Talk:The King Never Smiles

NPOV Contested (Aug 06)

I dispute the neutrality of this article and of Mr Patiwat. First and foremost, the critical acclaims section may truthfully report what newspaper reviews have said, but the reviews are hardly fair or balanced. In my personal opinion, the subject of the monarchy in Thailand can never be "well researched" or "solidly backed by research." Even if this is the case, how does a newspaper thousands of miles away from Bangkok know the accuracy and legitimacy of its sources? Do these newspapers know the incredulous claims made concerning the CPB? Do these newspaper reviewers know how to read Thai and evaluate Thai sources? In fact, does Handley even know these things? The truth of the matter is, Handley has flooded the world with his slanted views of the monarchy and has used his "References" page to convince the world. So far, most of what I have read in the book are half-truths.

Therefore, I will edit this article to include opinions commonly heard from the other side, which should be as legitimate as "Amazon reviewers" or newspaper reviewers who had a deadline to meet (logically, it is easier to agree with a "well researched" book than it is to read through all his references to actually check its credibility and paint an alternative picture). - Salapao

Note: The preceding comment was added by User:Salapao on 06 Mar 2007

The neutrality of this article is contested. The article refers to a controversial book and does not present a balanced view. The article is accurate when it explains how Handley's book paints a different picture of the King to the image promoted by the Thai authorities. It is also accurate in noting that the book has been banned by those authorities. It is NOT accurate in stating "Most experienced observers of Thailand would recognise that... Handley's thesis is broadly speaking correct". The customer reviews on Amazon.com show that Handley's thesis is a subject of considerable disagreement. Conversations with many Thais suggest that they don't agree with Handley. It would be arrogant to suggest that these people are not 'experienced observers'. Wikipedia is suposed to be an encyclopedia, not a blog. Let's at least acknowledge that there are other points of view! I have noted the date the article was posted was before the book was actually published; is it based on a full reading of the book or just the press releases and speculation? Conclusion: unless and until the article is expanded, so that it presents both sides of the story, it should be tagged with a warning message. APB-CMX. 20:24, 31 Aug 2006

The contested sentence was added on August 25, more than one month after the book was released. Otherwise the article is fairly based on published sources describing the book's content. Excising the contested sentence -- including its unsubstantiated criticism that the book has errors -- would be reasonable. Damning the entire article for this one sentence is not. Mr.Olop

Agreed: I have now removed the contested sentence, and the NPOV tag. APB-CMX. 07:28, 05 Sep 2006

Why does this article need cleanup? Besides some formatting issues, it looks to be fairly well written and balanced. Needs some fixes for the references though. Patiwat 17:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

the previous format was quite bad. Now it's become better. I will remove the cleanup banner. Agree? --B.F.Pinkerton 05:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unneccesary further reading

Someone tried to add this link to the further reading section. It is the Thai translation of the text on the flaps. The anonymous editor even wrote in the article that...

Due to this subject is censorship in Thailand, unable to update on Thai Wikipedia webpage. 
This link has always been deleted, but read review and introduction in Thai language by Sinn SaeJew 
who spent more than 15 years in Thailand and witness the mass murder 14 Oct 1976 at Thammarsart University in Bangkok (อ่านภาษา​ไทย​ได้​ที่นี่)."

I think the link is not encyclopedic and completely unrelated to the article in English Wikipedia. kinkku ananas ^(talk) 20:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• The deleted text isn't very well written, but I do believe that the link is worthwhile. It's in the external readings section, which implies that although it wasn't used as a source for the article itself, it could be useful for some, but not all, readers. After all, the War and Peace article contains a link to the original Russian version, and nobody is deleting that link claiming that links to Russian pages don't belong in the English wikipedia. Patiwat 07:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• • It's okay then. I just thought that the original book (and text being translated) is already in English, and it is in English Wikipedia, so it's a bit irrevelant. I think it's worth to be in th wikipedia, though. By the way, it is the text from the inside cover, not the introduction. kinkku ● ananas 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Come to think of it, there are many valid reasons to put it in th wikipedia article, but putting it here still sounds ridiculous for me. As in War and Peace, the original work, though not in English, is undoubtedly a good further reading. But in The King Never Smiles case, the book and the text in question are both originally in English. Adding a link to an unrelated language translation makes no sense. If the blurb is important, I think this link is better. I do not deny that it might be helpful to some readers, but every page might be. I still don't see the point of adding link to a Thai translation of original English text in an English Wikipedia article. Regards, kinkku ● ananas 23:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine for me now. kinkku ● ananas 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The link is very usefull in Thai since it is not acceptable and ignored by the Thai editors who are more bias and prejudice about the argument or under the influence of the Thai authorities. The only way to update this topic is in English page. As you can see, the English page has more information than the Thai page so anyone can tell me what the heck is going on there? Why someone keep delete the Thai page including the discusssion page on the topic of why not use the title in Thai language? which I think more appropiately as กษัตริย์ไม่เคยยิ้ม ----Anonymous

