This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Does Bhumibol Adulyadej hold the rank of Marshal of the Royal Thai Air Force? Greenshed ( talk) 20:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
the link to this page Bhumibol Adulyadej is currently blocked when access from Thailand, as of 10 Oct 2008 14:43 local time.
the blockage is likely to be at ISP level, as users of TOT and True cannot make an access, while users of UniNet (university network) and CS Loxinfo are able to.
see reports in http://itshee.exteen.com/20081010/entry-1 's comment (1 = cannot access, 0 = can access; follows by ISP name (TOT, True, etc.)) 58.136.52.240 ( talk)
Under Construction
The site you are trying to view does not currently have a default page. It may be in the process of being upgraded and configured.
Please try this site again later. If you still experience the problem, try contacting the Web site administrator.
If you are the Web site administrator and feel you have received this message in error, please see "Enabling and Disabling Dynamic Content" in IIS Help. To access IIS Help
1. Click Start, and then click Run. 2. In the Open text box, type inetmgr. IIS Manager appears. 3. From the Help menu, click Help Topics. 4. Click Internet Information Services.
Pawyilee ( talk) 09:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Reported Attack Site! This web site at www.ect.go.th has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences. Attack sites try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system. Some attack sites intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners.
Diagnostic page for www.ect.go.th/english What is the current listing status for www.ect.go.th/english? Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer. Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 3 time(s) over the past 90 days. What happened when Google visited this site? Of the 207 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 9 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2008-10-10, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2008-09-29. Malicious software includes 7 scripting exploit(s), 5 trojan(s), 3 exploit(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 6 new processes on the target machine. Malicious software is hosted on 17 domain(s), including aolcounter.com, neiron2009.com, 58.65.239.0. 11 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including opana.cn, jezl0.com, p0llo.com. Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware? Over the past 90 days, www.ect.go.th/english did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites. Has this site hosted malware? No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days. How did this happen? In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message.
Pawyilee ( talk) 10:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is not an attack site. Blocking this article is mere censorship. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
BangkokPost breaking news - The Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) plans to spend about 100 million to 500 million baht to build a gateway to block websites with contents defaming the royal institution. (Retrieved 2008-10-29) Wikipedia's English-language article on King Bhumibol continues to be blocked. Pawyilee ( talk) 12:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for all of you who made this page a history. One day people in my country will see through it. We've been brainwashed since I remember, everyday, everywhere, every time -- it's been yellow fever here.
I believe that it is our right to think different. They can keep blocking the pages with contents defaming royal institution but they can't block my thought.
At the moment, it is possible to get to the article in Thailand by being redirected from Rama IX. Pawyilee ( talk) 12:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I made some edits to the Wealth section, but I am not able to save them, apparently due to the semi-protected status of the page. (It occurs to me that I may also be encountering difficulty because I am posting from Thailand, and the page on King Bhumibol is blocked. I accessed the page indirectly, via another page.) Can anyone help? Should I post the edited section here, where someone with higher privileges can review them and then insert them? Thanks.
estéban ( talk) 16:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone change this to when there 'had been' or 'was' - 'were' is wrong and it really knocks down the quality of the article seen as it is right at the very beginning.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.178.156 ( talk) 12:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions his wealth as $5b, however the cited reference from Forbes mentions $35b and so do some other pages on Wikipedia. I see that there has been some controversy on what Forbes reported and what Thailand claims. So is this discrepancy because of that? What is the real figure?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by VinnieCool ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is this article's title (and other kings of Thailand) seemingly unlike that of every other monarch on wikipedia that take the form of [Regnal-name] of [Country]? Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I had a quick look through talk and couldn't see anything about it. Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand would be a title far more immediately easily understood for those unfamiliar with the subject. 86.29.201.193 ( talk) 03:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to source the news on it, but the King has been in hospital for the last few days, with a fever. GoodDay ( talk) 18:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It is stated:
Although Bhumibol is sometimes referred to as King Rama IX in English, the name "Rama" is never used in Thai.
This is not entirely true. Although Rama IX is not normally used to refer to the person of the King directly, Rama 9 (or พระรามที่ 9 in Thai) is commonly used as a name in Thailand for names of streets, bridges, hospitals, etc. eg. Rama 9 Road, Rama 9 Hospital. It is understood that these places are named for the current King.
Can someone please edit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.147.118 ( talk) 07:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I was surprised to read that the king of Thailand was born in Massachusetts. I presume he has renounced American citizenship or some such thing, because otherwise he'd be an American citizen under ius soli - if he was, indeed, born on American soil. So was he, and can we confirm that? 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 21:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof... (emphasis added.)
— Section 1, Amendment 14
"This very Wikipedia article has been blocked in Thailand."
I am an expat in Thailand and although I can't source on pages that have been blocked, this page is definitely not blocked by any internet company in Thailand, both in BK and Phuket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.53.76.130 ( talk) 12:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
which (very) roughly translates as
58.147.52.14 ( talk) 20:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The page was prohibited because of the court order. It could have an affect on or be against the security of the Kingdom, public order or good morals. Thai: ท่านไม่สามารถเข้าชม web page ที่ต้องการ เนืองจาก มีคำสั่งศาลให้ปิดกั้น หรือ มีลักษณะเข้าข่ายที่อาจกระทบต่อความมั่นคงแห่งราชอาณาจักร หรืออาจขัดต่อความสงบเรียบร้อยหรือศีลธรรมอันดีของประชาชน
— Super Broadband Network Co., Ltd., sbn.co.th/prohibit.html
-- Pawyilee ( talk) 14:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like the editors to change all "Bhumibol" to either "King Bhumibol" or "HM Bhumibol" since he is the KING. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.193.165 ( talk) 15:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
There are several grammatical conventions, I believe, that call for the king's name and/or address not to be used colloquially, especially his first name as it connotes a first-name basis familiarity with a non-monarch. That the king is a monarch means that he should always be addressed in formal manner, such as is “Mr. Prime Minister” or “Mr. President,” etc. The rules on titles, honorifics (a grammatical form of speech used when speaking to or addressing a social superior) are long-established and call for the formal reference to be used in addressing persons of stature and those who have received special honors, such as Sir Edmund Hillary or Khunying Kalaya Sophonpanich, etc. When one lowers the honorific or deletes it altogether, such as is done when using ‘Bhumibol’ rather that His Majesty the king or HM Bhumibol Adulyadej, then it becomes a violation of various sorts, social and even stepping into the iconoclastic social moré-busting category [in short, viewed either as impolite, ignorant or even derogatory]. Until societies get quite a bit further along, it seems as if we need to understand required conventions and then to use them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.36.47 ( talk) 08:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I can tell you first that I am Thai. And for sure I have high respect to my King. So that I certainly want you to show respect to my King by using HM in front of his majesty name. You may thank that Thai people don't pay respect to his majesty. You are wrong because you are not Thai and I can garantee to you tha all of real Thai people(I mean Thai people is one who love Thailand) also love Thai king. And that laws is not for protecting his majesty but for protecting one who do that instead. I have read some of imappropriate words and I can say you the truth that I fell suddenly angry! And do you know all of Thai feeling when meet such these people who don't respect his beloved one. As religin, this story is very deligate. We can die for King and we can do all thing to protect his majesty. So if those one don't get something back; who know they may not have healthy life with full of organs like nowaday. So far, you may think that Thais people are very cruel; one thing you should know is that our culture is different and we are polite in all story except this. Please understand us. His majesty is our father who is so love us. [Although these people was arrested in some time but his majesty give royal pardon to all of them, isn't it his majesty high generousity?] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.151.125 ( talk) 14:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The fact that Thais have a particular way of referring to the king to show respect is irrelevant to how he should be referred to in an English-language encyclopedia. DeCausa ( talk) 23:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The article mentions that the King was hospitalised on 29th September 2009and discharged on 27th February 2010.
