Talk:1893 Franco-Siamese crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War?[edit]

Is the conflict actually referred to as a war? I understand that there was no full-scale fighting, and searches for "Franco-Siamese War" return more results for the 1941 campaign than this. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Twain referred to it this way: "News comes that within this week Siam has acknowledged herself to be, in effect, a French province." --Pawyilee (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[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: not moved. No WP guidelines that I'm aware of (or are mentioned below) indicate the need for a formal declaration before "War" can be used in a title, and no consensus for the new name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-Siamese War → Franco-Siamese dispute of 1893 – Looking through Google Books results, most sources don't refer to the dispute as a war. I don't know what practices were at the time, but if a formal declaration is needed for an incident to be called a war then this wasn't one. --Relisted. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 09:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Paul_012 (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom and WP:NCE. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not sure whether that should be a hyphen or en dash. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should definitely be a hyphen because Franco is a combining form. Jenks24 (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the moment. Looking at gbooks, I think the current title is the common name. I get 849 hits for "Franco-Siamese War", compared to only 203 for "Franco-Siamese dispute". Not to mention that I think "of 1893" is unnecessary. Jenks24 (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite a few of those results actually refer to the Franco-Thai War of 1940–41 and not this one. Others mentioned "Franco-Siamese war" (with a small w). Looking at results for France Siam history 1893, various terms are used in referring to the series of events, including conflict, confrontation, dispute, blockade, ultimatum, controversy, etc. The only widely recognised name is "Paknam Incident" (which is a separate article). What I'm trying to suggest is that "Franco-Siamese War" isn't widely accepted as a proper name for the subject (in contrast to, for example, "World War II"), and the article would likely be better served by a descriptive title (hence the suggested "of 1893"). "Dispute" may not be the best term, but if "war" is used, I think it should be de-capitalised. Using a different word would avoid ambiguity with the 1940–41 war, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Enough sources use the current term that I believe we ought to keep it. I would not oppose moving this to Franco-Siamese War (1893) and redirecting the current title to the article Franco-Thai War, so long as we remove the hatnote here and fix all the links to go to the right article. Srnec (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[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 added archive links to one external link on Franco–Siamese War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

Bertdrunk, would you care to elaborate on why you reverted the move? As suggested back in the 2012 RM, the term doesn't appear to be treated as a proper name by most sources, so it should be de-capitalised. While the RM didn't agree on the move to Franco-Siamese dispute of 1893, nobody actually opposed the suggestion to rename the article to Franco-Siamese war with a lowercase w. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't saw it was recently moved, I moved it cause I never ever saw a title without "War" capitalized. Bertdrunk (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Paul_012, so should the article be capitalized? Fortunatestars (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it should be renamed to have war uncapitalised, but seeing as it might not be uncontroversial it'd probably need an RM. I'd like to think this over a bit more though. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[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) 23:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 January 2024[edit]

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 to 1893 Franco-Siamese crisis. Participants agreed that this event is not widely described as a "war". The year is being appended to the title as, while it was not in the original proposal, it ultimately achieved unanimous support in the discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-Siamese War → Franco-Siamese crisis – or Franco-Siamese conflict – Revisiting this. Having gone through Google Books results for "Franco-Siamese war", "Franco-Siamese crisis", and "Franco-Siamese conflict", it appears that "Franco-Siamese crisis" is by far the most commonly used by sources directly discussing the event, as well as contemporary ones and the history summaries presented in travel guides. Conflict comes second. In contrast, "Franco-Siamese war" was only found in passing or one-off mentions in works whose focus lay elsewhere.

Here's a breakdown of the results I checked that were more directly relevant.

Works that use "crisis":

Works that use "conflict":

Works that use both "crisis" and "conflict"

As mentioned, I didn't find any directly relevant works among those that used "war".

Personally, I slightly prefer "crisis", as "Franco-Thai conflict" sounds a bit too vague/general. (There's also one source that uses "Franco-Siamese conflict" to refer to the Siamese revolution of 1688.) Also, several of the above sources do append "of 1893" on first mention, so Franco-Siamese crisis of 1893 and Franco-Siamese conflict of 1893 are also options to consider. Paul_012 (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Thailand has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject France has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Vietnam has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. I checked Google Books for "1893 France Siam" and variations (e.g. including Grosgurin) and "war" does not seem to appear very frequently at all. (While we're here, let's also delete the questionable Template:Campaignbox Franco-Siamese War, where there is one incident treated as if it was a battle...) SnowFire (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the move as proposed, but I support a move to a title that includes the date, such as Franco-Siamese crisis of 1893. —Srnec (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned in the nom, I'm also good with including the year. No preference either way. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1893_Franco-Siamese_crisis&oldid=1204357665"