From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Thailand (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cities (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Needs citations[edit]

Uh... there's so much stuff to be done to this article I'm not even going to BOTHER editing it! As of the person before me:

  • "That is what Wiktravel is for."

This article is extremely misleading! (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Euphemism or even doublespeak (called facelift!)[edit]

quote: "The city's economy benefits from its relative proximity to Bangkok." unquote there are so many places with the same or similar 'proximity to bangkok' (over 160km) which do not benefit, that this is a laugh! the plain truth is simplier: the city's economy was built on and benefitted from its proximity to the america greenbacks from u-tapao (mere 30km from pattaya). see while the americans bombed vietnam, the thai anti communist politicians sacrificed the souls of many poor isan girls, turning pattaya into the country's largest whorehouse, infamous all over the world. that are the naked facts, which cannot be denied seriously. wikipedia should be true and not a billboard for the pattaya tourism office.............Scyriacus (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)



I have; This is not an billboard, nor is it a flyer for your business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainwalk (talkcontribs) 08:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Major facelift[edit]

I rewrote a majority of this article, and added photos and more useful information. I felt the old article focued too much on the negative aspect of Pattaya (crime and prostitution). I left references to them up, but did not allow them to be the focus of the article. I also cleaned up a plethora of spelling and grammatical errors.

This article now needs details on other non-beach and non-drinking entertainment in Pattaya.

--Hobgoblin 20:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that prostitution IS a negative aspect of Pattaya - it's what a lot of guys go there for, de-facto legal, and a huge part of the economy.

--Mister Handy

Perhaps "negative" was the wrong term to use. However, I wanted to add additional information to this page, so the prostitution aspect of Pattaya doesn't weigh in any heavier than any other. There is much more to this city than the bar grils and street boys. I feel the additions put Pattaya in a different light to Wiki readers who don't know much about it.

Hobgoblin 16:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think someone should put a map showing exactly where this city is in Thailand. I'm sure many would agree. --Derrill 21:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph needs to be reworked: Historically Pattaya has had comparatively high levels of crime, sometimes attributed to organised crime in the sex industry. In addition, a string of apparently related murders, all western tourists, occurred around Pattaya in 1975, are now believed to have been committed by the Frenchman Charles Sobhraj. The 2nd sentence doesn't follow the first and is very confusing. -- 06:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I will add my 2c worth to this discussion of Pattaya. Prostitution exists everywhere, in many different forms. As for it being 'infamous', that is debatable. I suggest that if anyone is seriously stressed about the state of the sex workers in Pattaya that they visit east Thailand, and look at the endless roles of sweat shops, sorry, garment factories and appliance assembly factories. That is the poorly paid life many of the girls in Pattaya are escaping from. For many life as a prostitute for a few years is a wise career move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian@perth (talkcontribs) 07:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two perspectives here. The first is that Pattaya ia a large town by area, but if you took all the bars and bargirls by area, it would probably amount to less than 10% of the area. But if you start to look at the infrastructure that is there because the sex trade,you realise that in the same way that Las Vegas was built on gambling, Pattaya was built on the sex trade. If you were to remove the gambling from Vegas, it would be a shell of itself. The same applies in Pattaya although the effect of closing down the sex trade would not be as marked as my Vegas comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia, not tourist guide[edit]

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tourist guide, so things like bus operating hours don't really belong here. Could I kindly suggest moving such content over to Wikitravel's Pattaya page, which is meant for such information? Jpatokal 18:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Seems like someone who wanted to be very helpful and (possibly) share her/his experiences of her/his travel to Pattaya, started to expand this article into a tourist guide.
I added a "neutrality disputed" tag, but maybe the article should rather be cleaned up. --Trygfe 21:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Trygfe, what in specific is your neutrality concern? MCB 06:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
MCB, I will be specific, but the list is fairly long, and I didn't want to "maim" this article without a second opinion. Here are some passages I found.
  • "The excess tourism business gave Pattaya many problems such as water pollution, petty crimes and prostitution."
  • "[..] a number of companies offer inexpensive door-to-door transport"
  • "[..] although drivers sometimes attempt to ask for more"
  • "The section of beach from Central Road (Pattaya Klang) south to the harbor is directly adjacent to the core of Pattaya's abundant nightlife spots. Therefore is much less family-oriented than North Pattaya, Naklua and Jomtien Beach."
  • "Pattaya also has numerous exotic clubs such as go-go bars and cabaret shows to suit all tastes."
  • "Because of Pattaya's status as a major tourist destination, it's important to note that like any other major tourist area, petty crime does exist"
  • "Problems are easily avoided either by abstaining from such activities altogether, or by patronising the more 'respectable' establishments"
  • "Other crimes include drinking-related offences such as fights, which are generally between tourists."
  • "The quality of DVD movies can vary from perfect quality to simply a bootlegged version"
  • "Generally, a DVD movie will only be of good quality if its DVD release date in the United States has already passed."
  • "[..] only perform raids on shops and vendors for publicity."
What's "neutral" and what's not, obviously, can be a matter of discussion.
Then, of course, there's the helpful guidebook orientation of the article, focused on sharing the experience of a visit to Pattaya, not necessarily sharing facts. --Trygfe 17:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

