Drink does not mean prostitution and therefore the bars in this section need to be changed to actual bars not places to meet prostitutes. As the section stands now it is quite insulting and not appropriate!
Insulting to who? I've yet to find a first-time visitor to Bangkok who wasn't interested in checking out a go-go bar; it really is entirely possible to go in, have a beer, and leave. Jpatokal 06:16, 1 Feb 2006 (EST)
I was entirely uninterested in visiting a go-go bar on my first visit to Bangkok. On my second visit I am similarly uninterested.
Congratulations, you're the exception that proves the rule. Jpatokal 01:01, 19 December 2006 (EST)
Jpatokal, I am surprised you are still so involved in this project. The outcome, of course, is a viewpoint that emphasizes what you like best, prostitution. You obviously come to BKK for the girls. That is fine, and that is your privilege, but there is more to BKK, although you obviously do not know anything about it. Jpatokal, how about leaving this Wiki to others who know more about BKK than just the bargirls!
Just wondering if the age for going into clubs still over 20? Is it strictly enforced?
I don't understand why anyone would want to *remove* info on agogo bars? If a reader is not interested it's easy to skip. (many are interested, as Jpatokal points out). No point moralizing here, this is about information, not preaching.
Editing and removing listings for massage parlors and bars of any stripe is garbage. Bangkok is what it is. I've lived here for five years now and I can tell you that most people who go to places like Soi Cowboy do not purchase sex. The same goes for Patpong. As for massage, I think the definition of "on the up and up" is code for the writers moral viewpoint and does not add to good travel writing.
Jai yen people, you're reading three-year old discussions. Go-go bars are listed in the current article and are not going anywhere. Jpatokal 08:03, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Someone should update the section on political unrest with information about the red-shirt protests in 2010. The section is current only through 2008.
Please go ahead.--Burmesedays 03:11, 23 March 2010 (EDT)
What do people think about a section on medium term stay (1-2 months). In BKK. How to rent an appartment for several months, the costs, how to get internet connections, etc?
--18.104.22.168 23:33, 28 Feb 2005 (EST)
I'd like to suggest revising the districts a little -- how about this:
Sukhumvit (Downtown + Sukhumvit, everything on and around the long road that is Th Phra Ram I/Th Ploenchit/Th Sukhumvit)
Silom (Th Silom, Th Sathorn, Patpong and surroundings)
Sounds good to me, as long as we describe them with their links so people know what is include where. Good to see someone working on this-- it was one of the first articles we had! Majnoona 12:12, 18 May 2004 (EDT)
Done. I'm in Bangkok again for the 10th time in the last 12 months as I write this, so it's about to time to record what I've learned! Jpatokal 00:16, 19 May 2004 (EDT)
I'm going to add Bangkok/Airport for the airport district (not the airport itself ;) ). It isn't an especially exciting destination, but it would be useful to have some info for people making an overnight stop since it's such a major hub. I know this now from personal experience. And of course as an added bonus if there are hidden tourist gems near the airport, well, someone can add them. - Hypatia 23:37, 27 Nov 2004 (EST)
Why not just place the airport under Bangkok/North? As a name, "Bangkok/Airport" also has the major problem that the airport is supposed to move next year to an entirely different location... Jpatokal 00:21, 28 Nov 2004 (EST)
Sure -- the description of the North district didn't let me know it covered it. I wonder what will happen to the hotels when the airport moves? -- Hypatia 00:58, 28 Nov 2004 (EST)
Good point-- I was going to say that it's a valid district because of the train station and hotels, and cause plenty of people have 9-12 hour layovers in the area and don't make it inot town... but if it falls within the North district that'll be a better spot. Just out of curiosity, when and where is the airport moving? I've spent a lot of hours there ;-) Majnoona 01:01, 28 Nov 2004 (EST)
OK, I'll expand North to cover the airport (you're right in that it wasn't really covered before). Anyway, the new Suvarnabhumi airport is around 30km to the east of BKK (on the road to Pattaya) and in theory is supposed to open in September 2005, but in practice I'll be quite surprised if it's ready before 2007. Jpatokal 01:16, 28 Nov 2004 (EST)
Moved from "Do" -- This info is good background info on the issue, but I don't think it goes under "Do," that looks abit too much like an endoresment. Should this be under "Understand" or "Cope" or what? Also, maybe this belongs in Thailand or even Southeast Asia as it isn't just a problem in Bangkok
A major part of Thai tourism is prostitution, and a significant proportion of tourists visit to sample the local girls. Something like 1% of the female population of Thailand works in the sex business (most originating from the Isaan, a poor farming region in the North of Thailand, and in Bangkok to make their fortune), and it is almost impossible to avoid at least limited exposure to the business, whether it be from taxi drivers offering 'massage' (something to be avoided, as they will get a big commission), or the catcalls of 'hello handsome man' from female and katoey (ladyboy) prostitutes alike.
In particular walking through Patpong, with its night market, you will see literally dozens of gogo bars with their gaudy fronts and solicitous door girls leaving you in no doubt about what lies inside. Other well-known areas in the city are Nana Entertainment Plaza and Soi Cowboy (Soi 3), a street off the main thoroughfare Sukhumvit in the heart of the city.
Understand is probably the right place for it. Southeast Asia would not be a good candidate, since it is too general a statement for all of SE Asia. It really is quite particular to Bangkok.
Some removed extlinks
Here's a couple of extlinks I removed that might be worthwhile, so I'll drop them here with my comments about why I removed them:
Someone added some presumably good info on the Bangkok gay scene. Unfortunately, it was intermingled with violations of the Wikitravel:Sex tourism policy. If anyone wants to try to rescue the wheat from the chaff, the previous can be retreived here. -- Colin 14:21, 26 Jan 2005 (EST)
I added the section, which is to the best of my knowledge accurate, and certainly relevant. I am unable to access this sex tourism policy link from my Saigon cybercaf, it just makes the window close. Please explain why you have deleted the section. Adam Carr 21:42, 26 Jan 2005 (EST)
Your Saigon cybercafe probably has keyword filtering or something... anyway, the sex tourism policy basically dictates that prostitute pricing info is no-no (I personally think this is a little arbitrary, but that's another kettle of fish).
