article treats the theory that Bhumibol killed Ananda. It is implied in the way the events of the morning are presented (Bhumibol visited his brother at 9, the last person known to see him alive, and his brother is dead by 9:20), and is a conclusion many readers will jump to. I know this subject is forbidden in Thailand, and I also know that many people assume that Bhumibol killed his brother. There is definitely a source out there that at least discusses this possibility, and we need to find it and put it in, if only to say "[source] suggests Bhumibol killed Ananda, but this is controversial and not proven."

This change is necessary because, as this article currently stands, it heavily implies that Bhumibol murdered his brother without actually saying it. That is not proper for an encyclopedia. Even if the truth in this will never be known, we have a duty to present the theories about his death openly instead of forcing readers to make unfounded assumptions.

I'm not very good at finding sources, but I will edit this article to make it seem less fearful and gossipy.Great Skies Above! (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I made this edit two years ago, but it seems have disappeared now! DeCausa (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it hasn't. It's still there in essence - I just missed it! DeCausa (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, as Thai's would say, a million percent. The article appears to have been scrubbed pretty thoroughly of any mention of what most Thai's know to be the most probable reason for the death: that he was killed by the current sitting King. This should not only be included, it should be highlighted, and all of these other explanations should be exposed for what they are: lies and propaganda.
Sorry if the truth is upsetting to Thai people or to Thailand but this is Wikipedia, not The Bangkok Post, and not subject to censorship. DegenFarang (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is Wikipedia and Wikipedia has the following policies:
WP:BLP so repeating rumour is not an option. If you have a reliable source that can support the statement that "what most Thai's know to be the most probable reason for the death: that he was killed by the current sitting King" then could you provide it. DeCausa (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
This is not a biography of a living person. DegenFarang (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what?
WP:BLP applies to statements about him in this article. DeCausa (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Now what? Qemist (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ananda Mahidol. 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:

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

Sourcecheck
}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 05:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comparison with Events in the Spanish Monarchy

I feel it would be interesting to know whether an historian /author has drawn a comparison between the events in the Thai and the Spanish monarchy... --Terminally uncool (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Font size in mobile mode changes

When looking at this article on an Android device, the article starts with one font, then drops to a smaller font after the heading for "Early Life." It continues in that smaller font until the section titled "Death," where it returns to the original size. Then the first couple of paragraphs of the next section, "Events of June..." are in the smaller font size until the word "juice" where it again returns to the original size font. There may be more places where it does this.

I looked at the section in edit mode and did not see any codes for font size. In addition, the font change does not appear on the Android device when the view is changed to desktop mode (by deleting the "m" from the URL). I didn't make any changes. Ileanadu (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thai banknotes?

How does the <ref> (at "==Reign==" and at "Thai people" in the "Post-war" paragraph) to Thai banknotes support the text they are connected to? FredTC (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. The ref was originally added to support a sentence about the king being depicted on the 20-baht note, but the sentence was removed as irrelevant, and the citation left there out of context. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ananda_Mahidol&oldid=1216970383"