hey the place isn't all that bad I LIVE THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give it some credit! Even I can say that as a single female for the USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issues - underplaying the night-life issues[edit]

It strikes me that this article could really do with a reality check. The description makes it sounds more like HK Disneyland than one of the largest brothel towns in the world. I am all in favour of representing both sides of Pattaya but this article is not far from being outright misleading. At the very least this article violates undue weight rules: WP:NPOV#Undue_weight ; I would argue for the return of a NPOV tag NickCwik 12:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. While this article shouldn't be a tourist guide (much less an adult sex guide) it should mention the major aspects of the city that set it apart from other cities and cause it to be a tourist destination (beaches, culture, food, and yes the sex industry). While a recent revision by BJ added too much detailed information, like specific prices for various sexual activities, the adult entertainment should certainly receive a short concise paragraph like what existed prior to BJ's additions. It is an integral part of the city's economy and is what attracts a significant portion of foreign visitors, like it or not. The subsequent revisions deleted the "Nightlife" content altogether replacing it with personal tirades against sex tourism which are obviously inappropriate in the article itself and should be discussed here, if anywhere. An article about Pattaya that doesn't even mention Walking Steet is like an article about Paris that doesn't mention the Eiffel Tower. Not mentioning the sex industry would be like not mentioning the movie industry in an article about Hollywood. Not only is it one of the city's major current industries, it is a big reason why the city exists in the first place. 11/15/2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 18:27, November 17, 2006 (UTC).

A NPOV tag has now been added. I suggest incorporating some of the material from Prostitution in Thailand into this article (although I accept that that page could really do with some work too), but obviously maintaining the parts on other aspects of the city. I am also concerned about the frequent use of weasel words in this article (eg "Pattaya's main attractions are its beaches" (not, one of and relatively minor) and "Pattaya is renowned for its exciting nightlife, some of which revolves around the sex oriented industry." (emphasis added)). I understand that there is already an article on prostitution in Thailand, but as one of, if not the primary, focal point of said prostitution this article needs adjustment. I'm not keen to write a large chunk myself but I'll have a go at some of what is already there to try and deal with the worst of the weasel. NickCwik 22:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I have gone to Pattaya for years and fools who run it down as the biggest 'brothel' town in the world should maybe GO THERE some time? You will find real prostitution on similar scales in some poor african countries and even the likes of Brazil. We have a famous Star Trek saying whilst there .... "Its prostitution Jim, but not as we know it". It is NOT prostitution as we see it in the western world. There is little debate that the city is crammed full of young ladies who will undertake sexual pleasures for money, but unlike western prostitutes the pick and choose their prey.

There is no argument, that Pattaya would not exist without these ladies but it is far from the only thing there. Pattaya is a growing vibrant city, with Thai wonders around it. Granted it is not the same as going to Khon Kaen BUT IT IS A HOLIDAY DESTINATION! I have a condo in Pattaya and reading some of the crap above enrages me. Give the country/city and girls a break!

Some of the attractions include, Sanctury of Truth, Million year BC park, Nong Nouch, hyper boat rides, wonderful countryside, some of the finest eating establishments in Thailand, Walking Street, they even have Ice bars, yes made of ice, transport chaos, all of which goes to make Pattaya what it is ... P-A-T-T-A-Y-A NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS. This is a holiday destination and regardless of what you think, there is obviously going to be some form of tourist information included in the information pages!