On what grounds does Wikitravel impose such a restriction? Is Wikitravel a moral authority? Many thousands of people visit Thailand expecting to pay for sex, it is an accepted part of Thai culture (most Thai men pay for sex, not just tourists), and it is extremely important for the Thai economy. Any useful travel guide to Bangkok should provide this information. Adam Carr 21:59, 26 Jan 2005 (EST)
You're preaching to the choir, brother. =) I also think it's silly, but a significant portion of Wikitravel's users disagree. Please see Wikitravel talk:Sex tourism policy for further discussion on this. Jpatokal 22:38, 26 Jan 2005 (EST)
How about the grounds that the current host of the Website would like to not be arrested? -- Colin 00:38, 27 Jan 2005 (EST)
I didn't see any references to child prostitution in Adam Carr's edits. What part of them would make Evan liable to prosecution? Jpatokal 00:42, 27 Jan 2005 (EST)
The word "especially" in the policy is not a synonym for "only." Mentally delete the clause that starts with the word "especially" and see if it parses better for you in this case. -- Colin 00:47, 27 Jan 2005 (EST)
Any way I read it says "sex tourists may be subject to prosecution". How does this make saying "there are prostitutes in Patpong" illegal? Last I checked Canada does have some approximation of free speech... Jpatokal 01:05, 27 Jan 2005 (EST)
Thus spake the Sex Tourism Policy: "There are legal ramifications for listing sex tourism information". -- Colin 01:29, 27 Jan 2005 (EST)
Thus spake Evan in the very first edition of the policy. Given this , which basically says anything goes unless there's a specific law to the contrary, I'd like to see a legal cite for this interesting claim. Jpatokal 01:36, 27 Jan 2005 (EST)
Listing prices for prostitutes could be seen as pimping/encouraging/advertisement/whatever. It is a very good idea to err on the side of caution here. You are of course welcome to pay a lawyer to write up a policy that has any chance of reflecting US laws (where the site is hosted, no?). -- Nils
Actually, the site is hosted in Canada. --Evan 08:11, 27 Jan 2005 (EST)
I've never actually seen a travel guide that provides prices and buyers' guides for prostitutes. I'm sure they exist, but the travel guides I usually use (Let's Go, Lonely Planet, Rough Guide) usually have vague info on prostitution, or none at all. --Evan 11:40, 28 Jan 2005 (EST)
I've added a new Drink section to the main article (I cannot believe it was missing!!) and condensed most of your excellent input into it. Please also feel free to expand the bar listings in Bangkok/Silom. Jpatokal 21:51, 26 Jan 2005 (EST)
I prefer to refer to the actual policy document. I'm sorry you have a broken connection, but that's kinda your responsibility to work around. -- Colin 00:32, 27 Jan 2005 (EST)
This is the most absurd discussion I have ever seen. Colin seems to be asserting that because something is illegal, it is therefore illegal to refer to it or describe it. The last time I looked many encyclopaedias, including Wikipedia, have articles on murder, arson, rape, incest and other crimes, and are not so far as I know prosecuted for them. It is frequently asserted that prostitution is illegal in Thailand, and this may well be true although I have not seen the text of the law referred to, so I don't know what specfic acts the law criminalises. It may be that it criminalises only street prostitution, as is the case in many jurisdictions. I do know that the gay go-go bars I describe in my text operate completely openly and under the noses of the police. If they are illegal the police don't seem to care very much. If the acts themselves are not prosecuted, I think it highly unlikely that an encyclopaedia is going to be prosecuted for describing those acts. Colin is going to have to come up with a better justification for his views, which I suspect are motivated by moralism and/or homophobia. If I am wrong in that suspicion, prove me so. Adam Carr 07:25, 28 Jan 2005 (EST)
I don't have to come up with a justification to implement existing policy. The burden of change is upon you to alter the existing policy first. -- cj
Thai law criminalizes all forms of prostitution. But the issue is not Thai law, the issue is an IMHO rather suspect interpretation of Canadian/NZ/whatever law. Further discussion → Wikitravel talk:Sex tourism policy please. Jpatokal 11:17, 30 Jan 2005 (EST)
Regarding our friend the sexpat, having spent several months commuting through Patpong (no joke!), I can assure you that there are many, many tourists in the City of Angels who can be described as "fifty-plus, bald, beer belly, stained shirt, lovestruck expression and a hairy arm wrapped around a girl too young to be their daughter." You might not like it, and the above is needless to say a slightly exaggerated stereotype — and so are all the others in the peoplespotting checklist. So on what grounds do you justify nuking this? Doesn't sound terribly neutral to pretend this group of people doesn't exist. Jpatokal 11:17, 30 Jan 2005 (EST)
In my opinion, the sexpat peoplespotting was neither derogatory about the sexpat nor was the description stylistically different from the rest of the list. But maybe Adam can eloborate? -- Colin 20:08, 30 Jan 2005 (EST)
I've never actually seen a travel guide that provides prices and buyers' guides for prostitutes. I'm sure they exist, but the travel guides I usually use (Let's Go, Lonely Planet, Rough Guide) usually have vague info on prostitution, or none at all. --Evan 11:40, 28 Jan 2005 (EST)
The reason why these guidebooks don't mention this is that they are edited by feminists who hate the idea of heterosexual White men paying to have sex with willing partners. They overlook the other sex-tourists from Singapore, Taiwan, Japan and Nigeria though.
These books have a subtle to blatant contempt for White heterosexual tourist who play around. "Frommer's" tries to be neutral but "Lonely Planet" is the worse besides being horribly inaccurate and incomplete.
The guidebooks however do gush over Gay/Lesbians and tell them where to party and cruise for sex.
BTW, I'm not even White and have been happily leaving in LOS for years.