This is factually incorrect. The "discharge" in February was only a temporary one of a few hours, he returned to the hospital in the small housr as eventusally reported in the press. He has remained hospitalised sine then. [1] 112.142.93.212 ( talk) 00:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 112.142.140.132 ( talk) 15:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I have some issues with the neutrality of the article in certain places, as well as its completeness in regards to the last 3-5 years and in the spots referred to below. I am posting them here in the hopes that whoever is actively involved in maintaing this article can address them, so that a FAR can be avoided.
First, the article makes several claims about the king’s alleged public popularity with Thais:
One wonder’s what the basis for these claims is. Independently-conducted, scentific public opinon polls? The say-so of newspaper staff writers? The article should focus on clearer, narrower, more verifiable claims, rather than trite and vague haigiography. In fact, buried in the text of the article is a source that disputes the idea that the king is universally adored. The body of the article should devote some space to a serious decision of the king’s approval rating, with some focus on the how it has been measured (if it has been at all). What it should not do is take sides early and often.
Second, lèse majesté.
The following sections lack citations:
Other issues:
Finally, the aritcle is in need of updating on the King’s role in Thai politics since 2006, especially since 2008. Savidan 06:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
+I'm not sure that many/any of these criticisms have been answered. Two issues jump out at me: 1. "publicly acclaimed 'the Great'". This is without citation and smacks of propaganda. I suspect (but don't know) that it is one of his formal titles. If so, this should be explained rather letting the reader think he is in the company of Alexander the Great, Alfred the Great, Peter the Great etc. Until this is done I'm deleting it. 2. The reference to him switching his university courses to law and politics to "better prepare himself" for rule also smacks of propaganda - as though he was the model monarch and model monarch-in-waiting. It would be ok if his motivation was with citation, but it's not. I'm deleting the reference to his motivation. Generally, I notice that anything positive in this article is with no/poor citation. Not sure of the history of the article but overall it looks like some pro-monarchist Thai wrote a hagiograpy which has been chipped away over time. DeCausa ( talk) 23:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. This article used to categorize that the king is a Thai person of Chinese descent. Have anyone got references for this? I doubt that it might be incorrect information. I also open this discussion at Thai Wikipedia either. -- Octra Bond ( talk) 06:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Apparently this was an allegation in Thailand at the time of the succession - and was what prompted the lese majeste law. It's a belief still in circulation (although never publicly voiced for obvious reasons). The king visited Ananda minutes before the shot that killed him was heard. I think some reference needs to be made to it in this article. Can someone provide further info? DeCausa ( talk) 17:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
DeCausa, the lese majeste law has been in existent since even before King Ananda was born, it was older than King Bhumibol himself. -- Rattakorn c ( talk) 04:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed a mild edit war (which I've not been involved in) on this subject with a number of IPs (don't know if they are socks or not) putting in a line that this article is blocked. Thought I'd just chip in that if there is evidence that this page is blocked because of the 'lese majeste blocking' then I think it is relevant to this article and worth including. I think the issue is that no secondary source has been cited evidencing it is so blocked - unless it is sourced, no reference could be made to it. But someone should spend some time looking for a source because, if true, I think it would be of interest to readers. I'll revert the edit now, pending inclusion of a source. DeCausa ( talk) 18:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It would have to be published anonymously, as a publisher in Thailand could get 15 years in prison, and one abroad, declared persona non grata. I'm dropping out of this discourse, as connecting via Wiki's secure server makes my computer act weird on other sites.i.e., opening up multiple windows. Bye bye. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 02:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
it would be interesting if we can have some information on where's the King donations go, and also how much money his majesty receive 'in donation' from other people & organizations.
Thais have a tradition of giving money to the King in praise of his virtues. (and also make a good PR for their organization) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.234.58 ( talk) 04:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
สมเด็จพระเจ้าตากสินมหาราช ทรงสถาปนา อาณาจักรธนบุรีเมื่อ พ.ศ. 2310 - 2325 หรือ ปี (ค.ศ. 1767 - 1782) ไม่ใช่ค.ศ. 1768 กรุณาแก้ด้วย — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.229.39 ( talk) 11:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious to know why Bhumibol is used throughout the article instead of Adulyadej? It seems rather unprofessional to use his first name rather than his last name. Most other prominent figures are referred to by their last name, except in the case of monarchs who use a royal name--and in this article that would be Rama IX, not Bhumibol. There may be a good reason, though, so perhaps someone could explain. If not, perhaps it could be changed. I don't have access to edit the introduction.
Foxi tails ( talk) 08:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Earlier this month, a 23-year-old graduate from the Kasetsart University has been arrested for allegedly posting content on his blog that is deemed insulting to the monarchy – also known as lèse majesté.