Do we have a source for "the real population is probably closer to 500,000"? I don't know what area that 500,000 is supposed to be living in (what are the limits of Pattaya city?), but that seems a remarkably high figure. HenryFlower 18:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you driven around Pattaya Recently? I think 500,000 is a bit conservative.

With regard to the population issue, you need to be aware that this should refer to a "registered population". In Elections for example, only people who are registered as resident in Pattaya can vote in Pattaya. When there are elections, if a bar-girl wants to vote, she has to return to her home town to do so. The suggestion that there might be a population of 500,000 is possible, but only if you count the number of transient workers and tourists! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


"Comment: The term "prostitution" used above is a western concept in a foreign land. Americans go on 'dates' where a woman/man may be expected to have sex after seeing a movie and/or having dinner with a 'friend'. In Thai traditional culture, a woman or man expects to receive a 'gift' for entertaining a man, or a gift may be presented to receive entertainment. Such entertainment may include sex and the man may be a close friend or a total stranger. Likewise, the gift may be money, but most women or men do not think of the process as 'prostitution', but instead think of it more like the American term 'date'.... Some foreign residents do not offer money to the women they 'date' and have some success with their partners.."

Whoever worte this has not spent more then 2 min in Thailand. Prostitution is a Thai (not to mention GLOBAL) concept. In Thai traditional culture there was no "dating" as in the western sence but it now common, and while some people may end the date with sex, it is a personal choice of no cultural requierment. Infact it is frownd apon in by the older generations it's kind like teh 1950's here in terms of sexual-freedom. Going out generaly is done in groups (safety and keeps cost down) but there is no expectation (only the universal hope to get some) of a "gift". Finally Prostitution is a very common business here, mostly catered to Thai men... my point is that the above should be removed and that prostitution is a common concept in Thailand as it is in the west, the only diffrence being the way it is preceved by the diffrent cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Few things: 1. I've been to Pattaya for 3 days and the place is infested with prostitution 2. Prostitution is a concept acknowledged (and forbiddened) in ALL cultures. You have no right to damn Thais. 3. The concept of "gift" is a immoral disguise to cover up this act, making the reputation of the city worst due to inadequent justification. 4. Neon signs with "Bad Boy Club" are OBVIOUSLY for prostitution. People don't exactly go to these places to "date", or present/receive "gifts". 5. Being a White European in Thailand is like being a magnet when surrounded with iron... Thai girls just come to you... Foreign residents think it is about love, but people from the other side say otherwise...Afterall, western money IS more valuable... Let's no forget that it is a common Asian concept that being whiter is being more superior... and Thais do make good use of the genes of a White man! 6. Prostitution is opened for everyone, but attracts more White tourists than any other group. When there is demand, there will be supply. 7. Thais are NOT as shallow as you may think they are. Culturally, they don't "open up" as widely as you think they do... the "openness" came about due to the establish of an American Base in the 1960s...

I'm not sure who you are... but you're usage of "gifts" makes things worst. -- (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Added NPOV tag[edit]

"Unlike Bangkok, Pattaya has no magical mystery hidden in aesthetic corners, and it makes no pretence of being anything more than what it is: - an unbeatable combination of essential, thoroughly satisfying holiday ingredients."

The entire indtroduction runs along this tone. This is more of a travel brochure for the city than an encyclopedic article.-- 17:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


Cleanup needed[edit]

This article has become a tourist guide more than an encyclopedia article. That is what Wikitravel is for.

One more external link[edit]

This website could be good with the other external links but with the semi-protection, I can't add it ( I used to do some articles 2 years ago here and that was easy on that time ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwengoat (talkcontribs) 04:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A project being cleaned up[edit]

I will work on removing the travel guide data. It is a big task, and will take time. Rak-Tai (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of references to prostitution[edit]

Once again (as has been the case several times in the past as I read the talk page) the question of prostituion has been brought up. In the latest revisions of the page all references to it have been removed. Surely we can for once and for all agree on a fairly weighted, matter of fact, mention of this aspect of the city. If one looks at the Amsterdam article, one can see the issue covered in a sensible way. Niehter glorifying, promoting nor hiding the issue. It should not be overplayed, yet I would think anyone who knows the city would agree it can not be ignored altogether. This would simply not be encyclopaedic. GoScoutUK (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