Before thai girl was honest,now i found that they are not honest and cheated, i have cheated by girl and taxi drivers, i think if it would be continue then tourist will be less be careful i went to patpong and one agent came to me and told me dat only 100 bhat u pay and sit there and watch show except this no need to pay..when i enter i sit there one girl bring one beer i did not took after dis she told me dat its free so i took soft drink when i was going one lady came and give me bill of 500 bhat i told why dis bill i did not got anything..she told me dis is bill for one soft drink u have to pay..ohhh shit...anyway i paid them there is a big racket, they cheat to tourist..ohh i will never go to bangkok..of course in pattaya 50% girls honest ..in bkk i booked one girl for whole nite..after 3-4 hrs she told me im going i told why? i paid u for a nite she told me no no i came only for short time and i got money for short time..i told NO.. and dis was our 5 mins discussion but endless she told me i dono wat u told me i dono english ..next day same case coz girls want to be rich soon by all means anyway be careful there dis is my suggestion and my experience
tnx robin 7jan 07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 6 January 2007
Last round of changes
So some items about the last round of changes.
1. The description of generousity after sex. The text says
Thai culture expects the older and / or wealthier partner in any transaction to be generous.
If that is true, could we move it to the Understand section since you are saying it's a cultural norm?
2. The descriptions of why Bangkok is a great travel destinations for gays. The article implies that it's a destination because of the sex scene. What nonsense! Our you trying to say gays go to a cool place like Bangkok just for sex? While for some gays (and heteros) that will be the case, I think the cultural ascpects, the history, the architecture, the food, and the acceptence of homosexuality (in that their lives will not be endangered for going to a gay bar unlike some societies) are all more important reasons to visit Thailand!
3. The reference to people going because sex is cheap
Thailand being a relatively poor country, even those young Thai
men who do not find western men attractive, or even are not gay at all,
are willing to fake it for what is by western standards a very small
amount of money.
This smacks of hawking sex tourism participation (as opposed to merely viewing the carnival) and must go under the policy.
Is Colin gay? If he is, he needs to get out more. If he is not (as I suspect), he has no business opining about what gay people (western or Thai) think or do. Adam Carr 06:41, 31 Jan 2005 (EST)
Is Adam Thai? If he is, he needs to get out more. If he is not (as I suspect), he has no business opining about what Thai people (gay or otherwise) think or do.
Does the previous sentence make it clear to you why your argument is bogus? Could you address the questions? Hint: I live near San Francisco, a place where many Gays are role models in the community and there are many interesting aspects to their lives that do not involve sex. If a hetero said that gays only go to Thailand for sex, I'd call him a f*ing bigot. Being gay does not give you a free pass in this matter. Colin 10:51, 31 Jan 2005 (EST)
(There is a separate gay scene in Bangkok for Thai gays who don't like westerners. Its location seems to be a closely guarded secret.)
Is this sentence a travel topic? I would skip that... -- JanSlupski 18:33, 31 Jan 2005 (EST)
I have deleted the section altogether, since it is impossible to get a truthful and useful text past the homophobic and/or sexophobic gestapo who appear to run Wikitravel. It is better to have nothing than the bowdlerised piffle which now appears. I am now withdrawing from this article so Colin can write his own version. Adam Carr 21:30, 31 Jan 2005 (EST)
FWIW, I've been to Body Tune and they do a pretty good job. If you think US$7/hour is too much for a massage, try $1000 for a package at the Oriental's spa... and if you know a place that does good massage for 150B/hour, add it in! Jpatokal 04:09, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)
Spelling of Kathoey
User Jpatokal states that Kathoey is a correct RTGS transcription. This is not correct, it should be Kathoei. However this is so unusual as a spelling in English, that I propose to leave it as non-RTGS. −Woodstone 17:43, 15 Jan 2006 (EST)
My vote would be for "katoey" as that's the least confusing for non-linguists.
Just an Outline?
Is this article really just an outline? Why not a guide? Majnoona 14:42, 24 Jan 2006 (EST)
One reason might be that Wikitravel:Article status is really focused on smallcity or bigcity articles. We don't have a good metric for what makes a "usable" (or "guide" or "star") huge city, district, region, country, or continent. --Evan 14:44, 24 Jan 2006 (EST)
What kind of drug tests?
The Drink section says: "police occasionally raid bars, subjecting all customers to drug tests." What sort of tests are used? I'd be extremely reluctant to co-operate with a blood test, not for fear of being busted for dope, but for fear of disease. Pashley 01:51, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
Urine tests, normally. Not cooperating with the boys in brown is, however, highly contraindicated. Jpatokal 06:10, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
Ladyboy vs kathoey
I've never heard of a distinction between kathoeys as transgendered and ladyboys as 'just' crossdressers, and I don't see any of that in the Wikipedia article either. If Mr. Anon has sources to the contrary, let's hear 'em. Jpatokal 21:14, 21 June 2006 (EDT)
How do Thais distinguish the two? Obviously, there's a distinction that be made. English has transvestite, drag queen or cross-dresser for one and transexual for the other. Are you saying kathoey and ladyboy both mean either? That there's no distinction in Thai, or at least not in the bar scene? That seems odd. Pashley 04:11, 22 June 2006 (EDT)
I'm Thai but I don't go out to bars much. Personally Ladyboy and Kathoey are the same. Ladyboy uses in formal mention and katoey has a bit rudeness if you call someone that. This is the only different I can see.
Be particularly wary of any and all offers of gems. These highly professional "special discount" scams, often involving large quantities for resale back home at a supposedly huge profit, sometimes employ foreigners to act as satisfied (but completely phoney) customers. See The Gem Scam and How the Scam works for more details, including advice on what to do if you're reading this just a little bit too late.