-- Pawyilee ( talk) 08:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I can see your point about Thais not generally addressing people by their last names. It still sounds unprofessional and informal to me when I read it, but I am not disputing the validity of your assertion. Perhaps prefacing instances of "Adulyadej" with "King" would help? Foxi tails ( talk) 10:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't help but notice in the "Succession and marriage" portion of the article there's a place where the given source conflicts with what the article says (and a possible bit of spin-doctoring on top of that). Specifically, the source offered for the section that discusses that Bhumibol may have killed his brother is Paul Handley, who does indeed discuss the possibility but notes that if it did occur it would have been an accident. The text preceding the source, however, is phrased in such a way that it implies Bhumibol shot his brother with malicious intent. Belgium EO ( talk) 04:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Bhumibol Adulyadej 07.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
This article should not show interest in rumors that King Bhumibol was "involved in or responsible for" his brother's death. Being involved in one's own brother's death is a severe claim and should, not even allusively, be in a BLP. -- RJFF ( talk) 23:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Also "mysterious circumstances" is inartfully expressed. This wording belongs in the sensational press rather than in an encyclopedia. How could we phrase it more apt? -- RJFF ( talk) 23:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Therequiembellishere removed the length of Bhumibol's reign (which used the {{ Age in years and days}} template) from the infobox with no edit summary, and when I reverted (as an unexplained removal, asking "what's wrong with having reign duration in the infobox?"), reverted me with the summary "Because they aren't in any other infobox. There needs to be a 'why for' argument before you raise 'why not'". As Bhumibol is currently the world's longest reigning monarch and longest serving head of state, I think people who read about him will want to know how long his reign currently is without having to work it out for themselves, and I think it makes sense to have it there. I'd like to hear what other people think. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
"Bhumibol is credited with a social-economic theory of self-sufficiency. His personal wealth is tremendous"
- The author should study the theory of self-sufficiency well before writing this article.
The main idea of this theory is not spending over how much you gain, saving money and not gaining debt (Of course, if you save money, you can gain wealth.). But after the coup during PM Taksin, his theory was changed for Politics reason. This theory is against Government's policy in PM Taksin. His policy is Populism and need Thais to make debts. Some tried to say the his theory is the best for farmers. But the King confirmed on His Birthday's speech that his theory can be applied for all people.
What if someone said that the king could go eat a . . . ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.212.32 ( talk) 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- The author wrote how much the king earned but he should state how much the king spent. As the chief of state, he has thousand of private projects and charities. Some of his projects made the better life for Thais but this is not included on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxiczero ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
== The article is very narrow viewed and only talk about one-sided story without proof.
No, this article is just a series of cited, well-supported facts. If you are in Thailand, the links have most likely been censored and you seriously risk violating Lese Majeste laws if you say the "wrong" thing here. This is unfortunate as there is almost nothing positive you could add while still being truthful. Neutrality, facts and free speech are a real inconvenience huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.181.119 ( talk) 03:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's not talk about general stuff but the sentences that are originally brought up. "Bhumibol is credited with a social-economic theory of self-sufficiency. His personal wealth is tremendous" This does not even make logical sense, and it leads people to believe that King Bhumibol is hypocritical (which we cannot deal with due to lack of evidence). I suggest someone at least elaborate his theory a bit (1 sentence, probably) and summarize his wealth-related stuff to also 1-2 sentences. The summary of the page will look much more neutral. 128.12.217.192 ( talk) 03:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe that this sentence "Although Bhumibol is legally a constitutional monarch, he has made several decisive interventions in Thai politics" is not based on a strong evidence. Therefore, it should be changed to "Although Bhumibol is legally a constitutional monarch, it is believed that he has made several decisive interventions in Thai politics." -- Pasitnat ( talk) 11:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
During the 1970s, Bhumibol was a key figure in the Village Scouts and Red Gaur paramilitary organisations.
Should stay removed. He might be characterized as key figurehead, as I sincerely doubt any active involvement, and there is no way to document it either way. A critical omission in the series of events that precipitated the events described was then call The Hat Yai Incident, which involved the crash of an Army helicopter with Thailand's then most beloved movie star aboard, along with one of Bangkok's wealthiest Chinese tycoons; the rumors that ensued; and the public statement about it by HRH who was then a university student, herself. I read about in a daily on Guam, but can't find a trace of the reportage now. Lesson learned: HRH's don't make statements like that, and HM doesn't. — Pawyilee ( talk) 07:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Recommend an editor with better access than mine, include information from The new theory and the sufficiency economy.-- Pawyilee ( talk) 08:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Article entry citing CPB annual report is only for the King's eyes only is outdated and incorrect. The annual report is available online at the CPB website [1] 94.202.56.83 ( talk) 12:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
An OTRS correspondent writes:
Thought you should know that the Thai Ministry of Communication has just blocked the King of Thailand page (Bhumibol Adulyadej). That's on the English and Thai Wikipedias when trying to view from within Thailand. Checked a few other languages (German, French, Spanish) and they are still working.
Obviously, I'm not in a position to verify that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I have just accessed this article, as well as the talk page from Thailand, check my IP. I will try to make a null edit on the article as well 115.67.6.77 ( talk) 01:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Can we get an accurate translation please of the King's style and title? Google translate gave me this from the Thai:
"His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej on Cummins Navy. Thi La Belle Ramathibodi Mahidol keys. Chakri Narula on Navy land Drugs including fungi Open University Hmmmm"
Could this be a case of vandalism of the original Thai that has remained undetected? or is it simply bad translation? Llanforda ( talk) 02:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the addition of this photo lacks relevance. The entire article doesn't even mention any of the King's Guard regiments. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 10:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Why is the King not listed under his royal title (Rama IX)? It seems weird that Juan Carlos I and Elizabeth II are listed by their royal (numerical) titles but Adulyadej isn't. It's akin to writing 'Elizabeth Windsor', which just seems weird (and is incorrect). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.117.226 ( talk • contribs) 11:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Does someone know why the name of the King is romanized as Bhumibol and not as Phumiphon? -- FredTC ( talk) 11:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
"Baby Songkla" is an accidental American as his parents were in student rather than diplomat status, and there is no record of part of the hospital have been given temporary extraterritorial status. Effect of the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act on "accidental Americans" makes it interesting that the lead has recently changed to add:
— Pawyilee ( talk) 09:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Bhumibol Adulyadej. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
First and foremost, this is a BLP. If you do not know (and do not have any reliable source stating directly whether or not he is a US citizen now, the article and its categories should not take any stand on matter at all; it should be limited to noting the facts which reliable sources have consistently noted, e.g. his place of birth, by which he is already categorised.