GoScout, I agree. Unfortunately, this article receives and inordinate number of salacious entries on prostitution and 'nightlife', owing more, I believe, to observations and experiences of the contributors, than to any encyclopaedic information or authoritative references. The result seems to be an overreaction and effort to 'cleanse' the article of any/all hints of it. Both are less then helpful, and neither gets to objective and useful information on this very real component of the economy, lifestyle and culture of Pattaya. I agree with your observation, and your opinion. I would gladly support any edits along these lines which you would see fit to incorporate into the article. - Thaimoss (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions[edit]

I have been changing the existing names of area towns in the article as to the Wikipedia standards: "Use the most easily recognized name. Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize." The names that I use are those commonly used in Thai English newspapers, and publications in Pattaya, as well as the Thai Post Office (when written in English.) Please rspond to me if you have a different opinion. Rak-Tai (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the history, your edits seem to have caused inconsistency with existing Wikipedia articles, breaking links for some. We generally follow the Royal Thai General System of Transcription for places and other names which don't have an established spelling. (Pattaya is among the exceptions; it would be spelled Phatthaya under the RTGS.) You might want to look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand#Updating the Manual of Style (part 2) (specifically the Romanization subsection) and comment on the draft at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)/Draft. The discussion is currently inactive, but the romanization issues have generally been fairly uncontroversial. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree with Paul, especially for the names of districts, subdistricts and towns we have recommended spellings which all follow the RTGS transcription. The street signs more and more follow these spellings, so there is no need to follow the cheap English so-called newspapers of Pattaya in their preferred spellings. I am not fully sure, but the only serious big newspapers (The Nation and Bangkok Post) use the recommended spellings for locations as well. So it would be simply stupid to use a different transcription scheme when there is a standard (which has its limitations however) available. andy (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Rak-Tai (รักไทย), you've been doing great work cleaning up the Pattaya article - Keep it up! Paul_012 and Ahoerstemeier (Andy) are highly experienced editors, having contributed tons to many many Thailand-related articles. You're getting the good scoop from them. The transliteration has always been a challenge. I learned to read (and eventually write) Thai simply because I was so tired of the different transliteration "standards". Tell you though, its ironic to me personally that this one come up in the context of Pattaya. When I lived in Bangkok, I always got a huge laugh from my best experience in transcription confusion, which was about Pattaya - When I would drive to Pattaya, at one of the toll boths on the expressway, immediately as you approached the toll, the official government large green highway signs said "Pattaya" and the next official government large green highway sign visible from the tool booth (just a couple hundred feet onward; you could almost see them both at the same time) said "Phatthaya" ;-) - Thaimoss (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for directing me to the Manual of Style, which reinforces my edits. I have read the sections on Romanization, namely:

Romanization Based on the above discussion, I propose that the Manual of Style recommend that for general cases: For Thai-language terms, use the established English spelling of the word, if available. Otherwise, the Royal Thai General System of Transcription should be followed when romanising Thai words into English.

Having maintained a residence in Pattaya for 15 years, I have observed a slowly-developing consistency in the re-naming of streets and other sites in English words. You might look at the site of Bangkok Pattaya Hospital. They are a respected hospital used by educated foreigners, and their use of English is far from "cheap." They identify their address with "the established English spelling." Please remember that Wikipedia is used primarily by English readers looking for information. I think it is imperative that they be given information that they will recognize should they visit Pattaya. In my own case, some time ago I wanted to identify my residence in Google maps. I live on Pratumnak Road, and surely know how to spell my address (as does the local post office). After a long search, I discovered they called my street Phra Tamnak. I assure you that myself and my English-speaking neighbors do not live on nor write our address as Phra Tamnak. Kindly look in Google at the spelling of hotels and condos there. They use the accepted English spelling. Furthermore, I think all the Pattaya names should be consistently spelled "according to the established English spelling throughout the articles in Wikiperida. Rak-Tai (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There is NO accepted spelling. Maybe in Pattaya most write it as Pratumnak, in Bangkok the most-widely used spelling might be Phratum Nak and so on. It is really sad Google did choose to use a transcription on their own, not following the only standard it has. And they use it inconsistently, in Google Earth it has layers with different spelling for the same places, even the provinces deviate from the widely accepted RTGS spelling. Why shouldn't we be the good guys following the Royal Institute consistently? If a place is very commonly spelled differently, there's no problem with adding this variant in the header, but at least the article should be located at the standard spelling. Otherwise we will quickly have 20 articles on the same topic, instead of one good one, or one article using different spellings within different sections - both far from the quality level Wikipedia could reach. andy (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sexual and prurient references[edit]