These are primary sources for important info that is directly relevant to, but very helpful detail beyond the scope of, the section. Both sites are reputable, well established, and responsibly maintained; neither are competing guides and they do not contravene the What not to link to guidelines. ~ 126.96.36.199 02:06, 18 July 2006 (EDT)
You appear to misunderstand what a primary source is. The primary source for a hotel is the hotel's own website. The primary source for a city is the city's own website. The primary source for the police department is the police department's website. There is no such thing as a primary source for a scam. Being a good website -- or even the best -- about a subject does not make a website primary. Keep in mind our motivations here: we want this guide to be sufficiently complete here so that it can be useful to a traveler who does not have access to the internet and the website you mention. -- Colin 02:15, 18 July 2006 (EDT)
I understand what you say. I would however have thought that with a topic such as "Bangkok gem scam" where an "official" primary source is impossible, these sites are the direct equivalent. Undoubtedly, if there was an official site, we would most certainly include a link to it, yes? 188.8.131.52 03:09, 18 July 2006 (EDT)
Links are always of secondary interest to us. The primary goal is to be complete here. So if you think we have an inadequate guide to scams, we'd rather you make it better than add an extlink. -- Colin 14:29, 18 July 2006 (EDT)
Again, I understand what you say; in general, I don't disagree with either the policy or the goal, although it seems that where I see "primary", you read "official".
I think that for advice on what to do if you've become a gem scam victim, external links makes sense; I think we have an inadequate guide to the Bangkok gem scams if we don't include those links resources.
We try to tell people the best places to go in the event of other difficulties - provide the number for the police, give the address of the embassy, list the most reputable hospitals, etc - it seems ironic that we can't tell them the best place to go if they've been scammed simply because the information is being provided and distributed for free by unpaid volunteers. ~ 184.108.40.206 15:56, 18 July 2006 (EDT)
'...where I see "primary", you read "official".' Yes. That is what we mean by "primary source". There can be only one official web site, and that's how we keep Wikitravel from being loaded down by lots of "best" web sites about a particular topic. We have nothing aginast "information being distributed for free by unpaid volunteers"; that's precisely what Wikitravel is doing. If the information is valuable to travelers, we want people to find it here, to make Wikitravel the only "guidebook" they need. For example, someday Wikitravel will probably be distributed on CDs (or whatever) for people to read offline, and we want everything they need right there in their hand, not off on a web site they can't get at. - Todd VerBeek 16:32, 18 July 2006 (EDT)
I understand all this (except I didn't understand that "primary" means "official" - if the policy means "only official", surely it ought to simply say "only official" and "no unofficial"?)
There's no information that could be useful to a traveller that's beyond the scope of a Wikitravel article? ~ 220.127.116.11 16:46, 18 July 2006 (EDT)
Since you seem determined to find a gray area in our rules (and that's a good thing) maybe you should bring this up again at Wikitravel talk:External links so we can get wider input from folks. -- Colin 17:55, 18 July 2006 (EDT)
The Khao San Rd service is just one of four airport express bus routes. Unfortunately I'm seeing conflicting info on what the others are, but according to the official PDF  there is most definitely a stop directly at the main terminal. Jpatokal 22:30, 27 September 2006 (EDT)
I've posted the confirmed list of actual services. Jpatokal 22:46, 28 September 2006 (EDT)
The opening sentence of this section is currently:
"It's perfectly OK to check out these shows without actually partaking, and there are more and more curious couples and even the occasional tour group attending."
The naive reader knowing nothing of Bangkok is left asking "What shows?". I think it needs some description of what a go-go bar is in Bankok. There used to be some, but it is gone, perhaps bowdlerized?
I could write something, but I don't realy know Bangkok. Could someone who does please insert a basic description of what go go bars offer? Pashley 02:29, 28 September 2006 (EDT)
You're correct about needing some description of the shows. Bangkok/Silom describes a small number of specific things, so maybe you could pick some examples out of that to make an introduction? -- Colin 02:38, 28 September 2006 (EDT)
I just restored the deleted text that was there originally. Someone could probably improve it though. Pashley
I'm still ignorant. What exactly is a go-go bar? Brothel? Strip club? Brothel fronting as a strip club? or just a bar? -- Sapphire 03:26, 28 September 2006 (EDT)
A bizarre combination of "all of the above". They're usually pretty tame as far as strip shows go, and they're not strictly speaking brothels because there is no sex on premises and the bar doesn't set or enforce rates, but the dancers are still all prostitutes looking for customers. Anyway, I've added a brief description, let me know if it makes any sense. Jpatokal 04:39, 28 September 2006 (EDT)
Your explanation makes perfect sense. I had heard the term before, but in the Midwest it means something completely different. Thanks. -- Sapphire 04:42, 28 September 2006 (EDT)
Looks good to me too. Thanks. Pashley 04:51, 28 September 2006 (EDT)
Doh. Now I see what was wrong. I've edited it a bit to make to emphasize the "this is what go go bars are and why you might be intersted in going and watching" and tried to derail the "this is how to buy a girl" stuff. But let me know if I've failed on that primary goal of "what it is and why the shows can be worth going to." It seemed to me that the restored text failed to really say that some of the shows might be worth going to for their own sake rather than to gawk at mere patheticness, so I tried to add that too based on the Silom descriptions. (And I think I just set a new record for edit conflicts in a row). -- Colin 04:55, 28 September 2006 (EDT)
Whoah baby -- why are you nuking the lady drink/bar fine bits, which are already explained on Bangkok/Silom at that? I've bought lady drinks eg. when a transvestite sauntered over and chatted with my curious girlfriend, and the bar fine system — in particular, the fact that paying it does not get you any sexual services whatsoever — is (AFAIK) unique to Thailand and quite unintuitive. FWIW, LP Bangkok explains the system (5th ed. p.33) and, shock horror, even gives sample fees for "extracurricular services" (their term). Jpatokal 05:07, 28 September 2006 (EDT)
I like Jani's text - It helps me understand what not to do if I don't want to take a nice ladyboy back to the hotel. -- Sapphire 05:14, 28 September 2006 (EDT)
The lady drink got thrown out with the bathwater of context. How about we move that whole rules box over into this one since it applies citywide, and I'll grit my teeth and ignore the bar fine rule since the issue isn't overdone in that infobox? It kinda formats badly versus the photo, so maybe you can finesse the formatting better than I could. (Another two edit conflicts. This isn't my day for that). -- Colin 05:27, 28 September 2006 (EDT)
Whee, consensus! Infobox moved and pictures tweaked, looks OK at least on my browser now. Jpatokal 05:34, 28 September 2006 (EDT)
Also, most gogos actually don't do "shows" (eg. I don't know of a single 'legit' bar in Patpong that does); the main differentiating factor is just who has the prettiest girls, a quality so ethereal it hardly makes sense to record here. For most part, the few selected in Silom and Sukhumvit are there because they've been around forever and have a reputation of not ripping off customers. Jpatokal 05:18, 28 September 2006 (EDT)
Whoa, indeed. I much preferred the text before Colin's edits. Pashley 05:22, 28 September 2006 (EDT)
Removal of overview image?
