Talk:6 October 1976 massacre

6 October 1976 massacre has been rewritten

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)

I know one would be hard pressed to find a source other than Handley discussing the role of the King, but I think the new version relies too much on that single source, which may possibly result in a non-neutral POV. It would be better to balance the article with more traditional accounts, presenting all point of views in the article. --111.84.5.28 (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be misreading the reference section. The links to the contemporary account in Time magazine go 'a' to 'k'. That is, there are 11 references to this story. An article by Giles is referred to seven times. So it's not all Handley. Of course, Giles is also anti-royalist, so there is still a POV issue. I plan to add some material by Neher, who is pre-Handley and therefore less of a partisan. Kauffner (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.53.19.9 (talk)

Requested move

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 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)

• General support since the current title is a little vague but the alternative is only weakly supported. — AjaxSmack 06:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

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.

-- 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)

This is largely the controversial Handley account, yet written as accepted facts

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.

Dubious

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 idea of Wikipedia is that we summarize what the secondary sources say. Handley's book is the most notable of these sources. Does someone question that the imprisonment of the royal family in Laos shocked the king? It seems that you are cutting stuff out just because it's sourced to Handley. There is no reason we can't write about the king's thoughts and feelings. A biographer is entitled to have an opinion on these issues. The king's support for the paramilitary forces certainly wasn't a secret. Perhaps you can find a royalist source to create balance. But I don't think chopping out well-sourced material is the solution. Kauffner (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not of the opinion that a controversial biography of the king by an American freelance writer is a 100 % reliable source for a historic event. "The King never smiles" has been criticized for partially being tendentious and conveying gossip instead of facts. Handley, as a freelance author (different from e.g. a scholar), does not only want to inform the world, but also to sell as many copies of his book as he can. Therefore he might make his texts more readable, gripping or easy to understand than e.g. a specialist book on history. I am not principally against using Handley as a source - but I am against presenting his analysis and judgment, without support by other sources, as facts. And some of it seems to be speculation. Usually, the king of Thailand does not tell the public about his thoughts, feelings and motives. So, how can Handley know if King Bhumibol was "shocked", "wary of popular passions", "motivated", or surprised? How can Handley know that Bhumibol supported the paramilitary, or said something in confidence? Surely, neither Bhumibol nor his entourage have told Handley. Handley assumes it. Of course, his assumptions seem reasonable and logic, but you cannot present them as facts. Ultimately, this article is not about King Bhumibol, but about the Thammasat massacre, in which Bhumibol was not the main actor. Therefore, a history book should be preferable over a biography of the king. If Bhumibol's support, emotions and motives are generally known, it should be possible to find other sources for it. As long as they are not, I have to suppose that it is only one biographer's opinion and conjectures. And Wikipedia is not the place for opinion and conjectures. --RJFF (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if I would "cut stuff out" only because it's sourced to Handley, I would have to cut out 90% of the article. I just cut out six sentences whose dubiousness startled me. --RJFF (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Bhumibol was not the main actor"? Say what? And apparently Pramarn had nothing to do with it either. So where does that leave us? Chumphon acted on his own? Who invited Thanom back to Thailand? The "kill them, kill them" announcers on Tank Corp Radio knew what they were doing and didn't act on their own. I remember when Samak was PM and some royalists tried to make it sound like he was responsible -- Samak and his foul mouth weren't even in office at the time. If the massacre was the army's idea, the army would have been running the show after the coup. But, no, the king ignored the army and appointed a paramilitary leader as prime minister. The paramilitaries were his kind of people. As for Pramarn, he was the one who announced the attack to the cabinet -- until that point the other members had no idea what was going on. That implies that the people who carried out the massacre reported to Pramarn. We have to take the sources as they exist. Your subjective opinion is not a basis to declare something "conjecture" and remove it. We can add, "according to Handley" or something like that. Kauffner (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There are rules for WP:Identifying reliable sources, e.g. this Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist. It invites us to ask questions like "Who is the author? How does he make a living?" A: Paul Handley is a freelance author, not a scholar. "What kind of publication is it?" A: It is a biography of King Bhumibol written for laymen, not a textbook of Thai history. Therefore it is absolutely acceptable to use the book as a source for the facts, for the run of events etc. But it is not OK to present Handley's personal analysis and judgments as if they were authoritative or indisputable. I think his assumptions are very reasonable and quite probable, but they are still assumptions. And as a freelance author, who is neither a historian nor any other kind of scholar, he - alone - is not in the position of authority to establish such an assessment. If other reliable sources support this view, I will most readily accept it. But as long as it relies on Handley alone, it has to be treated with caution. "Bhumibol was not the main actor"? You may argue that the king has sympathized with the generals and paramilitaries, but you will not be able to substantiate that Bhumibol were the main actor of the massacre. Not even Handley or Giles Ungpakorn claim that. "Apparently Pramarn had nothing to do with it"? I did not say that. I just took him out of the "perpetrator" box of the info box. The role Pramarn has played is explained in the article's body. "We have to take the sources as they exist"? No, we have to scrutinize whether they are reliable or not. "Declare something conjecture"? How can it not be conjecture if the king has never talked about his feelings and motives. The author is one single journalist. Journalists like to claim that someone thinks this and that, feels this and that or does something for a certain reason. But this is not authoritative and does not belong in an encyclopedia article. This has nothing to do with my subjective opinion. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"That implies that the people (...) reported to Pramarn." Yes, it implies. A very reasonable and very probable assumption, but an assumption. --RJFF (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Official" source for death toll?

