Talk:Rama I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


  • according to Wikipedia´s own rules about naming monarchs, this needs to be changed [1] Antares911 11:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please see the result of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)#Article names for Thai royals/Thai with honorary titles first. andy 11:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Biographical context[edit]

This page was marked as lacking biographical context, which I added from the fr:, but it seems like the rest of the article was translated from there too, which implies there was probably a version somewhere back there which did have the paragraph I retranslated...maybe I should have just looked for it and reverted? Oh well... Moszczynski 04:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Historical records have indicated that Rama I was experiencing madness before his death, but many scholars have indicated that from a modern point of view, the symptoms and behaviors described by the records should be interpreted as signs of midlife crisis, and not madness. - Is this not about King Taksin? Paul C 04:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes it was. My apologies. I added the section in this page. I will go to its right page. Arbiteroftruth 07:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very confusing[edit]

The lead says "after subjugating a rebellion against King Taksin of Thonburi" ... yet looking up Taksin it sounds like he first executed Taksin's son, then returned to Thonburi and quickly executed Taksin. That doesn't sound like subjugating a rebellion against Taksin to me! Please make this clearer... Wnt (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: majority after 24 days; no discussion in last 6 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Buddha Yodfa ChulalokePhuttha Yotfa ChulalokRTGS spelling. The previous spelling does not appear to be commonly used in reliable sources. Was moved to Phraphutthayotfa Chulalok but disputed. relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Paul_012 (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Previous discussion copied from User talk:Paul_012#Rama I and Rama III name changes

There was absolutely no discussion or consensus reached for this seemingly random changes to the article names. I disagree with both these changes I have addressed my concerns with Jessadabodindra > Nangklao at the article's talkpage. Please wait for some comments before making any more of these changes. Regards, Sodacan (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright I have some solutions. I understand apart from Nangklao the issue is spelling. On Nangklao I will concede, because it is true that the name is more commonly used by historians and sources. I have actually not been able to find Jessadabodindra anywhere. However I found William Warren and Handley using Chetsadabodin & Chetsadabodin. Whoever named the article in the first place probably wanted consistency in using the first name, furthermore many of the article on Wikipedia now uses Jessadabodindra, habits will need to change. But as for the other two kings whose issue is with spellings I will accept Phuttha Yodfa Chulalok and Phuttha Loetla Naphalai. 'Phra' is unnecessary otherwise it would then have to be Phrachao Uthong, Phra Naresuan and Phra Narai or even Phra Nangklao also. The spacing is just a compromise between the two, some of the sources such as Chakrabongse and William A.R. Wood uses it. Again I would like to register my personal protest against this change (although it really means nothing), to change a consensus of several years, which has both consistency and a uniformity about it to this new way :) Regards, Sodacan (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Continue discussion here
  • I've tweaked the suggestion to be Phuttha Yotfa Chulalok to comply with the RTGS. No objections against dropping Phra and spacing. The previous consensus was more of a status quo, as simply no one challenged the spelling of the first version way back in 2003; this doesn't necessarily mean acceptance or correctnes. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accept both new names (the name above and Phuttha Loetla Naphalai), and no this does not mean in any way acceptance or recognition that these spellings are correct. But I also recognize that there is unlikely to be a definitive source on these translations and that the RTGS is probably the closest. My consternation and absolute disdain still remains over the use of 'Googlebooks' as the determining factor of usage on the non-latinized names of historical figures. Sodacan (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: The proposed transcription is rarely used in English-language literature (ten google books hits). Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke, on the other hand, isn't much more common ([2]). Phraphutthayotfa Chulalok is a little more common. ([3]) But why isn't this article simply at Rama I? The article title convention asks us to use common names. Rama I is by far the most common name of this king. --RJFF (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • There are old discussions from here and here. The main reason is that Rama # is neither any of the kings' names, nor is it the proper style. In the case of the early reigns (Rama I–III), though, I think a WP:COMMONNAME argument may be justifiable, as it does seem to be more commonly used. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose all such moves unless accompanied by substantial re-write of the body of the article as to which name is preferred at what point in the life of the individual, and at what ex-post-facto points after demise, and a running list of such changes kept permanently on the talk page to ease perplexity of readers not yet born. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Well I don't think that's really a valid oppose since of course the article body will or should be edited to correspond with the agreed title. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Noting the discussion at Talk:Buddha Loetla Nabhalai#Requested move, "Rama #" seems to be the term that best fits Wikipedia's guidelines for these first two reigns. So I'm going to support renaming this article to Rama I if Buddha Loetla Nabhalai is renamed to Rama II. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's the rationale for moves instead of redirects? Why are there redlinks above that do not re-direct? I suggest we fix those and stop doing moves until we've addressed the issue I'm adding, below. --Pawyilee (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose to Rama I and Rama II, even though they meet the criteria of the common name policy, they are not names of the kings. They appear no where on their long form or ceremonial names, and they are never used in the Thai language. These short form names were created by King Vajiravudh to help foreigners, who are unable or unwilling to pronounce the actual Thai names. Even if the change does occur then the title of the article should go to King Rama I and King Rama II, in line with the compromised reached for Japanese Emperor's Temple names (Emperor Meiji and Emperor Taishō).
Comment:This substitute name is used for all the Chakri kings from I to IX, so why shouldn't it also be the title of the articles for all the other kings? Also, If there is a Rama I or Rama II, then there must also be Rama III, which is infinitely more common than Nangklao. Sodacan (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thai royal and noble titles[edit]

