Talk:Si Prat

Historicity

Kingoflettuce, thanks for creating this missing article about the legendary poet, but most scholars today question whether he is just that—a legend. The article should present the subject within that frame of reference, rather than simply as a factual historical figure. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Paul 012: Thank you for the feedback - do you have any sources inre "most scholars today question..."? Honestly did not mean to neglect that bit of historicity but I did not see this question surfacing enuf (only in one source). Would be happy to change things up in accordance with whatever you point me towards. Kingoflettuce (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

in fact even in that one source what I specifically read was "this Si Prat story may have been the work of court gossip" which I took to mean only an aspect of the Si Prat bio, rather than.his entire existence being the stuff of legend. But I am defo not a Thai expert, just trying to patch up tje void of info here (bit by bit!). Kingoflettuce (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I see you can read Thai so it would be a great help if you could add some native sources. That is beyond me. Kingoflettuce (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Here are some major sources that I could identify:

• P. Na Pramuanmak. Kamsuan Siprat and Nirat Narin. 1959 (in Thai). This is the first major scholarly account which directly refutes the historicity of Si Prat.
• Chetana Nagavajara. "Literary historiography and socio-cultural transformation: The case of Thailand". Journal of the Siam Society (73): 60–76. This English paper provides an overview of the above arguments, in the context of Thai literary historiography.
• Phraya Pariyattithammathada (Phae Talalak)'s Tamnan Si Prat (1919) is regarded as the first written account of the Si Prat legend.
• The Fine Arts Department's ประวัติและโครงกำสรวลศรีปราชญ์พร้อมด้วยบันทึกสอบทานและหมายเหตุ (Dhanit Yupho, 1967) probably describes the various sources for the Kamsuan poem, and probably sticks to the Si Prat attribution, as can be guessed from the title. (Haven't seen citations to the work, so can't be sure.)
• A more recent appraisal is made in Silpa Wattanatham (Art and Culture)'s กำสรวลสมุทร หรือ กำสรวลศรีปราชญ์ เป็นพระราชนิพนธ์ยุคต้นกรุงศรีอยุธยา, edited by Sujit Wongthes (2006). It differs from previous scholarship in that it attributes the Kamsuan Samut to an early Ayutthaya prince, rather than saying the style is later than Si Prat's alleged lifetime. A 1998 article on the subject by Sujit, titled "ศรีปราชญ์อยู่ที่ไหน ศรีธนญชัยอยู่ที่นั่น" was also the main feature in Silpa Wattanatham 20(2): 78–85. Brief summary articles also appeared in Matichon Online earlier this year (in response to the subject's mention in the Love Destiny TV series).[1][2]
• Saowanit Chunlawong mentions Si Prat as an example of the disconnect between scholarly consensus and public awareness in "Historiography of Thai Literature: On the Construction and De(con)struction of Thainess." Thammasat Journal of History 1 (2): 163–200. 2014. She cites an earlier article of hers, an article by Sumalee Weerawong, "ปริทรรศน์หลักฐานและแนวคิดที่ใช้สร้างประวัติวรรณคดีอยุธยา." วารสารภาษาและวรรณคดีไทย. 11 (1–2): 15. 1994.
• The analysis of Kamsuan Samut cited by Baker & Phongpaichit is available at http://beyond.library.tu.ac.th/cdm/ref/collection/trf_or_th/id/19287 .
• Vasan Rattanapoka. "The Viewpoints and Approaches of the Early Ayudhya Period’s Literature Historical Study". Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University. 2014.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] (in Thai) provides a good overview of the debate.
• อ. ประมวลวิทย์. ในราชสำนักพระนารายณ์. Bangkok: Odeon Store, 1962. has an entry on Si Prat that covers his traditional biography.