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)

Is the photo in this article available somewhere for use in Wikipedia?

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)

The iconic status of the image should easily warrant its use under the WP:NFCC, tagged as a {{Non-free historic image}}. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Links that will be paywalled (after 60 days?)

Highly relevant links (from Thai newspapers) that will be non-free after 60 days:

• ("expiration" cirka 2016, 5 December) Justice must come for all victims of political violence 176.11.85.31 (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Movie not mentioned

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)

You're probably thinking of By the Time It Gets Dark. There have also been a handful of other movies (and plenty of documentaries) that mention the event. Just mentioning them in an "In popular culture" section should be avoided, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, Paul 012, but haven't these productions, especially By the time it gets dark, not lead to some discussion of the subject?--Farang Rak Tham (talk)

The film you are thinking of is "Song Phi Nong" maybe? I added what I found of different commemoration efforts under Remembrance which include films and other commemoration efforts.--Bluishnat (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• 6 ตุลา.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 October 2020

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) —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:

• Thongchai Winichakul's Moments of Silence: The Unforgetting of the October 6, 1976, Massacre in Bangkok (the most recent major scholarly work on the subject) uses the full date in the book title and "October 6 massacre" (or 1976 massacre) in the text.
• Tyrell Haberkorn's Revolution Interrupted: Farmers, Students, Law, and Violence in Northern Thailand introduces the event as "the 6 October massacre at Thammasat University" and later refers to it as "the 6 October massacre", as does the author's In Plain Sight: Impunity and Human Rights in Thailand.
• The Art of Truth-telling about Authoritarian Rule uses "the massacre of October 6, 1976".
• Dictionary of the Modern Politics of Southeast Asia uses "Thammasat University Massacre" as a proper noun.
• Cultural Crisis and Social Memory: Modernity and Identity in Thailand and Laos has "October 1976 massacre", "1976 massacre" and "6 October massacre".
• Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit's A History of Thailand has "1976 massacre" and "Thammasat massacre".
• Michael Kelly Connors's Democracy and National Identity in Thailand has "6 October massacre" in the text, with "Thammasat University massacre" appears in the index.

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)

Agree --Horus (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2020 (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.

Move NPOV

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)

@Horus: at first glance I'm a bit confused as to why the whole section is entitled "King Bhumibol's role" – the subsections on the Village Scouts, Nawaphon and Red Gaurs should surely be separate, or subsections within a section called something like "Right-wing paramilitaries". (The discussion of the king's role and influence upon each of these groups would looks like it should be a separate section.) Jr8825 • Talk 15:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)