Second, as WP:CATDEF points out, articles are not categorised by every single characteristic of the subject, but the defining ones: "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". The categories "Thai American" or "American of Thai descent" clearly fail that test. quant18 ( talk) 09:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Bhumibol Adulyadej. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Bhumibol Adulyadej. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Bhumibol Adulyadej. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bhumibol Adulyadej. 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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This article looks fine if you're logged in. Here's what this page looks like if you're not logged in.
http://imgur.com/jNF57Kz (NSFW)
On this page, /info/en/?search=Bhumibol_Adulyadej , if you're not logged in
<li id="cite_note-130"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-130"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a>
</b>
</span> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation web">Warrick-Alexander, James (6 February 2006). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=31649">"Thailand Bars Univ. Website"</a>. Yale Daily News<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">5 July</span> 2006</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ABhumibol+Adulyadej&rft.aufirst=James&rft.aulast=Warrick-Alexander&rft.btitle=Thailand+Bars+Univ.+Website&rft.date=2006-02-06&rft.genre=unknown&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yaledailynews.com%2Farticle.asp%3FAID%3D31649&rft.pub=Yale+Daily+News&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook" class="Z3988"><span style="display:none;"> </span></span><sup class="noprint Inline-Template"><span style="white-space: nowrap;"><i><a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot" title="Wikipedia:Link rot"><span title=" Dead link since June 2016">dead link</span></a></i></span></sup></span>
</li>
is replaced with this
<li id="cite_note-130"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-130"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a>
</b>
</span> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation web">Warrick-Alexander, James (6 February 2006). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=31649">"Thailand Bars Univ. Website"</a>. Yale Daily News<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">5 July</span> 2006</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ABhumibol+Adulyadej&rft.aufirst=James&rft.aulast=Warrick-Alexander&rft.btitle=Thailand+Bars+Univ.+Website&rft.date=2006-02-06&rft.genre=unknown&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yaledailynews.com%2Farticle.asp%3FAID%3D31649&rft.pub=Yale+Daily+News&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook" class="Z3988"><span style="display:none;"> </span></span><sup class="noprint Inline-Template"><span style="white-space: nowrap;"><i><a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot" title="Wikipedia:Link rot"><span title=" Dead link since June 2016">dead link</span></a></i></span></sup><incldueonly></span>
<div style="position:fixed;left:0;bottom:0;">
<a href="/wiki/GNAA" title="GNAA"><img alt="COCO COXX 1.jpg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/COCO_COXX_1.jpg" data-file-width="400" data-file-height="598" height="1047" width="700"></a>
</div>
<div style="position:fixed;left:700px;bottom:0;">
<a href="/wiki/GNAA" title="GNAA"><img alt="COCO COXX 1.jpg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/COCO_COXX_1.jpg" data-file-width="400" data-file-height="598" height="1047" width="700"></a>
</div>
<div style="position:fixed;left:1400px;bottom:0;">
<a href="/wiki/GNAA" title="GNAA"><img alt="COCO COXX 1.jpg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/COCO_COXX_1.jpg" data-file-width="400" data-file-height="598" height="1047" width="700"></a>
</div>
<div style="position:fixed;left:2100px;bottom:0;">[File:COCO COXX 1.jpg|700px|link=GNAA]]</div>
<div style="position:fixed;left:0;top:0;">
<a href="/wiki/GNAA" title="GNAA"><img alt="COCO COXX 1.jpg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/COCO_COXX_1.jpg" data-file-width="400" data-file-height="598" height="1047" width="700"></a>
</div>
<div style="position:fixed;left:700px;top:0;">
<a href="/wiki/GNAA" title="GNAA"><img alt="COCO COXX 1.jpg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/COCO_COXX_1.jpg" data-file-width="400" data-file-height="598" height="1047" width="700"></a>
</div>
<div style="position:fixed;left:1400px;top:0;">
<a href="/wiki/GNAA" title="GNAA"><img alt="COCO COXX 1.jpg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/COCO_COXX_1.jpg" data-file-width="400" data-file-height="598" height="1047" width="700"></a>
</div>
<div style="position:fixed;left:2100px;top:0;">
<a href="/wiki/GNAA" title="GNAA"><img alt="COCO COXX 1.jpg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/COCO_COXX_1.jpg" data-file-width="400" data-file-height="598" height="1047" width="700"></a>
</div>
<div style="position:fixed;left:0;top:0;background-color:yellow;color:red;font-size:20px;font:arial;">
<p>ATTENTION: Wikipedia is written by freaks, losers, social rejects, trannies, and all other kinds of awful people. You wouldn't trust them to sit with you at lunch in high school so why should you believe them now. Follow @Meepsheepy on Twitter for more. Thank you.</p>
</div>
</li>
Same thing happens to cite_note-99 in the reflist.
I've copied the source of this article to another and I could not reproduce this behaviour. Seems to be happening in this article only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumibo ( talk • contribs) 05:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
This isn't happening anymore but someone might want to do some auditing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumibo ( talk • contribs) 06:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Owing to recent news reports, I have updated the health section and put a Current tag on it and another on the article itself. I am following this story closely & can continue to update. -- Bluejay Young ( talk) 02:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
This article may need protection, until his death is confirmed. GoodDay ( talk) 10:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The question which journalist reported his death first is irrelevant for an encyclopedic article. This information should stay out, not only for irreverence but also for a lack of notability. This is nothing but undue advertisement for this publicist. -- RJFF ( talk) 15:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Why dont we use the title instead of full name?-- Lão Ngoan Đồng ( talk) 19:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Why are we not listing Vajiralongkorn as the new King? I thought the succession was automatic. GoodDay ( talk) 21:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The claim that "During his reign, he was served by a total of 30 prime ministers beginning with Pridi Banomyong and ending with Prayut Chan-o-cha. They are otherwise known as Bhumibol's Thirty" is not backed up by the citation to http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/13/thailand-s-king-bhumibol-dies-triggering-anguish-and-fears-of-unrest.html Google doesn't have any mention of the term "Bhumibol's Thirty." Erasing this. -- Patiwat ( talk) 03:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@ แอนเดอร์สัน: Is there a particular reason why the image should be the one taken in 2015? Given now the situation isn't it better to have an image that shows the subject at a relatively younger age and in royal uniform that is more representative for his role, and his life? -- Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 01:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a long section in our article on the 1976 Thammasat University massacre that details Bhumibol's involvement in the event and the paramilitary forces that carried it out - specifically the "Village Scouts" anticommunist paramilitaries, the Nawaphon anticommunist group, and the Red Gaurs gang. The section is abundantly sourced if someone has time to work on it. - Darouet ( talk) 20:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Having heard his name pronounced on news media recently why is his name transcribed as Bhumibol which would appear to be pronounced Bum-e-bol. Poo-nee-pon seems to be the correct pronunciation, this doesn't seem to happen with other Thai names transcribed to Latin alphabets so how/why has it happened in this case? 85.255.236.75 ( talk) 08:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I've spent a fair amount of time in Thailand, and have never heard him called "Bhumibol the Great". If we're going to have this in the lead, perhaps "known by some as King Bhumibol the Great". Thoughts? Edwardx ( talk) 17:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I find the lead section imbalanced. It only focuses on the negative aspects of his rule (which, of course, exist and have to be mentioned). But there is barely any mention of his positive achievements (which exist as well, and are not even denied by his critics) and the immense popularity, or love, he enjoyed among widest parts of the population. -- RJFF ( talk) 14:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The article on the king's son has a section on Vajiralongkorn#Honours, but this article does not. I think this would be a lovely addition... -- Rebroad ( talk) 07:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bhumibol Adulyadej. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mcot.net/content/19232When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Does Bhumibol Adulyadej hold the rank of Marshal of the Royal Thai Air Force? Greenshed ( talk) 20:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
the link to this page Bhumibol Adulyadej is currently blocked when access from Thailand, as of 10 Oct 2008 14:43 local time.
the blockage is likely to be at ISP level, as users of TOT and True cannot make an access, while users of UniNet (university network) and CS Loxinfo are able to.
see reports in http://itshee.exteen.com/20081010/entry-1 's comment (1 = cannot access, 0 = can access; follows by ISP name (TOT, True, etc.)) 58.136.52.240 ( talk)
Under Construction
The site you are trying to view does not currently have a default page. It may be in the process of being upgraded and configured.