I don't have access to most of these, but the JSS article is detailed enough to serve as a basis. I'll see what I can write later when I have more time. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Paul, that's many great sources I could not have discovered (much less understood) on my own. They will surely add much more depth to the article. Are there scholars who, on the other hand, regard him as real? My prior (misinformed) understanding (before being corrected by you) was that he existed and wrote those poems but I'd imagine some parts of his bio were fictitious (like the execution-prophecy bit) Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I hope other than that I have done the subject adequate justice! Still learning, Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. AFAIK, the current scholarly consensus supports the myth status. However, the traditional narrative is actually still pretty much regarded as conventional knowledge, popularised (and ingrained) by mid-20th century school curricula. So it's hardly surprising that it's still regarded as fact by many tertiary sources. I've started working on a revision, FYI. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Learnt a lot, thanks! I'll leave this in your good hands then :) BTW, is Kamsuan Samut more conventional than Kamsuan Siprat? Getting the feeling that the latter is more commonly used (why the disparity?) Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Kamsuan Siprat appears to be the most common name during most of its modern publication history, stemming from the traditional attribution. But in response to the authorship question, many now use the name Kamsuan Samut (a name found in the contemporaneous textbook Chindamani) instead. Some simply refer to it as Kamsuan or Khlong Kamsuan (Khlong being the type of poem it was written in). --Paul_012 (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've revised and expanded the article. I've included one of the famous poems, but unfortunately I'm by no means a poet and can only offer a basic translation, as the linked translation by Seni Pramoj's is technically copyrighted. There's also the issue of the image, which I had tagged for being replaceable fair use. Since the statue is openly located, and thus falls under Thailand's freedom of panorama rules, someone could reasonably take a new photo and release it freely, so using a non-free image likely fails WP:NFCC#1. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, you did a SUPERB job - wonder why you didn't create this earlier :) would have liked a pic, but I understand. Perhaps I could ping the good folks at Wikiproj Thailand to assist me with that, fingers crossed. Or if you yourself lived nearby (whatever else woulx explain your fluency)... Also, do you happen to have a link to the full Kamsuan Samut poem? And also a source to back up the 131 stanza stat (though I guess the poem itself is a good enuf source). In any case THANK YOU once again Paul - you truly are a great asset to the project. Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Vajirayana Digital Library (usually the first place to look for such things) doesn't have it digitised yet, but the Winai Pongsripian paper (linked to at the bottom of the Kamsuan Samut article) does include the entire poem, with stanza-by-stanza translations into modern Thai. It does note though that the known work is likely incomplete, as several stanzas appear to have been lost. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC) PS Unfortunately, I'm no where near Nakhon Si Thammarat. Adding the request template. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Si Prat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 19:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

All of my comments are open to discussion. Once complete, I will claim this review for points in the 2018 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Since it seems Kingoflettuce is busy at the moment, I'll try and see if I can address the issues (responses below). --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   These are my copy edits. Please review for accuracy and revert/revise if needed.

   I've modified the edit in the death section, since the poem doesn't explicitly mention beheading. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

   "masterpiece of punning and word play". - This quote should be attributed inline.

   I've provided attribution to Thomas J. Hudak, who presumably wrote the preface to his translated volume, where the quote is sourced from. I don't have full access to the book, however, so cannot be 100% sure. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

   "it has also been argued" - who is arguing? Is one position more widely accepted than another?

   Added attribution. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

   "Some scholars have suggested" I suggest adding "such as [specific scholar]" to avoid sounding weaselly. Same for the other scholars mentioned later in this sentence.

   Done. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   no concern

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   no concern

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   No concern

   C. It contains no original research:

   The first sentence of the last paragraph under Historicity makes a strong claim for consensus doesn't have a citation. I assume it came from the same source as the following sentence?

   Yes. I've added an additional end-of-sentence citation. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   AGF for non-web / non-English sources. No concern

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   no concern

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   no concern

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   no concern

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   no concern

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   no concern

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   no concern

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A few concerns need to be addressed before I can pass this. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

   • • • Thanks @Paul 012: - happy to promote this article. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

User:Rqiang84, I've reverted the addition of the infobox. Using Infobox person here is especially problematic since it fails to reflect the fact that the subject was likely not a real historical person. Template:Infobox character might be a better choice, but it's mainly designed for modern fictional works and doesn't fit either. I think the article is fine without one.

I've also reverted the changing of "Thai" to "Siamese". Siam originated as an exonym used by foreigners, and while it may be appropriate to use in historical discussions framed by a Western point of view, that isn't the case here. The word Thai had been in use much longer, and should be perfectly fine for to describing a person, historical or not. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)