Bangkok looking like crap
Exactly why was this image removed from the article? Sure the city looks crappy in it, but Bangkok is a *ell of a crappy city! I think the photos in the article are missleading since they try to picture Bangkok as a green, nice city. It isn't. -Adestro 17:13, 1 October 2006 (EDT)
Mf. I removed the image because not only does it make Bangkok look crappy, but (sorry) it's technically a pretty crappy image too — it's washed out and doesn't have any subject as such, so it makes the guide look unattractive. I'd like to find an image that shows "both sides" of Bangkok, but alas haven't succeeded too well -- the Patpong pic (see left) is kinda amusing, and this had a nice idea but terrible execution.
Anyway, you do have a good point and it's back there now. Jpatokal 22:34, 1 October 2006 (EDT)
Great. I didn't take any offence just because it was my shot, and I agree the quality is far from best (probably because there is a window in front of the camera), but it could act as a placeholder untill a better photo is uploaded. I find your caption very good. I like your photo of the ad-signs.
I uploaded a photo in Lumpini park here, add it in the article if you find it appropriate(since it's the major park, and one of the few parks, it might be). It's neither a great photo, but maybe a placeholder? --Adestro 10:01, 2 October 2006 (EDT)
How about this  shot or this ? (and Jani, you don't need to tell me they're not well executed, I'm lucky when I'm holding the camera right ways up ;-)) Maj 11:54, 10 October 2006 (EDT)
Do you have a larger copy of the Khao San Rd pic? I actually like it better than the one on the current Khao San page. Jpatokal 12:13, 10 October 2006 (EDT)
Legal status of prostitution
The narrowly defined act of sex for money (=prostitution) is legal (cf. Entertainment Places Act of 1966), but underaged sex workers and running brothels is not (cf. Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act of 1996). Ref.  and I'll give you the mail address of a friend of mine who wrote her thesis on this topic if you want to dispute =) And I'd really like to see a cite for the claim that "HIV infection statistics among entertainment industry workers in Thailand are the lowest of all occupations and much lower than non-sex workers", which defies common sense and official statistics. Jpatokal 05:25, 10 October 2006 (EDT)
C'mon, you have to give a slightly better description than "on Bangkok/Khao San Road" — it's a big place. The name would also be helpful...! Jpatokal 07:46, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
New Year Bombings
I added a Warning Box due to the fact that seven bombs have exploded in Bangkok today. Not entirely sure what warrants a warning box - presumably this does? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alan1989 (talk • contribs) 31 Dec 2006
It's not clear how the numbers in the map in the district section correspond to the listed districts. Chuck Carroll 14:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the quick fix! Chuck Carroll 16:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
What work is there still left to do before we can nominate this as a star article? Globe-trotter 07:27, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
For some reason, the "Embassies" section only listed one embassy, the U.S. one. I've added a few more, just limiting it to English speaking countries' embassies for now as I presume people from non-English speaking countries would be viewing Wikitravel in their own language. But I can add more if it would be useful. Also, would it be useful to include embassies of nearby countries, e.g. Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, etc. as people may visit those embassies to get Visas? I guess we have to draw the line somewhere though so perhaps not worth it. Dantilley 02:05, 31 January 2009 (EST)
Yes, embassies of nearby countries are definitely useful. Jpatokal 02:15, 2 February 2009 (EST)
OK, shall be done soon(ish). Dantilley 01:44, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Why was Surat Thani in the "Get Out" section, a section which lists day trips and short excursions from Bangkok? Have removed this and also added Khao Yai National Park. Dantilley 02:21, 31 January 2009 (EST)
deleted True coffee
True Coffee on Thonglor now closed
2009 March 27
Regions/districts of Bangkok
Let's discuss the regions of Bangkok. I made this draft map to show my idea of the new regions.
Shouldn't we just turn Khao San Road in a district? The current set-up is complicated as Khao San Road has it's own page, but it also is in Rattanakosin. Especially for Phra Athit and other surrounding areas, this is complicated and confusing.
Another thought would be to separate Chinatown, as most of it is technically not on the Rattanakosin Island, and it is a big district with a separate identity and culture. Besides, it has way too many sights to pack it in with the rest of Rattanakosin.
With Chinatown separated, the Bangrak area would be a strange 'island' of Rattanakosin, so I suggest we combine it with Silom. To be honest, I think it fits better with Silom anyway, as the luxury appartment hotels of Bangrak have more in common with the financial skyscrapers of Silom, then with the historical Rattanakosin area. I also noticed that TAT combines both of these neighborhoods together in their brochures (though they call it Bangrak-Silom, which I think is a bad idea).
I'm fine with elevating Khao San Road into its own district, subdistricts was fashionable a few years back on WT but as you've noticed it really doesn't work too well.
I would not necessarily oppose splitting off Chinatown, but would Bangkok/Yaowarat be a better name? It's not just Chinatown, after all, Little India (Pahurat) is in there as well. Jpatokal 09:09, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
Yes, I thought about this as well, but I figured Chinatown would be more recognizable to the traveler. Also, the Indian town would be Pahurat, so the name Yaowarat wouldn't cover that area as well. Maybe we could do 'Chinatown and Little India' or 'Yaowarat and Pahurat', but I think it sounds a bit too long. Globe-trotter 00:02, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
Yaowarat's just a road (and so is Pahurat for that matter), I think we can define it a little elastically -- the boundary between the two is already fuzzy anyway. District names should be short, but we can use "Yaowarat and Pahurat" in the regionlist link and include the glosses "Chinatown" and "Little India" in the description. Jpatokal 11:19, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
Great map, BTW! Adding in the BTS/MRT lines would be very useful though.
