Talk:Taksin

Untitled

Interesting how the current Prime Minister of Thailand and King Taksin have the same English spelling, their actions are quite similar also

The Thai names and pronunciations are totally different though ตากสิน and ทักษิณ The problem is from Royal Thai General System of Transcription - Manop

Taksin and Thaksin are obviously different. --Paul C 12:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I misunderstood Taksin page for Thaksin (the prime misiter). It's totally confused even for Thai people. Can you do something to distinguish between the two? (Perhaps, add ambiguity page?) Also, I removed the Thai monarch category link since I thought that this page is about Thaksin (the prime misiter). Can someone add the category back back? Dhanakorn 00:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There're really no confusion when they are written in Thai. One in Taark-sin, with the T similar to D in Pinyin, another is more like Thug-sin. Suredeath (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Chinese name

Why is there a Chinese name here also ?- Manop

Because it's Taksin's Chinese name. Mark^{your words} 23:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And because he is semi-Chinese origin.--Jerrychen0067 07:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thai name

His Thai name means Treasure of Tak. Pawyilee 15:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, as mentioned in the article, the name derived from his holding the title of Phraya Tak and his birth name being Sin. Paul_012 ^(talk) 19:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In Thailand, there are various versions of his name, from the most official 'Somdech Phrachao Krung Thonburi' to 'Prachao Taak' and 'Phraya Taak'. The name Taksin, pronounced Taaksin, is popular. 'Taak' or 'Tak' is the name of the city he ruled as Ayutthaya's subject. 'Sin' is said his birth name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Windowslive (talk • contribs) 10:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone added, Thai name Sin, meaning "money or property", though further down it still says treasure. Should this be reconciled? Pawyilee (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Taksin/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am reviewing the article. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 2 lacks page numbers
• Bidyalongkarana book name not mentioned, the article does not have Notes and References section.
• The books miss date of publication info.
• Why is ref 83 used
• The "Miscellaneous" trivia section must be merged in some other sections.
• The two line short sections violate "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized," "Articles generally comprise paragraphs of running prose. Bullet points should be minimized in the body of the article" The bullet point lists should be converted to prose.

Good amount of amount of work needed in reference formatting and a re-write of the text is needed. FAIL--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Page in need of rewrite due to copyright violations

Multiple past edits to the page, especially those by User:Pitt 32 and User:NBALIVE2551, appear to have been copy and pasted in part from the Phra Racha Wang Derm Restoration Foundation website and others, including but perhaps not limited to , , and . A complete rewrite to remove the copyrighted material is needed. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 21:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It could be that the sources mentioned had also extracted the similar book sources stated in this article. This article has been very well referenced from its original sources. Does that constitute copyright violations for WP? The authors of the above webpages might also have similarly written like this as well--except w/o the sources.

As far as I know, since he cited sources this does not infringe copyright: Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Plagiarism_that_does_not_infringe_copyright; Wikipedia:Citing sources--you might want to read these--I dont think copyright is hence infringed. Mr Tan (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If you take time to look in the page history, you will find that certain edits by those editors consist of exact passages lifted directly from the aforementioned web pages. The citations were later added separately (whether relevantly and correctly, I don't know). --Paul_012 ^(talk) 05:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Does that matter? As with the "Plagarism" link, it is mentioned that Material that is plagiarised but which does not violate copyright does not need to be removed from Wikipedia if it can be properly sourced. Add appropriate source information to the article wherever possible, or move unsourced material to an article's talk page until sources can be found.--I agree that many texts may have been lifted from the webpages you mentioned, but nevertheless they are well substanitaited from book sources. However, the webpages at most are fit to be calssified as tertiary level sources (if they are written based on books/scholarly materials). If your suggestions are accurate, the user's materials are cited accordingly to Primary and Secondary level sources--as seen from the names of the references mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Tan (talk • contribs)

Yes, it does matter, because directly copying passages constitutes copyright violation. Those web pages weren't being used as sources—they were blatantly copied here in violation of copyright. That NBALIVE2551 added vaguely formatted "references" (mostly without full citations) long after the passages were added (copied) into the article, contributes to the doubt regarding whether those added "references" are actually relevant to those passages. Please try actually looking at the editors' individual edits in the history, if you haven't yet. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have one suggestion though--User:NBALIVE2551 is the editor of much of this artcile's content, as seen from the article's history. Before undergoing any content removal or extensive reediting for reasons of possible copyright infringement perhaps one might want to consult him first before we take any further actions? Mr Tan (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I was under the mistaken impression that the user had received multiple copyright warnings, but I was confusing this with his account at Commons. While keeping WP:AGF in mind, I believe the consultation the editor needs most is a thorough explanation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This article constitutes a copyright infringement, not mere plagiarism. For example, compare the paragraph beginning "In 1765, Phraya Tak came to Ayutthaya to help defend the capital..." with the source. It is verbatim duplication. Internet archives confirm that they predate the addition of the material to the article, here. I am restoring an earlier version of the article, doing my best to incorporate improvements by subsequent editors. I will look at the article later to see if additional infringement remains from earlier edits. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Additional copyright concerns, processes for addressing

