Talk:2010 Thai political protests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
 
WikiProject Thailand (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

12 people[edit]

have been reported dead. --Ochhurtd (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Source? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

POV and "Protests" section[edit]

"bombing sites were all far from the protest sites and nobody was killed in the bombings". This is not exactly neutral. It sees the bombing solely from the point of view of protesters and totally disregards that the targets were mostly government facilities where fatalities could have been high. This kind of "downgrading" of the bomb attacks against government is one-sided and distorts the big picture. I admit that this is a difficult subject to remain totally neutral but this article tends to be a little bit more pro protesters than pro government.--Nedergard (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed offending passage. Mootros (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no mention of the assassination of Col Romklao Thuwatham or the black-clothed militia. Overall the picture appears to be quite one-sided. Would like to see a citation for all troop deaths caused by cerebral edema, as clearly this was not the case with Col Romklao and several videos (including the one by the Japanese cameraman) show grenades exploding among the troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.39.26 (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody know more about this? Mootros (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Gov Offer[edit]

I watched a new report stating that the goverment has made an offer to the red shirts but it was rejected. Six months i believe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.176.111 (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"No color" Rallies[edit]

Are these really pro-government as described in the article? As I understand it they are simply opposed to the disruption caused by the red shirts, but have not voiced any support for the current government. If they are "pro" anything it is "pro-king". Thoughts? Kernow (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that one of the sources refers to them "pro-government protesters" so I guess this can stay, but we should look for other sources with a more accurate description. Kernow (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Prai vs amat & abhisit[edit]

Prai (ไพร่) — plain commoner — one step below Nai (นาย) plain mister — has emerged among the UDD Red Shirts as an epithet opposed to amat (อำมาตย์) courtier, and abhisit (อภิสิทธิ์) privilege. The latter, by strange coincidence, is the given name of the current Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. His family name is compounded of the words เวช=physician + ชา=tisane + ชีวะ=life signifying the profession of his immediate ancestors. It was awarded as Palace name # 4881 (นามสกุลเลขที่ ๔๘๘๑) to his great-grandfather, Rong Amat 3rd Class Long (รองอำมาตย์ตรีหลง), then stationed as a government physician in Lopburi Province, and who some 50 years ago as Phra Bamrad Naradura, served as public health minister. (story) Rong (รอง) = support, and is a prefix in words for factory (support+work) hospital (support+health) hotel (support+retire) school (support+learn) etc. Rong Amat is no longer used as a term for a civil servant, and Amat is now taken to mean one who has special privileges resulting from special services to the crown. Shouldn't a condensed version of this be in the article somewhere? --Pawyilee (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, although the 'Prai' and 'Amat' is important, and some of it is already on the National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship article, the rest is just coincidence. The meaning of Abhisit's name is already in his own article. The issue is of trivial note and does not actually make any point or contribute to the issues discussed about the protests. Surely Abhisit did not name himself, and the good deeds and the name of the title of the awards of his ancestors, also does not have anything to do with the ideology of the protesters or their grievances towards him or his government. Furthermore the title was awarded to hundreds who served their country, since all civil servants (civil and military) are technically hired by the crown and the reigning king. Any insinuation of connection between the title of 'Amat' (given 50 odd years ago) and the derogatory 'Amat' is quite unfair to many, especially when the existence of the Reds shirt's 'Amats' is in itself a controversial claim. My point is the whole thing just sounds gossipy, and personally to make someone's name into a political issue is just sad, like the Barack 'Hussein' Obama issue. All the prospective parents who wanted a political future for their children, from now on, might as well call their sons Jack Johnson or John Jackson! Sodacan (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd be suspicious of the motives of prospective parents who want a political future for their children; be that as it may, I moved Styles other than Thai royal or noble, Prai, Ammat, and Abhisit from Thai royal and noble titles to my sandbox. Pawyilee (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't ignore the main point, to make an issue of someone's given name is absurd, and lowers the collective i.q. of everybody involve, isn't Thai politics ugly and stupid enough already? is this the kind of thing we are seriously considering now? Sodacan (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have ignored the main point! Although you agree the 'Prai' and 'Amat' are important, User:Suitsyou kicked them out of the National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship article, citing bias and poor grammar; just as you kicked them out of Thai royal and noble titles as being unsuited to keeping company with the other words. They have now sought refuge at Thai honorifics - Other, the point being to make these definitions avaulable somewhere in Wikipedia, as part of the historical process whereby Thailand imploded. For an analogous situation, see English Civil War. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Khattiya Sawasdipol Conflicting Info[edit]