Please try this site again later. If you still experience the problem, try contacting the Web site administrator.
If you are the Web site administrator and feel you have received this message in error, please see "Enabling and Disabling Dynamic Content" in IIS Help. To access IIS Help
1. Click Start, and then click Run. 2. In the Open text box, type inetmgr. IIS Manager appears. 3. From the Help menu, click Help Topics. 4. Click Internet Information Services.
Pawyilee ( talk) 09:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Reported Attack Site! This web site at www.ect.go.th has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences. Attack sites try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system. Some attack sites intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners.
Diagnostic page for www.ect.go.th/english What is the current listing status for www.ect.go.th/english? Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer. Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 3 time(s) over the past 90 days. What happened when Google visited this site? Of the 207 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 9 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2008-10-10, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2008-09-29. Malicious software includes 7 scripting exploit(s), 5 trojan(s), 3 exploit(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 6 new processes on the target machine. Malicious software is hosted on 17 domain(s), including aolcounter.com, neiron2009.com, 58.65.239.0. 11 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including opana.cn, jezl0.com, p0llo.com. Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware? Over the past 90 days, www.ect.go.th/english did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites. Has this site hosted malware? No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days. How did this happen? In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message.
Pawyilee ( talk) 10:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is not an attack site. Blocking this article is mere censorship. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
BangkokPost breaking news - The Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) plans to spend about 100 million to 500 million baht to build a gateway to block websites with contents defaming the royal institution. (Retrieved 2008-10-29) Wikipedia's English-language article on King Bhumibol continues to be blocked. Pawyilee ( talk) 12:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for all of you who made this page a history. One day people in my country will see through it. We've been brainwashed since I remember, everyday, everywhere, every time -- it's been yellow fever here.
I believe that it is our right to think different. They can keep blocking the pages with contents defaming royal institution but they can't block my thought.
At the moment, it is possible to get to the article in Thailand by being redirected from Rama IX. Pawyilee ( talk) 12:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I made some edits to the Wealth section, but I am not able to save them, apparently due to the semi-protected status of the page. (It occurs to me that I may also be encountering difficulty because I am posting from Thailand, and the page on King Bhumibol is blocked. I accessed the page indirectly, via another page.) Can anyone help? Should I post the edited section here, where someone with higher privileges can review them and then insert them? Thanks.
estéban ( talk) 16:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone change this to when there 'had been' or 'was' - 'were' is wrong and it really knocks down the quality of the article seen as it is right at the very beginning.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.178.156 ( talk) 12:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions his wealth as $5b, however the cited reference from Forbes mentions $35b and so do some other pages on Wikipedia. I see that there has been some controversy on what Forbes reported and what Thailand claims. So is this discrepancy because of that? What is the real figure?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by VinnieCool ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is this article's title (and other kings of Thailand) seemingly unlike that of every other monarch on wikipedia that take the form of [Regnal-name] of [Country]? Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I had a quick look through talk and couldn't see anything about it. Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand would be a title far more immediately easily understood for those unfamiliar with the subject. 86.29.201.193 ( talk) 03:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to source the news on it, but the King has been in hospital for the last few days, with a fever. GoodDay ( talk) 18:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It is stated:
Although Bhumibol is sometimes referred to as King Rama IX in English, the name "Rama" is never used in Thai.
This is not entirely true. Although Rama IX is not normally used to refer to the person of the King directly, Rama 9 (or พระรามที่ 9 in Thai) is commonly used as a name in Thailand for names of streets, bridges, hospitals, etc. eg. Rama 9 Road, Rama 9 Hospital. It is understood that these places are named for the current King.
Can someone please edit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.147.118 ( talk) 07:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I was surprised to read that the king of Thailand was born in Massachusetts. I presume he has renounced American citizenship or some such thing, because otherwise he'd be an American citizen under ius soli - if he was, indeed, born on American soil. So was he, and can we confirm that? 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 21:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof... (emphasis added.)
— Section 1, Amendment 14
"This very Wikipedia article has been blocked in Thailand."
I am an expat in Thailand and although I can't source on pages that have been blocked, this page is definitely not blocked by any internet company in Thailand, both in BK and Phuket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.53.76.130 ( talk) 12:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
which (very) roughly translates as
58.147.52.14 ( talk) 20:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The page was prohibited because of the court order. It could have an affect on or be against the security of the Kingdom, public order or good morals. Thai: ท่านไม่สามารถเข้าชม web page ที่ต้องการ เนืองจาก มีคำสั่งศาลให้ปิดกั้น หรือ มีลักษณะเข้าข่ายที่อาจกระทบต่อความมั่นคงแห่งราชอาณาจักร หรืออาจขัดต่อความสงบเรียบร้อยหรือศีลธรรมอันดีของประชาชน
— Super Broadband Network Co., Ltd., sbn.co.th/prohibit.html
-- Pawyilee ( talk) 14:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like the editors to change all "Bhumibol" to either "King Bhumibol" or "HM Bhumibol" since he is the KING. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.193.165 ( talk) 15:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
There are several grammatical conventions, I believe, that call for the king's name and/or address not to be used colloquially, especially his first name as it connotes a first-name basis familiarity with a non-monarch. That the king is a monarch means that he should always be addressed in formal manner, such as is “Mr. Prime Minister” or “Mr. President,” etc. The rules on titles, honorifics (a grammatical form of speech used when speaking to or addressing a social superior) are long-established and call for the formal reference to be used in addressing persons of stature and those who have received special honors, such as Sir Edmund Hillary or Khunying Kalaya Sophonpanich, etc. When one lowers the honorific or deletes it altogether, such as is done when using ‘Bhumibol’ rather that His Majesty the king or HM Bhumibol Adulyadej, then it becomes a violation of various sorts, social and even stepping into the iconoclastic social moré-busting category [in short, viewed either as impolite, ignorant or even derogatory]. Until societies get quite a bit further along, it seems as if we need to understand required conventions and then to use them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.36.47 ( talk) 08:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I can tell you first that I am Thai. And for sure I have high respect to my King. So that I certainly want you to show respect to my King by using HM in front of his majesty name. You may thank that Thai people don't pay respect to his majesty. You are wrong because you are not Thai and I can garantee to you tha all of real Thai people(I mean Thai people is one who love Thailand) also love Thai king. And that laws is not for protecting his majesty but for protecting one who do that instead. I have read some of imappropriate words and I can say you the truth that I fell suddenly angry! And do you know all of Thai feeling when meet such these people who don't respect his beloved one. As religin, this story is very deligate. We can die for King and we can do all thing to protect his majesty. So if those one don't get something back; who know they may not have healthy life with full of organs like nowaday. So far, you may think that Thais people are very cruel; one thing you should know is that our culture is different and we are polite in all story except this. Please understand us. His majesty is our father who is so love us. [Although these people was arrested in some time but his majesty give royal pardon to all of them, isn't it his majesty high generousity?] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.151.125 ( talk) 14:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The fact that Thais have a particular way of referring to the king to show respect is irrelevant to how he should be referred to in an English-language encyclopedia. DeCausa ( talk) 23:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The article mentions that the King was hospitalised on 29th September 2009and discharged on 27th February 2010.