On further investigation, I see that more content in the article is a copyright infringement of this. WP:NFC allows duplication of previously published sources that are not public domain or licensed compatibly with GFDL only under limited circumstances; in no case is extensive quotation permitted. There are basically several options for proceeding from this point:

• We can identity the earliest point of infringement and restore the version that existed prior to that. Improvements utilized after can be incorporated as long as they do not involve the infringing text.
• Contributors to the article can revise the infringing sections completely, from scratch, in the temporary space linked at the article's talk page. This material would be merged after it is finished if it does not infringe on the copyright of that external site or plagiarize from it. (Please note that to avoid infringement, it would have to be rewritten from scratch. Changing a few words will not serve to clear the matter under US copyright law, which forbids extensive close paraphrasing.)
• Interested contributors might choose to contact the webmaster to obtain permission to use the text, if he or she is willing to grant it, according to the process at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Please note that permission must meet our requirements; if the webmaster were willing, for instance, to release it for Wikipedia only, we could not use it. It must be released under GFDL or into public domain, and the permission must issue from an address that is obviously connected to the source. Of course, if the webmaster has already given permission, following through with verifying that will allow us to restore this text.

I have blanked the article according to the procedure at Wikipedia:Copyright Problems. If contributors to the article do not specify what handling would suit the material best, I will default after the standard one week listing to removing the infringing material as I did with that previously identified. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from this URL: http://www.wangdermpalace.com/kingtaksin/eng_thegreat.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from these URLs: http://www.wangdermpalace.com/kingtaksin/eng_multifarious.html and http://www.wangdermpalace.com/kingtaksin/eng_militaryact.html as well as other subpages at that site. Infringing material has been replaced by earlier text and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Children

They cannot all be "Crown Princes" surely? Only the oldest one in direct line as heir apparent is normally called that. All the rest can, in principle, be bumped out of line and are only heir presumptives. SpinningSpark 02:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done Pitt (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"Critics over the coup" suggestion

The section tells about Nithi's mention that there was a coup that threw Taksin from the throne, but there is nothing more than that. It should mention about how, when, and why too. (with references) --ThHorus (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"Critics over the coup" suggestion

The section tells about Nithi's mention that there was a coup that threw Taksin from the throne, but there is nothing more than that. It should mention about how, when, and why too. (with references) --ThHorus (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

• The tone of Wars and rebellions is clearly biased. Phrases like "Needless to say" "It would be no exaggeration to say that he could have massacred all of them" In fact, the whole passage is taken from "Damrong Rajanubhab's accounts" who is a Thai citizen. Sources need to be neutral like modern academic studies, etc. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

• Azaewunky is based on Thai account. Use true name , Maha Thiha Thura instead.

• "The successes against competitors for power were due to Taksin's fighting ability as a warrior, splendid leadership, exemplary valor and effective organization of his forces."

" splendid, exemplary, effective" all eulogistic words in one sentence. Please try to be neutral. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch). Soewinhan (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Taksin vs. History of Thailand Entry

I notice there are major differences between the Taksin entry and the portion in the History of Thailand section pertaining to Taksin. I made a simple edit but someone with more familiarity might want to give it a shot. The History of Thailand page is an important page - the Taksin part has a lot of mythology and bias woven into the entry TotoroRules (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Death date

The article gives conflicting info about his death date.

A part of the article says he died on 6 April. Another part says it was 7 April. Another part says 10 April.

But the correct one is 10 April, as calculated by the Fine Arts Department of Thailand.

Historical documents say he died on Wednesday, the 13th waning-moon day of the 5th month of the year 1143 LE, the Year of the Tiger, which corresponds to Wednesday, 10 April 2325 BE (1782 CE).

--iudexvivorum (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

References

mdy format?