Looking through the section depicting the events from the 14th of May onward, the general is first mentioned as having been injured by a sniper on May 14th and as being in critical condition. However, toward the end of the article, it states that he was shot on the 16th of May and has died. Can this be cleared up? --24.9.29.34 (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Both Reuters and BBC report him as having been shot on the 13th and died on the 17th.Zhanzhao (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Movement in Twitter (Thai)[edit]

Some people think this article is a lie, because they disagree with some part of this article (or may be all). So this article should be monitered if it is biased, or somebody delete parts of it. --112.142.4.190 (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation issue: foreign media cannot be trusted statement[edit]

"They also started telling the public that the foreign media, such as CNN, BBC, Reuters, and many others, cannot be trusted as they are biased, prompting backlash of the international from the Thai public"

Any citation for this? Mootros (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Since Thai media cannot be trusted, I think it will be more appropriate to cite foreign medias. (Thaksin or Thai government can't control everything, can they?) --180.183.127.152 (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Currently we have no citation, not even from the media in Thailand that would substantiated this statement allegedly made by the government. Mootros (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No citation can be found for this statement because it is untrue. Why is it still here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.87.133.87 (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sniper reference[edit]

<ref name=Times20100517>{{cite news |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7128358.ece |title=Violence reduces central Bangkok to a 21st-century Sarajevo |work=[[The Times]] |author=Richard Lloyd Parry |date=17 May 2010 |accessdate=2010-05-17 }}</ref>

To be added where appropriate. Mootros (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Name[edit]

These are no longer protests. The Thai military is using deadly force, and the Red Shirts are using rocks, homemade rockets, and improvised weaponry to fight each other, and there have been casualties on both sides as well as civilians. Bangkok has become a war zone, the Thai military is gearing up for an assault on the Red Shirt compound, and Red Shirt leaders are saying that the country is on the brink of civil war, so I see it unfitting to continue to simply call these protests. We should at least call them clashes, or a political crisis at the very least.--RM (Be my friend) 04:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Support:

Support Anti-government protests in Thailand 2010, and suggest analogy with English Civil War.--Pawyilee (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Support:

Pro-democracy would be more accurate than Anti-government. 4.59.116.14 (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose: "civil war in title"

Still fitting as the article deals with the events throughout March, April, and May. Yes, protests have turned into war-like violent clashes. The intro now mentions this in the second sentence. 2008–2010 Thai political crisis gives a wider view. Mootros (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think its very clear what people oppose and support at this moment, due to the fact that two debates started at the same time. Please see here User_talk:Mootros#No_discussion_prior_to_changing_name_of_article.
  • Oppose: "Thai political" in title
What about supporter from the Issan region. The world Thai is ambiguous; plus a compounded adjective in the title is not the best. The word Thailand is straight forward.

:*Support: Anti-government protests Thailand 2010 Mootros (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Retracted. Mootros (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose - they are still protests, clashes are the result of protests, as of this afternoon, Bangkok time, the protest leaders have surrendered and most of the camp has been broken up, but the redshirts are now pillaging and looting, they have set fire to television stations, the stock exchange, the electrical authority, several shopping malls and the drug enforcement authority. This is more of a violent riot. Sodacan (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no idea how this will end up or how soon. So keep it as it is for now. Technically, this is merely the latest chapter for events that started off back in 2005. But eventually the 2005 political crisis extended into the 2005-2006 political crisis etc. and we have what we see today. Nobody has any idea what history is going to call this, and the press hasn't latched on to a catchy name either. So keep it simple and as broadly descriptive as possible. Patiwat (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Addendum: it makes some sense to call this 2010 Thailand political protests (Thailand rather than Thai). See South Thailand insurrection. But I wouldn't make the change since the media will latch on to something sooner or later. Note that the politicized media outlets (like ASTV) will probably start calling this something like Reds Burn Bangkok 2010 or Evil Thaksin Devils Defile Virtue 2010 - but I doubt that names like that will catch on, especially with the international media. Patiwat (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus for suggested target, but feel free to re-request other names. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