This is factually incorrect. The "discharge" in February was only a temporary one of a few hours, he returned to the hospital in the small housr as eventusally reported in the press. He has remained hospitalised sine then. [1] 112.142.93.212 ( talk) 00:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 112.142.140.132 ( talk) 15:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I have some issues with the neutrality of the article in certain places, as well as its completeness in regards to the last 3-5 years and in the spots referred to below. I am posting them here in the hopes that whoever is actively involved in maintaing this article can address them, so that a FAR can be avoided.
First, the article makes several claims about the king’s alleged public popularity with Thais:
One wonder’s what the basis for these claims is. Independently-conducted, scentific public opinon polls? The say-so of newspaper staff writers? The article should focus on clearer, narrower, more verifiable claims, rather than trite and vague haigiography. In fact, buried in the text of the article is a source that disputes the idea that the king is universally adored. The body of the article should devote some space to a serious decision of the king’s approval rating, with some focus on the how it has been measured (if it has been at all). What it should not do is take sides early and often.
Second, lèse majesté.
The following sections lack citations:
Other issues:
Finally, the aritcle is in need of updating on the King’s role in Thai politics since 2006, especially since 2008. Savidan 06:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
+I'm not sure that many/any of these criticisms have been answered. Two issues jump out at me: 1. "publicly acclaimed 'the Great'". This is without citation and smacks of propaganda. I suspect (but don't know) that it is one of his formal titles. If so, this should be explained rather letting the reader think he is in the company of Alexander the Great, Alfred the Great, Peter the Great etc. Until this is done I'm deleting it. 2. The reference to him switching his university courses to law and politics to "better prepare himself" for rule also smacks of propaganda - as though he was the model monarch and model monarch-in-waiting. It would be ok if his motivation was with citation, but it's not. I'm deleting the reference to his motivation. Generally, I notice that anything positive in this article is with no/poor citation. Not sure of the history of the article but overall it looks like some pro-monarchist Thai wrote a hagiograpy which has been chipped away over time. DeCausa ( talk) 23:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. This article used to categorize that the king is a Thai person of Chinese descent. Have anyone got references for this? I doubt that it might be incorrect information. I also open this discussion at Thai Wikipedia either. -- Octra Bond ( talk) 06:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Apparently this was an allegation in Thailand at the time of the succession - and was what prompted the lese majeste law. It's a belief still in circulation (although never publicly voiced for obvious reasons). The king visited Ananda minutes before the shot that killed him was heard. I think some reference needs to be made to it in this article. Can someone provide further info? DeCausa ( talk) 17:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
DeCausa, the lese majeste law has been in existent since even before King Ananda was born, it was older than King Bhumibol himself. -- Rattakorn c ( talk) 04:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed a mild edit war (which I've not been involved in) on this subject with a number of IPs (don't know if they are socks or not) putting in a line that this article is blocked. Thought I'd just chip in that if there is evidence that this page is blocked because of the 'lese majeste blocking' then I think it is relevant to this article and worth including. I think the issue is that no secondary source has been cited evidencing it is so blocked - unless it is sourced, no reference could be made to it. But someone should spend some time looking for a source because, if true, I think it would be of interest to readers. I'll revert the edit now, pending inclusion of a source. DeCausa ( talk) 18:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It would have to be published anonymously, as a publisher in Thailand could get 15 years in prison, and one abroad, declared persona non grata. I'm dropping out of this discourse, as connecting via Wiki's secure server makes my computer act weird on other sites.i.e., opening up multiple windows. Bye bye. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 02:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
it would be interesting if we can have some information on where's the King donations go, and also how much money his majesty receive 'in donation' from other people & organizations.
Thais have a tradition of giving money to the King in praise of his virtues. (and also make a good PR for their organization) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.234.58 ( talk) 04:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
สมเด็จพระเจ้าตากสินมหาราช ทรงสถาปนา อาณาจักรธนบุรีเมื่อ พ.ศ. 2310 - 2325 หรือ ปี (ค.ศ. 1767 - 1782) ไม่ใช่ค.ศ. 1768 กรุณาแก้ด้วย — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.229.39 ( talk) 11:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious to know why Bhumibol is used throughout the article instead of Adulyadej? It seems rather unprofessional to use his first name rather than his last name. Most other prominent figures are referred to by their last name, except in the case of monarchs who use a royal name--and in this article that would be Rama IX, not Bhumibol. There may be a good reason, though, so perhaps someone could explain. If not, perhaps it could be changed. I don't have access to edit the introduction.
Foxi tails ( talk) 08:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Earlier this month, a 23-year-old graduate from the Kasetsart University has been arrested for allegedly posting content on his blog that is deemed insulting to the monarchy – also known as lèse majesté.