Another attempt has been made to include prurient references to this article. Unlike Amsterdam, every form of prostitution in Thailand is illegal, and punishable by law. The function of an encyclopodia is to provide intellectual and lawful information, not to serve as a scandal sheet where people can learn where to find prostitutes, homosexuals and other illegal activities. People can find every type of perversion listed on Google--it is not proper to list it on Wikipeia. If one feels it necessary to inform others of such activities, then please start another article about prostitution, homosexuality, pickpockets, murder, rape, corruption, and sexual perversion in Thailand, where you can list places and venues where they can be found. But please do not continue to besmirch the Pattaya article. We all know they exist in greater or lessor degrees everywhere. I agree that there is a time and place for everything. Underground and unlawful activities occur in every city. While they may be more pronounced in some cities, nonetheless, they do not warrant inclusion in an article about a city, in an intellectual reference book. I do not want children exposed to prurient references as they use Wikipedia. I feel that the previous mention about nightlfe is adequate, without listing the lurid and illegal details. Is there someone who agrees that prurient references do not warrant inclusion here? Rak-Tai (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see my reference above (14 Deletion of references to prostitution ) and the reply by Thaimoss GoScoutUK (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi GoScoutUK. Be assured that I have read your reference before making any changes, and several times since, and regard your opinion and that of Thaimoss. It is a dilemma as to how to balance an encyclopedic picture of Pattaya while making some reference to prostitution. That is why I put in the link to Prostitution in Thailand, where all of these issues can be included. Perhaps it should be displayed more prominently. Have you read this reference to prostitution in the Bagkok article?: (Another issue which has given the city a reputation is the sex industry. Prostitution in Thailand is technically illegal, but can be found all over Bangkok in vast numbers of massage parlors, saunas, parks, and hourly hotels, serving foreign tourists as well as locals. Organized sex work in Bangkok alone involves a minimum of many thousands of workers, and possibly in the tens of thousands). Perhaps something of this tenor might be preferable.
I did mention above that in Holland (where my own cousin is one of the political leaders who has grappled with their problems about related crime) prostitution is entirely legal, while in Thailand it is totally illegal. So a limited mention of the sex trade might be acceptable if not prurient, but a description of the activities (which are prevalent but nonetheless illegal) seems to be over the top for Wikipedia. You are aware, I think, that pornographic entries are added often, and have to be reverted. I have lived in Pattaya for 15 years, and contributed to several newspapers in Pattaya and Bangkok. I have the Thai interest at heart, and admit that I am protective of the image of Pattaya and Thailand. I am often embarrassed at the pictures portrayed by the foreign press. I am planning a meeting with the mayor of Pattaya, and the editors of Bangkok Post and the Nation, to get their input. Let's try to come up with something that will be encyclopedic without being prurient or pornographic. Would you and others be so thoughtful as to put your ideas on this page before we change the article again? Best wishes and thank you kindly for you contributions. Rak-Tai (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Good discussion. I sense that, while you both view it from a slightly different perspective, that your positions are not actually that different. Rak-Tai, it seems you emphasize the illegality, which is a critical point (and your comparison to Amsterdam is spot on). It also seems that GoScoutUK is sensitive to the prurient discussion, and the need for "fairly-weighted matter-of-fact" mention, as he described in "Deletion of references to prostitution", above. No mention of prostitution in a comprehensive article about Pattaya would be odd, an like it or not, illegal or not, it would be factual inaccurate (by omission). I, myself, have undone inappropriate edits and links in this article, and will continue to do so. There is room for balanced and factual reference to this very real societal aspect of Pattaya. - Thaimoss (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Thaimoss. I appreciate your interest. It is obvious I am extremely sensitive to the image portayed to the world about Pattaya. Especially now, with the economic downturn, Thailand needs as much foreign revenue as possible, and I think the police will not instigate another crackdown. (You are aware that from time to time there are extensive raids which result in the closing of many bars and others which promote nudity and sex-trade related activities.) Would you have time to propose something discreet without it being prurient, and post it here or on my discussuon page. I respect your views, but I am sure you can appreciate the fact that my business friends and I who live here, and who are keenly aware of what goes on in Pattaya, do not want Pattaya and Thailand further besmurched. Rak-Tai (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how long homosexuality has been illegal in Thailand? As far as I knew between consenting adults it was perfectly legal. To "lump" it in with "prostitution, homosexuality, pickpockets, murder, rape, corruption, and sexual perversion" is quite derogatory and may well cause offence to gay people. (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Bearing the above comment in mind and the quote in the Bangkok article, perhaps the Pattaya article could include the following lines: "Another issue which has given the city a reputation is the sex industry. Prostitution in Thailand is technically illegal, but can be found all over Pattaya in vast numbers of host bars, gogo bars, massage parlours, saunas, and hourly hotels, serving foreign tourists as well as locals. This is prevalent in Walking Street as well as other areas around the city. There is a strong gay community based around Boyztown and Sunee Plaza." This has been partly copied from the Bangkok article which Rak-Tai mentions and picks up on the comment from I for one do not wish to discrimitate against gay people. Thoughts please. GoScoutUK (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
GoScoutUK, Very good, neutral, non-pejorative statement. Would suggest changing "all over Pattaya" to simply "in Pattaya". - Thaimoss (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to all of you that have helped us to arrive at a consensus. With a slight modification, I have added the suggestions of GoScoutUK and Thaimoss. An article on Boyztown would probably merit an inclusion. This entire article can use some more editing, but it remains a work in progress. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow, this article is absurd. In typical Wikipedia fashion, somebody has hijacked this article for their own interests and/or point of view. To not even once in the entire article about Pattaya mention the word "prostitution" is absurd. Sure, there is bungy jumping, snorkeling, and everything else listed, but one must have blinders on to not realize the draw of this place for a very significant portion of its international tourists. Whoever keeps editing out every last reference to the sex trade here should stop trying to rewrite reality on Wikipedia. (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Tourist guide[edit]