And yes, I think your call of shunting the riverside hotels into Silom is the right one. Jpatokal 07:58, 20 August 2009 (EDT)
Thanks, yes I will add the BTS and MRT lines when I have some time. I'm also going to add some more roads, especially at Silom and Sukhumvit.
Please also increase the font size of the districts, so they're visible even in a small thumbnail (like above). Jpatokal 10:02, 20 August 2009 (EDT)
I enlarged the fonts and completed the roads, the MRT and BTS will come later. Globe-trotter 15:11, 21 August 2009 (EDT)
Still a bit squinty, I'm afraid. How about bumping the size up a bit more, un-italicing the text and making it 100% black instead of the current gray? Jpatokal 01:57, 22 August 2009 (EDT)
Where do we put it, in Rattanakosin or in Thonburi? Globe-trotter 23:00, 21 August 2009 (EDT)
Tough call — obviously it's physically in Thonburi, but the vast majority of visitors arrive by ferry from Rattanakosin. I'd lean towards Thonburi, but with very clear pointers to it from Rattanakosin. Jpatokal 01:57, 22 August 2009 (EDT)
I was thinking this as well. Many travelers also visit Wat Arun by Thonburi Khlong Tour (though these tours also start in Rattanakosin...) Globe-trotter 03:31, 22 August 2009 (EDT)
Bangkok Task List
The successful London collaboration showed that more gets done when it's clear what should happen. That's why I shamelessly stole this table from the Copenhagen Talk Page. It's a list of things that should be improved to get this project further. If a task is done, cross it. You can also add tasks that have to be done. That Bangkok may be a star someday :) :P
Needs a pic at either Buy or Eat. Remove chain stores in Drink and Eat sections and replace them with unique listings. Maybe some more clubs at Soi 4. Needs more budget and splurge restaurants as the Eat section is still severely lacking.
Would say that Silom's eat / drink section needs some vast improvement also, as I mentioned in the Talk section there. Can add to the list? 18.104.22.168 02:50, 19 January 2010 (EST)
I added it, but everyone is free to add their own must-do to the list :) --globe-trotter 16:34, 2 February 2010 (EST)
Large Bus Terminals
These large bus terminals are giving me a headache. For example, the Southern Bus Terminal is covered in the Get In section of Thonburi, but why? They are meant for getting into Bangkok from elsewhere in the country, not for getting into Thonburi from other districts in Bangkok. Shouldn't they just be dealt with in the main Bangkok article? Globe-trotter 22:02, 4 December 2009 (EST)
New larger region map
The Bangkok region map at right has just been replace by a larger region map (below). I prefer the previous map by far because:
It's easier to read the district names, has more street names, and they are legible.
In the larger image it's very hard to see where the Khao San road and Yaowarat/Phahurat districts are.
Most visitors are unlikely to visit the far east and far west portions of the map anyway, with the exception of the airport.
The new map has a lot of gray space, some of which even covers non-Bangkok areas for which we have an article.
I really wouldn't mind keep the large map in addition to the small one, but I think the smaller one was much nicer and more useful, and we should lead with that one. What does everyone else think? Texugo 22:00, 6 December 2009 (EST)
Ah, I agree with your input. The larger Bangkok area map can be moved to the Get In-section :) Globe-trotter 23:40, 6 December 2009 (EST)
What do we do with the dinner cruise listings? Move them to the districts or keep them here? Problem is that the Chao Phraya river is not really a district (or the cruises would be spread over Thonburi, Rattanakosin, Yaowarat and Silom). Globe-trotter 10:52, 10 December 2009 (EST)
I think the main page is the only sensible place for them. Jpatokal 20:52, 19 January 2010 (EST)
Give them a section on the main page, and perhaps a mention on the district page from where they depart? Andyfarrell 14:51, 22 January 2010 (EST)
TAT Learn listings
Moved some listings of TAT here for future reference. They're all from the Learn section.
What is the best way to deal with the long list of hotels of Suvarnabhumi Airport? Should Suvarnabhumi be its own district or should we just delete them? --globe-trotter 14:45, 1 March 2010 (EST)
As a general rule, only the biggest airports get their own articles, although I have no idea if Suvarnabhumi is big enough to warrant one. I think its hotels can just be listed in Bangkok/Ratchadaphisek, the district adjacent to the airport. —Vidimian 18:36, 1 March 2010 (EST)
Listing them in Ratchadaphisek does not make sense, as Ratchadaphisek is really far from the airport. The Ratchadaphisek district has only been enlarged like that because there is nothing interesting in the outskirts (nothing that would warrant its own district article). --globe-trotter 06:28, 2 March 2010 (EST)
Then, maybe noting that they are located in the outskirts of the city due southeast of Ratchadaphisek and very far from the traditional centre of the district works? I get around a very similar situation with a caravan park near Istanbul by noting that it's actually far from the city centre. Or maybe creating a subsection of "Airport Hotels" under Bangkok#Sleep, though this would attract much spam I guess? Losing useful info would be a shame—there should be somewhere we can list these hotels in Wikitravel, which aims to be a complete, World-wide travel guide. I even much prefer them to stay at where they currently are (under the heading Bangkok#Suvarnabhumi Airport) rather than deleting them. —Vidimian 10:13, 2 March 2010 (EST)
I agree we obviously should'nt delete them. For now I'll just keep them where they are, but I'm still not sure on where to eventually put them. --globe-trotter 11:26, 2 March 2010 (EST)
What about we move them to a Suvarnabhumi Airport subheader of the Sleep section? (in the Bangkok main article). --globe-trotter 13:31, 2 March 2010 (EST)
I wouldn't oppose that, although something makes me think almost instinctively that such sections should be free of any listing in huge city articles. And as I said earlier, having listings in main article's sleep section may cause a constant stream of spammers and/or users with a good will but little knowledge on how things work around here to list their hotels there, and the endless struggle to move such listings into district articles as a result. I wish we could hear some more opinions on this. —Vidimian 05:09, 3 March 2010 (EST)
Silom line red?