-- Pawyilee ( talk) 08:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I can see your point about Thais not generally addressing people by their last names. It still sounds unprofessional and informal to me when I read it, but I am not disputing the validity of your assertion. Perhaps prefacing instances of "Adulyadej" with "King" would help? Foxi tails ( talk) 10:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't help but notice in the "Succession and marriage" portion of the article there's a place where the given source conflicts with what the article says (and a possible bit of spin-doctoring on top of that). Specifically, the source offered for the section that discusses that Bhumibol may have killed his brother is Paul Handley, who does indeed discuss the possibility but notes that if it did occur it would have been an accident. The text preceding the source, however, is phrased in such a way that it implies Bhumibol shot his brother with malicious intent. Belgium EO ( talk) 04:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Bhumibol Adulyadej 07.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
This article should not show interest in rumors that King Bhumibol was "involved in or responsible for" his brother's death. Being involved in one's own brother's death is a severe claim and should, not even allusively, be in a BLP. -- RJFF ( talk) 23:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Also "mysterious circumstances" is inartfully expressed. This wording belongs in the sensational press rather than in an encyclopedia. How could we phrase it more apt? -- RJFF ( talk) 23:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Therequiembellishere removed the length of Bhumibol's reign (which used the {{ Age in years and days}} template) from the infobox with no edit summary, and when I reverted (as an unexplained removal, asking "what's wrong with having reign duration in the infobox?"), reverted me with the summary "Because they aren't in any other infobox. There needs to be a 'why for' argument before you raise 'why not'". As Bhumibol is currently the world's longest reigning monarch and longest serving head of state, I think people who read about him will want to know how long his reign currently is without having to work it out for themselves, and I think it makes sense to have it there. I'd like to hear what other people think. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
"Bhumibol is credited with a social-economic theory of self-sufficiency. His personal wealth is tremendous"
- The author should study the theory of self-sufficiency well before writing this article.
The main idea of this theory is not spending over how much you gain, saving money and not gaining debt (Of course, if you save money, you can gain wealth.). But after the coup during PM Taksin, his theory was changed for Politics reason. This theory is against Government's policy in PM Taksin. His policy is Populism and need Thais to make debts. Some tried to say the his theory is the best for farmers. But the King confirmed on His Birthday's speech that his theory can be applied for all people.
What if someone said that the king could go eat a . . . ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.212.32 ( talk) 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- The author wrote how much the king earned but he should state how much the king spent. As the chief of state, he has thousand of private projects and charities. Some of his projects made the better life for Thais but this is not included on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxiczero ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
== The article is very narrow viewed and only talk about one-sided story without proof.
No, this article is just a series of cited, well-supported facts. If you are in Thailand, the links have most likely been censored and you seriously risk violating Lese Majeste laws if you say the "wrong" thing here. This is unfortunate as there is almost nothing positive you could add while still being truthful. Neutrality, facts and free speech are a real inconvenience huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.181.119 ( talk) 03:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's not talk about general stuff but the sentences that are originally brought up. "Bhumibol is credited with a social-economic theory of self-sufficiency. His personal wealth is tremendous" This does not even make logical sense, and it leads people to believe that King Bhumibol is hypocritical (which we cannot deal with due to lack of evidence). I suggest someone at least elaborate his theory a bit (1 sentence, probably) and summarize his wealth-related stuff to also 1-2 sentences. The summary of the page will look much more neutral. 128.12.217.192 ( talk) 03:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe that this sentence "Although Bhumibol is legally a constitutional monarch, he has made several decisive interventions in Thai politics" is not based on a strong evidence. Therefore, it should be changed to "Although Bhumibol is legally a constitutional monarch, it is believed that he has made several decisive interventions in Thai politics." -- Pasitnat ( talk) 11:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
During the 1970s, Bhumibol was a key figure in the Village Scouts and Red Gaur paramilitary organisations.
Should stay removed. He might be characterized as key figurehead, as I sincerely doubt any active involvement, and there is no way to document it either way. A critical omission in the series of events that precipitated the events described was then call The Hat Yai Incident, which involved the crash of an Army helicopter with Thailand's then most beloved movie star aboard, along with one of Bangkok's wealthiest Chinese tycoons; the rumors that ensued; and the public statement about it by HRH who was then a university student, herself. I read about in a daily on Guam, but can't find a trace of the reportage now. Lesson learned: HRH's don't make statements like that, and HM doesn't. — Pawyilee ( talk) 07:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Recommend an editor with better access than mine, include information from The new theory and the sufficiency economy.-- Pawyilee ( talk) 08:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Article entry citing CPB annual report is only for the King's eyes only is outdated and incorrect. The annual report is available online at the CPB website [1] 94.202.56.83 ( talk) 12:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
An OTRS correspondent writes:
Thought you should know that the Thai Ministry of Communication has just blocked the King of Thailand page (Bhumibol Adulyadej). That's on the English and Thai Wikipedias when trying to view from within Thailand. Checked a few other languages (German, French, Spanish) and they are still working.
Obviously, I'm not in a position to verify that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I have just accessed this article, as well as the talk page from Thailand, check my IP. I will try to make a null edit on the article as well 115.67.6.77 ( talk) 01:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Can we get an accurate translation please of the King's style and title? Google translate gave me this from the Thai:
"His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej on Cummins Navy. Thi La Belle Ramathibodi Mahidol keys. Chakri Narula on Navy land Drugs including fungi Open University Hmmmm"
Could this be a case of vandalism of the original Thai that has remained undetected? or is it simply bad translation? Llanforda ( talk) 02:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the addition of this photo lacks relevance. The entire article doesn't even mention any of the King's Guard regiments. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 10:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Why is the King not listed under his royal title (Rama IX)? It seems weird that Juan Carlos I and Elizabeth II are listed by their royal (numerical) titles but Adulyadej isn't. It's akin to writing 'Elizabeth Windsor', which just seems weird (and is incorrect). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.117.226 ( talk • contribs) 11:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Does someone know why the name of the King is romanized as Bhumibol and not as Phumiphon? -- FredTC ( talk) 11:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
"Baby Songkla" is an accidental American as his parents were in student rather than diplomat status, and there is no record of part of the hospital have been given temporary extraterritorial status. Effect of the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act on "accidental Americans" makes it interesting that the lead has recently changed to add:
— Pawyilee ( talk) 09:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Bhumibol Adulyadej. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
First and foremost, this is a BLP. If you do not know (and do not have any reliable source stating directly whether or not he is a US citizen now, the article and its categories should not take any stand on matter at all; it should be limited to noting the facts which reliable sources have consistently noted, e.g. his place of birth, by which he is already categorised.