Some sections are still reading like a tourist guide. --Kudpung (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your deletions. Keep up the good work. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have now attempted a major cleanup, section by section, but fear I still may not have been bold enough. Particluar attention is still needed to some sections that employ a 'brochure-like' style rather than the dry, neutral style that is required for an encyclopedia. There is still far too much detail in the tourism section: an encyclopedic article should really be about Pattaya, but not fine details about everything that goes on there and where it happens. There are other Wiki projects that will welcome this information and links can be made to them.--Kudpung (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed this photo
Jomtien Beach 2007.jpg
. In my opinion, it is too vague, shows only the tops of two deckchairs, some sea, two beach balls bobbing in the water, no beach, and could be anywhere in the world. It therefore does not serve to illustrate the article.--Kudpung (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the commercial tourist destination references probably taken from a local tourist guide. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary to mention one specific commercial art gallery?[edit]

Of the many art galleries in Pattaya, why is it necessary to mention one specific one? First a link to the art gallery was provided, and now it appears highlighted as if an article would be written about it in due time. It is my opinion that Wikipedia is not here to promote specific commercial undertakings, even if they are an art gallery. - Takeaway (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

When I looked at the link to the gallery which you had first provided, I had seen that it was possible to even buy the artworks online which indicates to me that the gallery is a commercial gallery. In the link to the article in the Nation it even says "If you fall in love with one of the pieces, you can arrange for it to be delivered to your home within a few days. Works are also for sale online."
Your first edit mentioning the link to the gallery would fall under WP:LINKSPAM and it was therefore that I removed it. Your insistence on keeping the name of the gallery in this article falls under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which states "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." - Takeaway (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
All of the attractions in this article are commercial enterprises. Please read the article in the Nation. My inclusion is not for any commercial interest, but for information, as was the article in The Nation. Please respect the three revert rule. รัก-ไทย (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The information which you have supplied is one which promotes the commercial interests of a specific gallery, especially when you had also supplied a direct link to the website of the gallery when first including the name of the gallery. Although you state that you do not include the gallery's name out of any commercial interest of yourself, it does promote the commercial interest of the gallery. That a newspaper such as The Nation does an extremely friendly write-up on a commercial venue such as this gallery (and thereby also states that "If you fall in love with one of the pieces, you can arrange for it to be delivered to your home within a few days. Works are also for sale online.") does not make the gallery less commercial. Newspapers are known to help promote certain interests. I am happy that you at least did remove the direct link as it is completely against Wikipedia guidelines (WP:LINKSPAM). As for the mentioning of this one specific gallery, whilst there are many others in Pattaya, is, in my eyes at least, still not done. That other venues mentioned in the article are also commercial, does not make the mentioning of this gallery less objectionable, it just shows that the Pattaya article is still too much written as a tourist guide. - Takeaway (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