Why is the Silom line on the BTS described as being red in this article? I notice that it is on the map image that's been posted, but no-one visiting Bangkok will see a map with that colour scheme. Can we correct this to describe it as dark green, as is the case on all other BTS maps? Dantilley 11:02, 8 March 2010 (EST)
I used red, because the Sukhumvit Line is also green. The difference was hard to see, especially as they cross each other at Siam. I'll try to find a color that better fits the dark green. --globe-trotter 07:46, 23 March 2010 (EDT)
New Map Colors
I now changed the colors to the correct ones, but I'm not sure if I'm completely happy with it. All the lines are blueish-greenish. I showed the new map colors in the thumbnail, the old colors can be found here . --globe-trotter 08:59, 23 March 2010 (EDT)
Does anyone want to add a warning about the current violence between troops and protesters in the city?
I have edited the Warning Box. I just walked around the area occupied by the protestors and it is more like a Woodstock than a political event. The atmosphere was very relaxed. That does not, of course, mean that the Government or the yellow shirts will not decide to attack. Nevertheless, I considered the previous Warning Box to be too frightening. Bangkok's tourist industry is really suffering and, personally, I see no reason not to go there. Shep 10:31, 9 May 2010 (EDT)
I think the warning box is way too long now. And the advice is not clear anymore: go or not go? --globe-trotter 18:05, 10 May 2010 (EDT)
With the new shootings, I think the current message is too cheerful. Tourists definitely shouldn't go there as the whole area is sealed off and shootings have occurred. --globe-trotter 12:49, 13 May 2010 (EDT)
New and modified districts for Bangkok
I'd like to propose some more changes to the districts:
I think Dusit has enough sights now to become its own district. Technically Dusit is also not a part of Rattanakosin Island, so to refer to this area as "Rattanakosin" is a stretch.
The same goes for the area around Siam Square. I don't think its correct to refer to this area as "Sukhumvit" as Sukhumvit Road doesn't run through it. I don't know which name this district would get though: Siam, Siam Square, Downtown? It would cover almost the exact area of Pathum Wan, but I don't like that name, as it's not very familiar for visitors.
Ratchadaphisek now is *way* too large. We tried to move the hotels near the airport into a district, but this is impossible because that area is called Ratchadaphisek (which is not anywhere close to the airport). I think Ratchadaphisek should be trimmed to just the districts of Din Daeng and Huai Kwang. The area east of it should be turned into a new district: maybe East Bangkok, Bang Kapi-Min Buri or Ramkamhaeng? I don't know a good name yet, maybe someone can come up with something better.
Instead of having Phetchaburi Road as the dividing line between Sukhumvit and Phahonyothin/Ratchadaphisek, I think Khlong Saen Saep should be dividing the districts. Now the Pratunam area is divided between 2 districts which is confusing (which led to Pratunam Market being in Phahonyothin while Pantip Plaza is in Sukhumvit. Not logical I think). All streets north of Khlong Saen Saep do not belong to the sois of Sukhumvit, so I think should be included with Phahonyothin or Ratchadaphisek.
Going further on the previous point, I think the district of Ratchathewi should not be spread over three districts (Sukhumvit, Phahonyothin and Ratchadaphisek). I think it fits best completely in Phahonyothin.
Please let me know what you think. --globe-trotter 07:53, 12 May 2010 (EDT)
I implemented the last 2 points as they dont seem very controversial. But I still need some input before I can head on with the first three points. Please tell me what you think about them. --globe-trotter 16:18, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
Map of Siam Square
I'd like to go ahead and create the Siam Square district (break it off from Sukhumvit as shown on the map). I'd like some input before I go ahead and change everything. --globe-trotter 03:04, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
As there were no objections, I put through and created the Dusit and Ramkamhaeng districts. I think Bangkok's district structure now is pretty much completed. --globe-trotter 08:35, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
...is, despite the news, nowhere near destroyed , only one end of it got thoroughly toasted and may need to be pulled down. Obviously the entire complex will be closed for quite some time though. Jpatokal 04:42, 21 May 2010 (EDT)
Obviously it is in a very bad state, so we'll just note that it is closed due to fires in the article. --globe-trotter 04:43, 21 May 2010 (EDT)
According to the news, parts of it will reopen in 6 months (the backside). The frontside (ZEN) will probably have to be rebuilt. --globe-trotter 07:38, 22 May 2010 (EDT)
The "Buy" section: innacurate, writing style innapropriate for an encyclopedia
"Dump a teenager in Siam Square with a few thousand baht and she'll stay occupied for the rest of the week!"
Really? That's an innacurate description of Siam Square, as if it was the size of JJ Market. Writing style innapropriate for an encyclopedia.
"Siam Square is the place to shop in Bangkok"
Subjective opinion, does not belong in an encyclopedia.
"MBK Center and Siam Center are the most popular shopping malls, as they sell fashion well below Western rates. Siam Paragon and the shopping plazas at Ratchaprasong feel even larger, but are much quieter, as most local Thais cannot afford the Guccis and Louis Vuittons on sale there."
Innacurate. There are as many people visiting Paragon than MBK or Siam.
"Ladies will also feel well at home in the Emporium in Sukhumvit."
Why will "ladies" feel at home at Emporium, and not men? Seriously, who wrote this?
"Just take a few steps out of your hotel and Bangkok feels like a huge street market."
Innacurate. I just took a few steps out of my hotel and it does not fit the description.
"Sukhumvit has the usual souvenirs, t-shirts, pirated DVDs and other tacky tourist junk."
"Tacky", "junk". Subjective description. Does not belong in an encyclopedia.
"Men will probably have a better time at Pantip Plaza, selling computer-related stuff from branded laptops to pirated DVDs."
Why "men"??? Women use just as much cellphones, and laptops. Seriously, whoever wrote this must have used a travel machine from 1960.