Second, as WP:CATDEF points out, articles are not categorised by every single characteristic of the subject, but the defining ones: "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". The categories "Thai American" or "American of Thai descent" clearly fail that test. quant18 ( talk) 09:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Bhumibol Adulyadej. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Bhumibol Adulyadej. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Bhumibol Adulyadej. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bhumibol Adulyadej. 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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This article looks fine if you're logged in. Here's what this page looks like if you're not logged in.
http://imgur.com/jNF57Kz (NSFW)
On this page, /info/en/?search=Bhumibol_Adulyadej , if you're not logged in
<li id="cite_note-130"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-130"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a>
</b>
</span> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation web">Warrick-Alexander, James (6 February 2006). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=31649">"Thailand Bars Univ. Website"</a>. Yale Daily News<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">5 July</span> 2006</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ABhumibol+Adulyadej&rft.aufirst=James&rft.aulast=Warrick-Alexander&rft.btitle=Thailand+Bars+Univ.+Website&rft.date=2006-02-06&rft.genre=unknown&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yaledailynews.com%2Farticle.asp%3FAID%3D31649&rft.pub=Yale+Daily+News&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook" class="Z3988"><span style="display:none;"> </span></span><sup class="noprint Inline-Template"><span style="white-space: nowrap;"><i><a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot" title="Wikipedia:Link rot"><span title=" Dead link since June 2016">dead link</span></a></i></span></sup></span>
</li>
is replaced with this
<li id="cite_note-130"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-130"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a>
</b>
</span> <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation web">Warrick-Alexander, James (6 February 2006). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=31649">"Thailand Bars Univ. Website"</a>. Yale Daily News<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">5 July</span> 2006</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ABhumibol+Adulyadej&rft.aufirst=James&rft.aulast=Warrick-Alexander&rft.btitle=Thailand+Bars+Univ.+Website&rft.date=2006-02-06&rft.genre=unknown&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yaledailynews.com%2Farticle.asp%3FAID%3D31649&rft.pub=Yale+Daily+News&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook" class="Z3988"><span style="display:none;"> </span></span><sup class="noprint Inline-Template"><span style="white-space: nowrap;"><i><a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot" title="Wikipedia:Link rot"><span title=" Dead link since June 2016">dead link</span></a></i></span></sup><incldueonly></span>
<div style="position:fixed;left:0;bottom:0;">
<a href="/wiki/GNAA" title="GNAA"><img alt="COCO COXX 1.jpg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/COCO_COXX_1.jpg" data-file-width="400" data-file-height="598" height="1047" width="700"></a>
</div>
<div style="position:fixed;left:700px;bottom:0;">
<a href="/wiki/GNAA" title="GNAA"><img alt="COCO COXX 1.jpg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/COCO_COXX_1.jpg" data-file-width="400" data-file-height="598" height="1047" width="700"></a>
</div>
<div style="position:fixed;left:1400px;bottom:0;">
<a href="/wiki/GNAA" title="GNAA"><img alt="COCO COXX 1.jpg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/COCO_COXX_1.jpg" data-file-width="400" data-file-height="598" height="1047" width="700"></a>
</div>
<div style="position:fixed;left:2100px;bottom:0;">[File:COCO COXX 1.jpg|700px|link=GNAA]]</div>
<div style="position:fixed;left:0;top:0;">
<a href="/wiki/GNAA" title="GNAA"><img alt="COCO COXX 1.jpg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/COCO_COXX_1.jpg" data-file-width="400" data-file-height="598" height="1047" width="700"></a>
</div>
<div style="position:fixed;left:700px;top:0;">
<a href="/wiki/GNAA" title="GNAA"><img alt="COCO COXX 1.jpg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/COCO_COXX_1.jpg" data-file-width="400" data-file-height="598" height="1047" width="700"></a>
</div>
<div style="position:fixed;left:1400px;top:0;">
<a href="/wiki/GNAA" title="GNAA"><img alt="COCO COXX 1.jpg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/COCO_COXX_1.jpg" data-file-width="400" data-file-height="598" height="1047" width="700"></a>
</div>
<div style="position:fixed;left:2100px;top:0;">
<a href="/wiki/GNAA" title="GNAA"><img alt="COCO COXX 1.jpg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/COCO_COXX_1.jpg" data-file-width="400" data-file-height="598" height="1047" width="700"></a>
</div>
<div style="position:fixed;left:0;top:0;background-color:yellow;color:red;font-size:20px;font:arial;">
<p>ATTENTION: Wikipedia is written by freaks, losers, social rejects, trannies, and all other kinds of awful people. You wouldn't trust them to sit with you at lunch in high school so why should you believe them now. Follow @Meepsheepy on Twitter for more. Thank you.</p>
</div>
</li>
Same thing happens to cite_note-99 in the reflist.
I've copied the source of this article to another and I could not reproduce this behaviour. Seems to be happening in this article only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumibo ( talk • contribs) 05:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
This isn't happening anymore but someone might want to do some auditing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumibo ( talk • contribs) 06:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Owing to recent news reports, I have updated the health section and put a Current tag on it and another on the article itself. I am following this story closely & can continue to update. -- Bluejay Young ( talk) 02:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
This article may need protection, until his death is confirmed. GoodDay ( talk) 10:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The question which journalist reported his death first is irrelevant for an encyclopedic article. This information should stay out, not only for irreverence but also for a lack of notability. This is nothing but undue advertisement for this publicist. -- RJFF ( talk) 15:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Why dont we use the title instead of full name?-- Lão Ngoan Đồng ( talk) 19:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Why are we not listing Vajiralongkorn as the new King? I thought the succession was automatic. GoodDay ( talk) 21:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The claim that "During his reign, he was served by a total of 30 prime ministers beginning with Pridi Banomyong and ending with Prayut Chan-o-cha. They are otherwise known as Bhumibol's Thirty" is not backed up by the citation to http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/13/thailand-s-king-bhumibol-dies-triggering-anguish-and-fears-of-unrest.html Google doesn't have any mention of the term "Bhumibol's Thirty." Erasing this. -- Patiwat ( talk) 03:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@ แอนเดอร์สัน: Is there a particular reason why the image should be the one taken in 2015? Given now the situation isn't it better to have an image that shows the subject at a relatively younger age and in royal uniform that is more representative for his role, and his life? -- Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 01:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a long section in our article on the 1976 Thammasat University massacre that details Bhumibol's involvement in the event and the paramilitary forces that carried it out - specifically the "Village Scouts" anticommunist paramilitaries, the Nawaphon anticommunist group, and the Red Gaurs gang. The section is abundantly sourced if someone has time to work on it. - Darouet ( talk) 20:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Having heard his name pronounced on news media recently why is his name transcribed as Bhumibol which would appear to be pronounced Bum-e-bol. Poo-nee-pon seems to be the correct pronunciation, this doesn't seem to happen with other Thai names transcribed to Latin alphabets so how/why has it happened in this case? 85.255.236.75 ( talk) 08:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I've spent a fair amount of time in Thailand, and have never heard him called "Bhumibol the Great". If we're going to have this in the lead, perhaps "known by some as King Bhumibol the Great". Thoughts? Edwardx ( talk) 17:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I find the lead section imbalanced. It only focuses on the negative aspects of his rule (which, of course, exist and have to be mentioned). But there is barely any mention of his positive achievements (which exist as well, and are not even denied by his critics) and the immense popularity, or love, he enjoyed among widest parts of the population. -- RJFF ( talk) 14:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The article on the king's son has a section on Vajiralongkorn#Honours, but this article does not. I think this would be a lovely addition... -- Rebroad ( talk) 07:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bhumibol Adulyadej. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mcot.net/content/19232When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)