I thought that since this dealt with Thai history, that the dates in this article used to be in dmy format? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

While DMY is the date format used in Thailand, and most Wikipedia articles about Thailand do follow it, this isn't required by Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Strong national ties to a topic only covers English-speaking countries. The general guidance is that an article's existing date format should be retained unless there is consensus to change it. You could suggest a change for this article (personally, I'd also prefer DMY), but please ping the major contributors and allow time for a full discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• KingTaksin of Thonburi.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Siamese–Vietnamese War (1771–1773)

Content from this article has been copied to that one and I'm placing this notice as a courtesy to readers. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 2 December 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

---

• Sanphet X (Taksin) → Taksin
• Sanphet IX (Thai Sa) → Thai Sa
• Sanphet VIII (Suriyenthrathibodi) → Suriyenthrathibodi
• Sanphet VII (Si Suthammaracha) → Si Suthammaracha
• Sanphet V (Prasat Thong) → Prasat Thong
• Sanphet IV (Si Saowaphak) → Si Saowaphak
• Sanphet III (Ekathotsarot) → Ekathotsarot
• Sanphet II (Naresuan) → Naresuan
• Rammarat (Ramkhamhaeng) → Ramkhamhaeng
• Maha Thammarachathirat III (Uthumphon) → Uthumphon
• Borommaracha III (Ekkathat) → Ekkathat
• Borommaracha II (Chetthathirat) → Chetthathirat
• Borommaracha I (Songtham) → Songtham
• Borommatrailokkanat (Ramesuan) → Borommatrailokkanat
• Borommarachathirat III (Borommaracha) → Borommarachathirat IIIBorommarachathirat III
• Borommarachathirat II (Sam Phraya) → Borommarachathirat II
• Borommarachathirat I (Phra Ngua) → Borommarachathirat I
• Ramrachathirat (Ramracha) → Ramrachathirat
• Ramathibodi III (Narai) → Narai
• Ramathibodi I (Uthong) → Uthong
• Maha Thammaracha IV (Borommapan) → Maha Thammaracha IV
• Maha Thammaracha III (Sai Lue Thai) → Maha Thammaracha III
• Maha Thammaracha II (Lue Thai) → Maha Thammaracha II
• Maha Thammaracha I (Li Thai) → Maha Thammaracha I
• Inthrabodinthrathit (Si Inthrathit) → Si Inthrathit

– Reverting several moves that violate WP:NC() parenthesis policy. Parentheses implies disambiguation and also that no other more natural language disambiguation is possible. I noticed this when looking at Taksin's page never hearing about a supposed "Sanphet X"- a title which also has virtually no results on a cursory Google Scholar search (whether for Sanphet X or even just Sanphet). He is by far and umabiguously much more commonly known as Taksin. The correct way in my opinion to create consistency when indexing should be to have a redirect for the rarely used regnal titles to redirect to the names that are actually used commonly in English-language reliable sources. Otherwise it seems like there are two different kings called Sanphet X- one who is also known as Taksin occasionally and one who is not. In reality there is only one king known as Taksin who is perhaps sometimes known as Sanphet.

Amongst these, I think the strongest cases are for Taksin, Rammarat (Ramkhamhaeng), Sanphet II (Naresuan) and Ramathibodi III (Narai) to be reverted to their common names. There are a few monarchs that I left out (Sanphet VI, Sanphet I and Intharachathirat) as they would actually require better disambiguation than their original titles. I don't claim to know that all of these monarchs were more commonly known as the titles they were at before the recent page moves, but the current names break general Wikipedia title policy and think the simplest way is to revert them all to prior assumed consensus unless we decide something else would be better.

I'm naming them all on this RM to showcase the breadth of the issue to see if we can also come to some consensus about the best way to deal with it as a whole. Page mover @Nicholas Mah gave the reason of these moves being to create consistency amongst all these Thai royal article titles. Also WP:NCROY only says to use the common form in English and the Thailand specific policy so far is only discusses royalty as it relates to non-reigning members. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 21:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

support: I find it very weird for the page of Naresuan to have his most known common name in the brackets. the user moved all the pages without any page move discussions.. also there's no rule in wikipedia stating or common pages using the style of "Regnal Name (Personal Name)", unless any exceptions if they do not have a common name. As per wp:commonname and other similar monarch articles, all the page move can be reverted.. few examples of other popular kings/monarch following this includes Babur, Akbar, Ashoka, Hongwu, Bayinnaung, and so on. WinKyaw (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@EmeraldRange I support this move from “Sanphet X (Taksin)” → “Taksin” or “Taksin the Great”. As a Thai person “Taksin the Great” is the most commonly used name, and I have never ever heard someone called him as Sanphet X. As for many other Kings, “Rammarat” should definitely be change to “Ramkhamhaeng” or “Ramkhamhaeng the Great” and several others should be retitled to how they're normally referred to. Rrrivjwjhv (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.