I think that article's lede should be edited to better explain the problem with titles before we make any more moves. The second sentence in Thai_royal_and_noble_titles#Feudal_lifetime_titles presently reads

Those who possessed titles ceased to be designated by any personal names, and were never spoken of except by the awarded or other similar titles.[1]

  1. ^ Roberts, Edmund (Digitized October 12, 2007) [First published in 1837]. "Chapter XIX―titles of the king". Embassy to the Eastern courts of Cochin-China, Siam, and Muscat : in the U. S. sloop-of-war Peacock ... during the years 1832-3-4. Harper & brothers. pp. 301–303. Retrieved April 25, 2012. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |nopp= (help)

That really needs to be in the lede, or perhaps it its own heading where it can be easily linked. Clicking on the Roberts link takes me directly to the top of his page 301, with "personal names" highlighted. The preceding sentence gives the king's long and fancy formal title as translated in the Burney Treaty, though the treaty article does not. Robert's Treaty condenses it down to His Majesty the Sovereign and Magnificent King in the City of Sia-Yut'hia. A "fist" icon allows reading text up to 300 and down to the end of page 303, further explaining titles then in use. I think the meaning of the tiles should also be included in sections such as Jessadabodindra#Titles_and_styles. See for example

King Rama 2 appointed Prince Tub to a higher princely rank of Grommamuen Jetsada Bordin. ("Jetsada means the First in Land, "Bordin" Means King.")[4]

--Pawyilee (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

very confusing article[edit]

The different titles are used in a very confusing way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 11 January 2015[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 02:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