While the gallery might allow the purchase of some if its art, it does not charge an entrance fee--unlike all of the other attractions listed in the article. My original inclusion of the link was to provide current featured-art display information--it had no commercial motive, as the gallery has free admission. It is a free cultural venue for the benefit of residents and visitors, featuring well-known and respected artists. Its inclusion is encyclopedic on its face as a center of art culture. You might be culturally enhanced if you visit the gallery on your next visit to the city. รัก-ไทย (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
One can also walk in to the Central department store without having to pay an entrance fee. It too has many things which might be of interest to people. Perhaps you would like to include it too? - Takeaway (talk)
Text moved from article: "The largest gallery in the Eastern Seaboard, ..., features original artworks by Thai and international artists."
  1. "Largest" in what manner? In square meters?
  2. Is it not enough to say "Some of the largest commercial galleries on the Eastern Seaboard are in Pattaya" ?
-- (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Jomtien vs Chom Thian[edit]

I note that the word Jomtien has recently been removed and replaced wholesale by Chom Thian. OK we all know that there are different ways to anglicise Thai words and I have seem Chom Thian on one road sign. However the majority of signs, including the arch by the beach over the Thappraya Road all use Jomtien. I feel this change could be confusing. Does anyone else agree? Should we change it back? GoScoutUK (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Nightlife" is what for a large part defines Pattaya[edit]

Pattaya has derived part of its reputation as a tourist destination due to the sex industry[1][2] and the resulting wild nightlife, and in many ways the city has become what it is now because of this.[3] Prostitution in Thailand is technically illegal but reality shows that it is tolerated as is the case for Pattaya[4] where it is found in certain areas with vast numbers of host bars, gogo bars, massage parlours, saunas, and hourly hotels, serving foreign tourists as well as locals. This is prevalent in the Walking Street as well as other areas around the city.[5]

Pattaya also has Asia's largest gay scene[6] based around Boyztown and Sunee Plaza.

The city is also famous for its flamboyant katheoy cabaret shows where transsexuals and transvestites perform to packed houses.[7]

References and sources

  1. ^ Reuters, Children lured into Thai sex industry in Pattaya, 2006
  2. ^ Time (magazine), 2006
  3. ^ Encyclopedia of Prostitution and Sex Work volume 2, 2006, page 454, Greenwood Press releases, ISBN: 0-313-32968-0
  4. ^ Exploring the Minds of Sex Tourists: The Psychological Motivation of Liminal People by Yodmanee Tepanon, 2006
  5. ^ Frommer's Thailand, 7th edition, 2006, page 170, Wiley Publishing, Inc.
  6. ^ Time (magazine), 2006
  7. ^ "Nightlife in Pattaya at [[Frommer's]]". Frommer's. 2010. Retrieved 2010-10-03. URL–wikilink conflict (help)

User:Rak-Tai had removed the above section 6 times (actually only 5 times as 1 attempt failed) whereas User:Zzuuzz had apparently accepted the above text as notable enough with the exception of "One can't deny that..." which was removed as being "pov". What is actually "pov", "objectionable" and "inappropriate" about the above remaining text as User:Rak-Tai claims? I would recommend reading Talk:Pattaya#Sexual_and_prurient_references where a consensus was reached, with User:Rak-Tai in accord, to include data as mentioned in the above section but which had never been implemented until recently. The sources provided in the above section are all reliable. The subjects mentioned in the disputed section are things which make Pattaya (in)famous as is shown in Pattaya and in Frommer's: Pattaya nightlife. If anything, keeping the section out of the article breaches WP:NPOV as well as WP:NOTCENSORED policy. WP:COMPREHENSIVE can also shed some light on this issue. - Takeaway (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

