Talk:Siamese revolution of 1932

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Siam before 1932: Since the year 1782 the Kingdom of Siam was ruled by the House of Chakri founded by King Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke (or Rama I). - poor construction, suggest From 1782 ...

   The capital city: Bangkok (built on Rattanakosin Island) was also founded by King Rama I. - drop the colon and relace by The capital city Bangkok, built on Rattanakosin Island, ...

   For over a century the Kings of Siam were able to protect the nation from neighbours and well as foreign nations, escaping colonialism from European giants such as Britain and France. - are the neighbours not foreign nations?

   OK, I am going to stop looking at the prose now as it is not good at all. Even the caption on the first picture is ungrammatical. Please get someone with a good command of written English to copy-edit throughout. You may get help from WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, but probably not quickly enough for this review. Maybe someone at the project WP:WikiProject Thailand could help?

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

1. a (references): b (citations to

   reliable sources): c (OR

   ):

   OK, excpet for last two paragraphs

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Last sentence represents a point of view

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have

   suitable captions

   ):

   File:Royalplaza.jpeg has an incorrect license - it is an old postcard so how did the copyright holder release this into teh public domain. The caption is ungrammatical.

   File:Paribatra Sukhumbhand.jpg - captions says ... brother to ther King. Which King?

   File:Pridi Panomyong (Scholar).jpg - caption is illiterate.

   File:Pibun.jpg - as per above

   File:สยามราษฎร์.jpg - as per above

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

OK, I am going to fail this now as I do not think the prose can be sufficiently improved in a week. As stated above you need to observe the GA criteria that an article be reasonably well written and this is a long way from that. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article as a whole gives an almost utopian impression to pre-1932 Siam, especially pre-R.6.
• More balanced discussion of various social structures under the system of absolute monarchy: slavery, feudalism, etc.
• More balanced discussion of R.5's reforms. The loss of territory to France. Criticisms and calls for reform from within the palace.
• More balanced discussion of criticisms to R.6's unique style of rule.
• No explanation as to the difference between the Treasury and the Privy Purse.
• R.7 a "sympathetic monarch"? Let's keep things factual.
• There is another view as to R.7's attempts at constitutionalism - that he was against reform.
• The Legacy section is not very NPOV: very critical of the Peoples' Party. On what basis to eliminate "real honourable intention" from their motivations? Patiwat (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The legacy section does indeed need citations, but it will be a bit difficult to dig them up. I have a few that may be relevant already in my computer, but it is my bedtime. Some good background material is in Just a battle of elites in Thailand? --Pawyilee (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: With regard to the influence of the military, Google this quote: "When I opened my mouth, they (the generals) would say, ‘Your Majesty, you don’t know anything,’" Bhumibol once recalled. "So I shut my mouth. I know things, but I shut my mouth." --Pawyilee (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Connors, Michael K. (May 1, 2010). "Liberalism, Authoritarianism and the Politics of Decisionism in Thailand" (Blog post). 'Liberalism, authoritarianism and the politics of decisionism in Thailand', The Pacific Review, 22:3, 355 - 373. Sovereign Myth. Retrieved April 20, 2011. The 2006 coup d'tat against the Thaksin regime highlights the ongoing failure to embed a legitimate pattern of decision-making, enforcement and sovereignty at the national level in Thailand. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)

This article cites 46 references. --Pawyilee (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal name: Stowe, Judith A. Main title: Siam becomes Thailand : a story of intrigue / Judith A. Stowe. Published/Created: Honolulu : University of Hawaii Press, c1991. Description: xii, 394 p. : ill. ; 22 cm. ISBN: 0824813936 0824813944 (pbk.) —Pawyilee (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that: [quote] Thongchai Winichakul. His hypothesis on the emergence of the modern Thai geobody is widely accepted by scholars in Thai and Southeast Asian studies.[3] He argues that the traditional Hindu-Buddhist paradigms of culture, space, governance and power were being challenged by a significantly different civilization that mainly arose from Latin Christianity tempered by Humanism of the Enlightenment.[4] The rising power and confidence in Europe saw a corresponding increase in Western chauvinism.[5] The East now became increasingly caricaturised as 'barbaric', ‘naïve’, 'childish' and 'inferior'. The mission to 'civilise' these 'barbaric Asiatics' became the raison d'être for colonialism and imperialism. [/quote]

It seems to me as an absolutely victimistic rant, since Thais, Chineses, Japaneses and everybody in the whole world considers itself as superior. Just consider the value of the words, "farang", "kwailoon", "gaijin" all these words have an intrisic meaning of inferiority, dirtiness, ignorance and so on. Just ask to a common Thai how are the Chineses (dirty), to a Chine how is the rest of the word (inferior), to a Japanese (smelly, inferior etc). Furthermore the Hindu-Buddhist values didn't avoid the most ruthless governance based on the power of the sword, from India to Japan. Asian nations didn't colonized the rest of the world simply because they had not the techonology to do so, but when they had the means they colonized and ransacked each other without mercy despite those Hindu-Buddhist values, which, by the way are not described in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.212.195.31 (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Siamese revolution of 1688 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Assembly of People's Representatives was expanded to include 156 members, 76 elected and 76 appointed." CulturalSnow (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]