Thai Wikipedia is not under the influences of Thai authorities. The claim is false. They were suspicions and concerns regarding the link removals previously. However, the link was put later put back in after the discussions on the talk page which actually happened a while ago. It is typical and completely natural that simply not all articles in English Wikipedia will be in Thai Wikipedia nor the content covered will be as extensive. Again it is Wikipedia and everyone can edit --Jutiphan | Talk - 06:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

censorship

The amazon.com webpage is not censured in Thailand neither is the Yale university press page where you can download the first 15 pages if the book which I did today from bangkok Roger jg 05:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was censored based on the given date. --Jutiphan | Talk - 15:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

True, we should clarify this point. Would you like to do it? Roger jg 10:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I live in Thailand. The censorship seems to be erratic. In the past I have accessed the Amazon page many times. However, I have tried today and the page is blocked with a warning message from the Royal Thai Police. 25/2/07 1148 Bangkok Greg hill 04:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• References take precedence over original research. The source (Yale Daily News) says that Amazon and YUP were censored, at least last year. Unless if you can provide an alternative reference which says that the sites were not censored at that time, I'd suggest taking out the tag. Patiwat 09:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

as of today, the page is still accesible from Thailand, where I am [[1]]. I don't dispute that the page was initially not accessible (I remember not being able to access it), but we should clarify that this not the case anymore, or that the ban is erratic since publication of the book. I'll then be happy to remove the tag. There is a lot of censorship in Thailand, but let's not put it where it is not. Roger jg 04:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made a change which I hope will satisfy everybody Roger jg 04:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I confirmed that the book's page at Amazon.com is blocked in Thailand. Tested today - 19 April 2008 -- 203.131.209.66 09:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Book Summary

The summary for this book does not reflect the published reviews on the YUP website available here. Beside, it doesn't look that someone has actually read the book and summarised it but only agregated published reviews. Roger jg 09:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have asked someone who has read the book to write a summary. I hope he will do it. Roger jg 10:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• The book has been out for almost a year. The text in the article reflects the book summary as originally posted on the YUP website early last year. YUP probably thinks that by now, external reviews are more credible than their own PR. I've re-written the text of the Book Summary section in order to clarify it. I'd suggest removing the Factual Accuracy tag. Patiwat 09:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Patiwat, my comment about the summary is really more about both form and content. I believe a proper summary written by someone who has actually read the book would be of better quality and interest (and fit more Wiki policy). We could asked one of the Amazion reviewer to put his/her review here if we find one suitable. I will trytro do that but not sure we can contact people... Roger jg 04:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I just bought the book. If I ever finish reading it. I will update the summary --Jutiphan | Talk - 02:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jutiphan, you just bought the book! So previously, you edited all of this information with no credibility, no integrity, no knowledge. You are a fool, not a scholar. (Anonymous)

Ho, I had edited lots of articles about Thailand's provinces and districts that I never visited, what a fool me! -- 58.136.73.145 17:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference to scanned version

Correct me if I'm wrong. I noticed that the reference I previously edited [2] point to the scanned version of the book; a user added in the revision of 103941480. In wiki manga project, the link to the scanned version either directly or indirectly is always removed. --Manop - TH 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Book in Thai Studies Conference 2008

One panel discussion is dedicated for the book 'The King Never Smiles' in the 10th International Conference in Thai Studies. Panelists are Annette Hamilton, Craig Reynolds, Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian, and Nidhi Eoseewong. See abstract at Monarchy III: Critical Comments on Paul Handley's The King Never Smiles.

The session was hugely crowded, est. 300-400 Thai and foreigners joined the session. It was also reported from the audience during Q&A that 3 policemen are also in the crowd (the book is currently banned in Thailand).

The author, Paul Handley, was not there.

• Reuters, Banned royal book stirs rare debate in Thailand, Jan 11, 2008
• AP, Scholars Debate Biography of Thai King, Jan 10, 2008
• FACT, Police watch Thai Studies Conference, Jan 13, 2008