2010_Thai_political_protestsPolitical protests in Thailand 2010 — Relisted. We don't have any strong consensus yet whether a title of the form "2010 Thai political protests" or "2010 political protests in Thailand" is better, and AjaxSmack's question (is "political" necessary?) remains to be answered. Ucucha 18:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The world Thai is ambiguous; plus a compounded adjective in the title is not the best. The country name is straight forward. E.g: 2005 civil unrest in France Mootros (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The present name is fine, no need to define it any further (anti-government etc. etc.), based plainly on the fact that there are no other protests in Thailand that will confuse anybody. The name you suggest makes it sound like a list. I agree that it is an extension of the 2005-2006 crisis, maybe a template is needed to link all the articles together? Sodacan (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply. I have to ask what exactly is "Thai political"? In English the following construction "Political protests in Thailand" is just a better description. I retract any intentions to move to any "anti-government" title. Mootros (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha, I understand what you mean, but just for consistency with: 2005–2006 Thai political crisis, 2006 Thai coup d'état, 2006 Thai political party dissolution charges, 2008–2010 Thai political crisis, April 2009 Thai political unrest, Thai political crisis. Yeah lots of 'Thai political's ! Sodacan (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Just hope we are not soon going to have Thai southern insurgency‎ instead of South Thailand insurgency‎ ;) Mootros (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Present name is fine for now. Wait for 1) the situation to either die down or escalate, and 2) the media to latch on to a catchy name. Until then, keep current name. Patiwat (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sorry na ka. The issues is not whether political crisis is appropriate, but whether we would like to use a grammatically correct English construction in the title or some colloquial shorthand phrase. There is no need to wait for a "catchy" phrase; it is perfectly OK to use descriptive titles. Mootros (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Thai political" I'd say: An adjective that defines another adjective which in turn defines a noun, is usually not a standard way of writing in English. Why not the common construction where the adjective (i.e. political) defines a noun (protests) that stands with the aid of a preposition (i.e. in) in relation to another noun (Thailand)? The former strikes me as colloquial that sometime tends to crop up in the media; it might no be a particularly suitable style for an encyclopaedia. What do you think?  :) Mootros (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Political crisis in Thailand (2008–2010) from my talkpage[edit]

(Reverted undiscussed move *again*; old name, which places the noun last, conforms better to article title guidelines)

Hi, Sorry I didn't think this was a controversial move. Where does it say the noun should be last? Why? Many descriptive article titles end with brackets. Mootros (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone already reverted you (they did), it's a controversial move and you should discuss the name change you want on the talkpage first. If it was not a controversial move, no one would revert you, twice. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

useful references[edit]

Human rights activist says Bangkok crackdown 'worst massacre since 1976': http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/video_and_audio/8692503.stm

Thai PM knew his 'peace deal' would be rejected by the redshirts. It was just a ploy to justify the new brutality: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/17/thailand-protest Mootros (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Pokpong Lawansiri again http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/05/18/abhisit%E2%80%99s-violence-and-thaksin%E2%80%99s-abuse-power.html

Some more: Baby shield: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1278839/Thai-protesters-use-child-human-shield-country-faces-civil-war.html

Burn Thailand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELNZFcYbYsM&feature=player_embedded -Nattawut Saikua: "If you take away our power, burn the country down" [cheers] "Burn it down everyone, I'll take responsibility" [cheers] "If you want to arrest anybody come to me, if you want to take away our power, burn!"

UDD admit funding from Thaksin: http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/37474/udd-leader-admits-protest-funds-come-from-thaksin Sodacan (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thaksin orders Bangkok to be burnt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=fi&v=vBDm-jA3N80 Sodacan (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional references; very useful. Mootros (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Continuity[edit]

This is a continuation of the 1973 democracy movement when, on the eve 14 October, the King appeared on national television, broadcasting the following speech:

The 1973 democracy movement was itself a continuation of the Siamese revolution of 1932, when King Prajadhipok issued this statement:

These revolting events are seamlessly linked in history, but not in their Wiki articles write now. The continuity is vividly illustrated in this image. (Somebody who knows more about file sharing than I do, please see if there is any way Wikipedia can use it.) --Pawyilee (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's have a better source than a logo posted to Facebook and one's personal impressions. --113.53.56.113 (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Length of Intro[edit]

The intro should not be more than four paragraphs. At the moment we got five. Mootros (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Down to 4, and nearly a 20% reduction in wordcount. Patiwat (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Excellent! Mootros (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Foreign media[edit]

They also started telling the public that the foreign media, such as CNN, BBC, Reuters, and many others, cannot be trusted as they are biased.