– A new attempt (earlier discussion ended with no consensus for either title) to move the articles about the three first Siamese kings of the Chakri dynasty to their most common names in English-language reliable sources. In all standard works about Thai history (including Wyatt, Thailand: A Short History; Baker/Pasuk, A History of Thailand; Mishra, The History of Thailand) the first three Chakri kings are always refered to as Rama+ordinal number and not by the names they have in Thai chronicles and history books. Moreover "Rama x" was officially sanctioned by Rama VI. (Vajiravudh) for use by foreigners. The conventions of Thai chronicles and history books are not relevant for English-language Wikipedia. Wikipedia should follow the usage in the most relevant works of English-language expert literature and not try to establish a different usage. This is also the essence of the applicable naming convention guidelines: use common names and use English. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC) --RJFF (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC) RJFF (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: In an earlier move discussion it was criticised that the "Rama" names were only given to them postumously. But the same is true for "Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke", "Buddha Loetla Nabhalai" and "Nangklao". All three names were awarded to these kings postumously and are not their "real" names (Siamese kings did not have real names in the European sense anyway). Rama I's contemporary title included "Rama-thibodi", so "Rama I" is actually closer to his "real" name than "Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke" (which is, like "Buddha Loetla Nabhalai" actually the name of a Buddha statue dedicated to the respective king). --RJFF (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support all, per previous discussions. Also, alternatively support Phuttha Yotfa Chulalok and Phuttha Loetla Naphalai, if consensus to support the Rama convention can't be established. Anything but the irregular current spelling which is no where used and that everyone agrees should be changed. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose previous discussions were not conclusive, that was why change was not implemented. Nangklao was changed against my vote from the given name (Jessadabodin/Chetsadabodin) to posthumous name, now reap the rewards of that overhasty change. The policy WP:UCRN was also used to justify that change, now we are having the same argument more or less a year later. Any change to the Rama name conventions will bring up more issues; the convention was created by King Vajiravudh to help foreigners and in essence allow English speakers and writers easier access to confusing Thai royal name traditions. The future question after this change would be why, if the convention was created for English speakers, are not all the articles name in the English Wikipedia change to reflect this? Why when 1/3 (Rama I, II and III) were named as such and not the rest? This WILL come up eventually, please be prepared for it and be prepared to defend it if you want to implement the changes. But I have no attachment to the old names, if the names were to be changed over my objections (once again). Please at the very least make sure that 'of Siam' is applied to all three as oppose to just one. Or add King in from of them instead (King Rama I. King Rama II and King Rama III), so that people don't confuse the article with roads or a scifi book series by Gentry Lee and Arthur C. Clarke. Sodacan (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also as a editor who likes to write long articles around these subjects, please pick something that will last. I don't want to keep changing and redirecting every other year. It's tiresome. Furthermore it will discourage future editors and lay readers from reading or contributing when such confusion is not resolved. Please think about the readers and ordinary browsers of Wikipedia, pick something which will help them. Please do not make choices that is based on the needs of editors or Wikipedia policy alone. Keep that in mind. Sodacan (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirects serve a function and it isn't necessary to change links when an article is renamed, provided that they are correctly spelled. Links to Nangklao are fine as they are, no change necessary, so such concerns shouldn't have bearing on the rename discussion. What's important is that the names be used consistently within each article. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Intuitively I would agree with your proposal, but Rama II (novel) has more views than Buddha Loetla Nabhalai, which speaks against WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
My bust. I'm fine with a disambiguator but I feel that a barely referenced article on a minor American novel is hardly even in the same class as one on an important monarch of a major country so I'm going to stick with my conclusion per the "long-term significance" aspect of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (or call it WP:RECENTISM) and WP:GEOBIAS.  AjaxSmack  05:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Now I'm convinced. According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the "long-term significance" may beat pageview statistics. From a historical and global perspective (without English Wikipedia users' geographical and systemic bias), the Siamese king is indeed significantly more relevant than the scifi novel. There seems to be very little secondary literature about the novel, while there is lots of literature about the king (see below). Moreover, with a hatnote, the article about the novel would only be one click away, just like with the current dab page solution, so it would be without detriment of users looking for the novel. --RJFF (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Some Google books statistics to (hopefully) encourage the decision (all queries including -wikipedia to exclude WP mirrors):
    • "Rama I" Siam: ca. 400 vs. "Buddha Yodfa" 97; "Phutthayotfa" 80; "Phraphutthayotfa" 37; "Buddha Yot Fa" 37; "Buddha Yod Fa" 34; "Phuttha Yot Fa" 29; "Phuttha Yotfa" 24; "Buddha Yotfa" 16; "Phutthayotfachulalok" 13; "Buddhayodfa" 11; "Phuttha Yod Fa" 8; other variants were even less usual
    • "Rama II" Siam: ca. 300 vs. "Phutthaloetla" 73; "Buddha Loetla" 25; "Buddhalertla" 25; "Buddha Loet La" 23; "Phraphutthaloetla" 23; "Phuttha Loet La" 20; "Buddha Lertla" 18; "Buddha Lert La" 16; "Buddha Loes La" 16; "Phuttha Loetla" 9; "Phutthaloetlanaphalai" 9; "Buddha Lert Lah" 8; "Buddha Loesla" 5; "Phutthaloet La" 4; other variants were even less usual
    • "Rama III" Siam: ca. 320 vs. "Nangklao" 154 (many of them are in Thai and not in English); "Nang Klao" 135; "Phranangklao" 37; "Phranangklaochaoyuhua" 5; "Nangklaochaoyuhua" 4 vs. "Chetsadabodin" 36; "Jessadabodindra" 10; "Jetsadabodin" 6; "Chesdabodin" 4; other variants were even less usual
    • for comparison (to answer the question "Why don't we move all Chakri kings to "Rama n?"): "Mongkut" Siam ca. 650 vs. "Rama IV" Siam 228 vs. "Chom Klao" -"Chula Chom Klao" 101; "Chomklao" -"Chula Chomklao" 39; "Phrachomklao" 15; "Chomklaochaoyuhua" 7
    • "Vajiravudh" Siam ca. 490 vs. "Rama VI" Siam 242 vs. "Mongkutklao" 113 (most of them are in Thai); "Phramongkutklao" 91 (most of them are about the hospital, not the king); "Mongkut Klao" 53
  • Support. It appears these names are substantially better established in English-language reliable sources. Disambiguation options seems fine for Rama II.--Cúchullain t/c 16:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support move to the more common and recognizable Rama names per WP:COMMONNAME. (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. No RS is using "Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke" or "Buddha Loetla Nabhalai," as you can see from this ngram. The initializer (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rama I. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]