This section is pathetic, and badly needs an edit.
Most of this I haven't wrote, some I have, but this is a travel guide, not an encyclopedia. Subjective writing is a goal of Wikitravel, not something we want to avoid here. I think it's a good section with some lively writing. About each point:
Siam Square is very large, especially if meant to encompass the whole district covered here.
Siam Square is by far the most important place to go shopping, almost any tourist does so.
From walking around, it's clear that MBK and Siam Center are much more crowded by locals than Siam Paragon.
It refers to ladies at Emporium, because it's mostly about clothes. Sure, men buy clothes too, but are not so fanatic at it.
Compared to any other city, there are food stalls and markets everywhere in Bangkok, so I think this is perfectly fine written.
Well, the stuff for sale there is tacky tourist junk, it's almost an objective statement. No reason to retract that.
Sure women use computers, but in general, mostly men are interested in buying the newest computer hardware and such.
I really don't think any edit is required from what you've written. Remember that this is not Wikipedia. --globe-trotter 00:35, 2 November 2010 (EDT)
This special box on people spotting is stupid. How many different type of people are excluded from this list? An how about the over emphasis on GIRLS! Where are the monks, where are the middle class, where are the Hi-So's?
My recommendation is delete the box. But, what do I know, I have only lived here for 15 years?
I don't see anything wrong with it... the first sentence points out that it's a "partial list"... and I don't think anyone's looking for an ecyclopedia of people watching in Bangkok anyway, that would be fairly boring. It's fun, witty, and gives a little insight into the place... which is pretty much what we're trying to do here... – cacahuatetalk 03:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
An anonymous user with an inconsistent approach to puritanism is attacking this infobox. "Office lady" is being repeatedly changed from Sharply clad in infinite variations of solid pastel shades, this human houseplant mans customer service desks and pours tea in offices across the capital.
Sharply clad in infinite variations of solid pastel shades, these ladies man customer service desks and pour tea in offices across the capital.
I disagree to this change for several reasons. This list is clearly irreverent and not be taken too seriously. Though here, whether the list should remain in the article is not being questioned. As already noted in the June 2005 discussion "Sexpats" (below), the list is meant to be of "slightly exaggerated stereotype[s]", which it is. If it were lose its seemingly flippant irreverence it would lose much of its edge.
This revision should be undone because it still maintains that the "Office lady" is a decorative drinks dispencer, which goes against its politically correct spirit. The Bowdler is only picking on Office lady, which is discrimanting in itself and against their perceived egalitarian motivation.
Rendering bland is against the spirit of Wikitravel-if an amusing, equally acerbic alternative were proposed it wouldn't be so bad. "Human houseplant" is witty and has a nice sound; I think it should remain.
Overall, the revision does not achieve what its proponent aimed (removing the pique from the statement) and it degrades the quality of the original.
Describing millions of women, many of whom are highly qualified and in responsible jobs, as being "houseplants" is inaccurate, offensive and sexiest. Such a misogynist attitude adds nothing of value to a travel guide, and that it is not anywhere close to being a true reflection of the city's women also leads to questioning of why anyone would want it to be included. That someone finds this outdated view of women to be amusing and even witty is disturbing; to include it would be an embarrassment to Wikitravel and risks damaging its reception with the less bigotted of the world. Those holding such discriminatory views of Thai women would be well served in attending the Cedaw meeting:  A review of the edit history reveals I am far from the only person to have expeessed concern. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
Travelpleb's points seem pretty spot on to me. The line in question seems to me tongue-in-cheek, pointing to a perceived pervasive sexism and gender inequality in Thai professional culture, and not a shot at women. I'm neither an expert nor the author, though.
The reality of a wiki is that any attempt to write colorfully can attract gripes about offense or taste, which is why we follow the guidance at Wikitravel:Tone to avoid seeing creative writing constantly neutered. Per that policy: "If you find writing that seems informal or sarcastic to an unacceptable degree, do not simply "dull down" the prose. Instead, replace it with travel writing that is both more acceptable and just as lively." --PeterTalk 21:57, 27 March 2012 (EDT)
The estimable 126.96.36.199 is unfortunate in thinking that a grand sounding government get-together and reality on the street (or in the office) are inextricably connected. They are not. Some office workers, a traditionally male occupation, who otherwise assume traditional female gender roles but not necessarily belong to what is conventionally called the female sex are indeed capable professionals who act and are treated in a way in line with progressive Western ideas of equality; others are only employed on a pretense and function solely to make the tea and liven up the drudgery of the boss's marriage; others still occupy various places in a complicated spectrum between the two where aspiration battles prejudice. Such is the mess of the modern world.
However to express such "a true reflection of the city's women" in a silly info box would be chronically dull, hopelessly stilted and serve only to make anyone with the slightest sense want to throw themselves in the Chao Phraya. As the sentence currently stands, it is not an "outdated view of women"; it is a view that pervades many offices in Bangkok. That such attitudes are ruled illegal in the counties of wikitravel's target readers is all the more reason to draw their attention to the situation. From the point of view of phraseology, I find the metaphor amusing and its alliteration pleasing.
This revision achieves nothing. Perhaps 188.8.131.52 is of a culture that reveres the pouring of tea and sees nothing daft about employing decorative women to perform such a noble duty. To a Western reader, "pours tea" is the epitome of office uselessness; interns are irreverently called "tea boys (or girls or sex or gender ambiguous persons)". Therefore changing the two words in question does not change the thrust of the sentence. It only blunts it; and wit should be sharp. Travelpleb 01:55, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
Earlier today at the Cedaw meeting I tabled a motion for this insulting description of Thai women to be investigated by The Travel Authority Of Thailand. The motion was passed, and therefore TAT are to be asked to investigate and then possibly formally contact Wikitravel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
Wikitravel aims to resolve dissagreements through reaching concensus on articles' Talk pages. For this purpose you'd be better to respond to the raised issues rather than waste the UN's time.Travelpleb 04:11, 30 March 2012 (EDT)