A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 6, 2014. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This section has been moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand.
This article is on the Thammasat massacre. It isn't a five-fold expansion, but I did rewrite everything as the earlier version was entirely unsourced. Aside from its historical importance, it is also essential backstory for the current conflict in Bangkok. Kauffner ( talk) 15:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
6 October 1976 Massacre →
Thammasat University massacre — This is a more natural way to say it in English. "6 October 1976 Massacre" is a literal translation from Thai. The exact phrase "Thammasat University massacre" gets only
9 hits on Google Scholar compared to
23 for "6 October 1976 massacre". But my impression is that most authors use some variation of the phrase, for example "Thammasat massacre" (11 hits), "massacre at Thammasat" (19 hits), "massacre in Thammasat" (2 hits), etc.
Kauffner (
talk) 04:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
-- Nice propaganda to the Nazi genocidal Thai government. over 10000 people massacred, including hundreds of children, and you report the "official" death toll. Congratulations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.107.20 ( talk) 19:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
As pointed out in a previous post, this article heavily cites a single source: Handley. While that source is reputable (published by a major university press), have its claims been accepted by enough historians to be considered facts? The language of this article makes it appear to be:
Although widely interpreted as a royal endorsement of democracy, the king was in fact motivated by the need to restore public order after police shot and killed 75 demonstrators.[3] He remained wary of popular passions and began developing ties with anti-communist leaders.[4]
These statements cite Handley as their source. But later the article admits that Handley is controversial:
Paul Handley, author of The King Never Smiles, a controversial biography of the king
So we have an article that presents claims as facts, by citing a single controversial source. The language needs to more clearly distinguish between what is accepted by historians and what is a new, novel, and still controversial account. This distinction should also be reflected in the weight given to the varying accounts.
-- Zahzuhzaz ( talk) 22:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is total garbage full of liars, it seems to have been written by Thai military junta who massacred 10000+ people.
Or you better tell the truth, that Wikipedia is also censored, so at least you avoid the shame of tell such big lies.
The genocidal assassin junta who massacred hundreds of children and raped their mother alive and than dead (over the piece of the corpses cut containing their vaginas) written Thai history and Wikipedia reports THEIR history.
This is like complicity.
I have removed dubious and tendentious statements which only refer to Handley's biography of King Bumibhol. This book is controversial and was criticized also in the West (for being unbalanced and, in parts, gossipy). These sentences have presented Handley's view as facts, whereas it has to be treated with caution and scrutinized. If you dissent with this opinion, please argue here. Regards -- RJFF ( talk) 00:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The article differentiates between the official death toll and a death toll given by those who handled the bodies. What is the actual source for the official figure? Presumably it is an official Thai government source. But none is apparent. This article probably needs editors who can read and research in Thai language. 124.171.198.7 ( talk) 01:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Today (September 30, 2016) an article was published in the newspaper Bangkok Post. In it there is a shocking photo that even reminds to KKK practises. I think this photo would be a good illustration to this article. However if it is not available in commons, and cannot be made available there, maybe the link to the Bangkok Post article could be placed somewhere in the WP article. Link to Bangkok Post article: http://www.bangkokpost.com/lifestyle/art/1098817/in-the-eye-of-the-storm -- FredTC ( talk) 07:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Highly relevant links (from Thai newspapers) that will be non-free after 60 days:
I believe a Thai movie has been made about the student protests. This should be mentioned.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 15:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 15:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
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) 17:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Nnadigoodluck ███ 12:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Thammasat University massacre → 6 October 1976 massacre – In the previous move request from 2010, which led to the current title following rather minimal participation, the proposer actually acknowledged that "Thammasat University massacre" was less commonly used than forms referring to the date. Revisiting this, I believe the current title is the poorer choice, per WP:COMMONNAME. Some Google Books results (which are limited by the availability of text previews) include:
Since most references to the event treat it as a descriptive term rather than a proper name, it's not easy to make direct comparisons. That said, it certainly does not appear that "Thammasat University massacre" (or more generally, uses that refer to the university rather than the date) is the most common form of reference to the event. On the other hand, the Library of Congress Subject Headings does use "Thammasat University Massacre, Bangkok, Thailand, 1976", but this doesn't seem to reflect actual usage.
Per the MOS, both 6 October 1976 massacre and October 6, 1976 massacre should be acceptable. Since the article currently uses DMY dates (as is the convention in Thailand, though the MOS doesn't take this into consideration), the title should probably follow the DMY format. Paul_012 ( talk) 11:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I moved NPOV tag to the King section. According to Winichakul, he found no counter narrative to this, so tagging the entire article is invalid. -- Horus ( talk) 20:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 6, 2014. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This section has been moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand.