More instances which show that it is very appropriate for the article to include mention of the Pattaya's nightlife and sex industry:
Writing an article about Pattaya and not mentioning any of this is completely absurd. It is just as absurd as presenting the picture of "Mime entertaining on Walking Street" in the article as being in any way representative of Pattaya's infamous Walking Street where File:Sex workers in Pattaya.jpg (just as the photo of the mime, this photo was also made and uploaded by User:Rak-Tai) is much more representative of the actual situation. To quote Frommer's entry on Pattaya's Walking Street: "Walking Street becomes a pedestrian zone in the evening in South Pattaya on Beach Road. Here you will see debauchery at its fullest, ...". And to quote a sentence from the PattayaMail which seems very appropriate for those opposing inclusion of valid data in to the article: "It seems as if they would rather ‘sweep it under the rug’ or use the ‘head in the sand’ technique. Don’t talk about it and it doesn’t exist.". Can anyone find any sources indicating that all of the above, that a large part of Pattaya's fame is derived from the sex trade, is not true? - Takeaway (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit late to this, having only just discovered the content dispute, but I thought I'd add a few words to help establish a longer term consensus in case of any future disputes. While it's true that Pattaya has been cleaned up a fair bit in recent years and it now attracts a lot more family tourists than it used to, prostitution there is still rampant and still forms a large part of the tourist economy. It is very widely known and very well referenced. I appreciate that the Thai tourist authorities are trying to play down the prostitution in order to boost tourism, but that is not the purpose of Wikipedia - Wikipedia is here to present verifiable information (and the extent of prostitution in Pattaya is easily verifiable), not to assist governments in their attempts at censorship. To have an article about Pattaya that does not mention its fame as a center for prostitution would be absurd, in my view. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
While its important to have a NPOV, it also is important to show things in a way that the natives of the society view them to be. Agree that its important to highlight the night life section in Pattaya, however should be done in perspective and with the clarity that there is an effort to clean up the city, which is now improving and becoming more 'family oriented' for visitors.'Ambar (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Buddha Statue Image[edit]

I don't know where the White Buddha photograph is from but it is not the Buddha statue at Wat Khao Phra Bat Pattaya , please get back to me on this point since I am living in Pattaya and will get the correct photograph. The Buddha at Wat Khao Phra Bat Pattaya is a golden statueRichardUK2014 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the file description page, that photo is from c.1983–84. A brief Google search confirms that the Buddha image was painted gold sometime later. If you would like to contribute a more up-to-date photo, please feel free to do so. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Surely an accurate photograph should be present since this is a major feature of Pattaya, I don't think a photograph from 1984 is relevant. How can I add a photograph? Do I have to wait 4 days before I can upload photos?RichardUK2014 (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You can upload to the Wikimedia Commons without having to wait the four days for autoconfirmed status. Click here to go to the Commons upload wizard; the same login should work for all Wikimedia projects. Be sure to only upload images that you created yourself, or that are freely licensed. (You'll find further details over there.) --Paul_012 (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Paul I figured it out after, I added a photograph I had taken, I'm sure that will be more useful since it may confuse tourists looking for information if they see a white statue. Please can you check and let me know what you think of my edits.RichardUK2014 (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Can something be done about the fact I added the correct photo and now someone from Wikimedia has deleted when the photo is entirely my creation, a quick look on Google images will show you the photo does not appear anywhere else, despite that my IP is based in Thailand...I'm trying to help the encyclopediaRichardUK2014 (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You should talk to Steinsplitter, the Commons admin who deleted the image. Explain that you are the creator of the image, and that the deletion might have been a mistake. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pattaya. 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 21:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


This sentence is obviously nonsense: "Pattaya was a fishing village until Nick Ahnat Wuethrich arrived there and open all the gogo bars in Walking street with Wäespi." The whole paragraph is anecdotal. If no-one knows the actual history of Pattaya we should not just publish anecdotes in its place. Constant Pedant (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism from over a year ago. Reverted. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


" Within a month of the completion of the restoration of the first 400 m of Pattaya Beach, the work was "seriously damaged" by kangaroos. " I've never seen a kangaroo on Pattaya Beach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8810:6D97:8C43:3F19:D98C:ADB0 (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)