This article is on the Thammasat massacre. It isn't a five-fold expansion, but I did rewrite everything as the earlier version was entirely unsourced. Aside from its historical importance, it is also essential backstory for the current conflict in Bangkok. Kauffner ( talk) 15:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
6 October 1976 Massacre →
Thammasat University massacre — This is a more natural way to say it in English. "6 October 1976 Massacre" is a literal translation from Thai. The exact phrase "Thammasat University massacre" gets only
9 hits on Google Scholar compared to
23 for "6 October 1976 massacre". But my impression is that most authors use some variation of the phrase, for example "Thammasat massacre" (11 hits), "massacre at Thammasat" (19 hits), "massacre in Thammasat" (2 hits), etc.
Kauffner (
talk) 04:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
-- Nice propaganda to the Nazi genocidal Thai government. over 10000 people massacred, including hundreds of children, and you report the "official" death toll. Congratulations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.107.20 ( talk) 19:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
As pointed out in a previous post, this article heavily cites a single source: Handley. While that source is reputable (published by a major university press), have its claims been accepted by enough historians to be considered facts? The language of this article makes it appear to be:
Although widely interpreted as a royal endorsement of democracy, the king was in fact motivated by the need to restore public order after police shot and killed 75 demonstrators.[3] He remained wary of popular passions and began developing ties with anti-communist leaders.[4]
These statements cite Handley as their source. But later the article admits that Handley is controversial:
Paul Handley, author of The King Never Smiles, a controversial biography of the king
So we have an article that presents claims as facts, by citing a single controversial source. The language needs to more clearly distinguish between what is accepted by historians and what is a new, novel, and still controversial account. This distinction should also be reflected in the weight given to the varying accounts.
-- Zahzuhzaz ( talk) 22:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is total garbage full of liars, it seems to have been written by Thai military junta who massacred 10000+ people.
Or you better tell the truth, that Wikipedia is also censored, so at least you avoid the shame of tell such big lies.
The genocidal assassin junta who massacred hundreds of children and raped their mother alive and than dead (over the piece of the corpses cut containing their vaginas) written Thai history and Wikipedia reports THEIR history.
This is like complicity.
I have removed dubious and tendentious statements which only refer to Handley's biography of King Bumibhol. This book is controversial and was criticized also in the West (for being unbalanced and, in parts, gossipy). These sentences have presented Handley's view as facts, whereas it has to be treated with caution and scrutinized. If you dissent with this opinion, please argue here. Regards -- RJFF ( talk) 00:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The article differentiates between the official death toll and a death toll given by those who handled the bodies. What is the actual source for the official figure? Presumably it is an official Thai government source. But none is apparent. This article probably needs editors who can read and research in Thai language. 124.171.198.7 ( talk) 01:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Today (September 30, 2016) an article was published in the newspaper Bangkok Post. In it there is a shocking photo that even reminds to KKK practises. I think this photo would be a good illustration to this article. However if it is not available in commons, and cannot be made available there, maybe the link to the Bangkok Post article could be placed somewhere in the WP article. Link to Bangkok Post article: http://www.bangkokpost.com/lifestyle/art/1098817/in-the-eye-of-the-storm -- FredTC ( talk) 07:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Highly relevant links (from Thai newspapers) that will be non-free after 60 days:
I believe a Thai movie has been made about the student protests. This should be mentioned.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 15:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 15:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
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) 17:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Nnadigoodluck ███ 12:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Thammasat University massacre → 6 October 1976 massacre – In the previous move request from 2010, which led to the current title following rather minimal participation, the proposer actually acknowledged that "Thammasat University massacre" was less commonly used than forms referring to the date. Revisiting this, I believe the current title is the poorer choice, per WP:COMMONNAME. Some Google Books results (which are limited by the availability of text previews) include:
Since most references to the event treat it as a descriptive term rather than a proper name, it's not easy to make direct comparisons. That said, it certainly does not appear that "Thammasat University massacre" (or more generally, uses that refer to the university rather than the date) is the most common form of reference to the event. On the other hand, the Library of Congress Subject Headings does use "Thammasat University Massacre, Bangkok, Thailand, 1976", but this doesn't seem to reflect actual usage.
Per the MOS, both 6 October 1976 massacre and October 6, 1976 massacre should be acceptable. Since the article currently uses DMY dates (as is the convention in Thailand, though the MOS doesn't take this into consideration), the title should probably follow the DMY format. Paul_012 ( talk) 11:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I moved NPOV tag to the King section. According to Winichakul, he found no counter narrative to this, so tagging the entire article is invalid. -- Horus ( talk) 20:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)