This is not verified by the citation. Who in the government started telling the public this? When?

58.9.136.69 (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Go ogle up Thailand Cyber Scouts, 21st century royally vetted vigilante group based on the Village Scouts. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Thai political protests[edit]

We're gonna need a new article; meanwhile, post 2011 events here. I propose we also have a List of 21st century Thai political protests and a sister list for the woebegone 20th. --Pawyilee (talk)

Someone objected to labeling a 2010 article a current event, so how about
{{current related}} This may be affected by a current event. Information in this may change rapidly as the event progresses
Pages currently in [[Category:Protests in Thailand]] total 9. This list may not reflect recent changes.
Related to protests above:
Also involving ongoing political protests

Plus those I listed above under Continuity, of which today's protests involve some survivors of all but the first, and the offspring of all of them. --Pawyilee (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV or POV edits[edit]

Someone deleted my edit of this article, by the name of Takeover, suggesting I am non-nuetral. Obviously this needs to be discussed, as my contribution is the Nuetral one, replacing that written by anti-UDD/Democracy Movement writers. I am one of the few native speaker English language writers who can claim this plausibly. Anti-UDD propaganda courses through the English Language Thai media. To be very specific, included in this media onslaught, I will include two political discussion Boards frequented by English Language readers, plus the two primary domestic media newspapers. I am extremely familiar with this propagandistic approach, and it is projected throughout the article here referenced. I am very familiar with it, but also have experiential insight to the UDD/Democracy Movement. In other words, I have association with both sides of this political divide. It is my input that is accordingly nuetral, representing both sides, over against the current article representing only one side. A side that reflects throughout and in-depth the State Media propagandistic approach. Being new to Wikipedia, I need to enter into dialogue with someone about this, but am very inexperienced to do this effectively. This "Takeover" who deleted my Edit, is he the 'gatekeeper' for this article, and is it him I need to educate? I refuse to edit Wikipedia, and have it deleted. But at the same time, I don't want State media entities to "carry the day". To sign of, what is this business of a jiggly line to sign p[osts on talk pages ....is this a little like ------ Sincerely Username "Ferwert". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferwert (talkcontribs) 00:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted this edit and this edit of yours where your use of the words "coupist Government", "coup-rooted Government", and "Government based on coercive Parliamentary procedures enabled via Oligarchic and military interventions" without backing these assertions with sources as is required by Wikipedia, as not adhering to WP:NPOV. I see that you have proceeded editing the article again but have now avoided using these specific phrases. I still don't agree with your present edits but I have no time at the moment to dive into this issue. As you are a self-confessed newbie here on Wikipedia, I would advise you to read Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is explained there what is required if you want to make the assertions you do. Just your word that you are knowledgeable due to having read bulletin boards is not enough. I am also not a "gatekeeper" for this page. There is no such function here at Wikipedia. - Takeaway (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Takeaway - Thx. for your response. Your edits as mentioned in above message are Ok with me, although I could educate those less involved within this Thai Political divide, as to the validity of my characterizations. With respect to your other comments, I need to clarify strongly that my knowledge is not based on "Bulletin Boards" as you suggest. My edits and input are a demonstration of my in-depth, experiential involvement with both sides of this Political divide. Not merely a pawn of the propagandistic domestic, anti-UDD media (Bangkok Post, Nation, ASTV,TV.com) and Foreign media who often copy or paraphrase this anti-UDD journalism. Most native, English speakers are a captive audience due to their linguistic limitations. It is also unhelpful, that the UDD is a unilingual organization. Let me emphasize - I have my feet firmly rooted in both camps experientially, and accordingly can confidently assert that I represent both sides, as I have in-depth knowledge. In fact, I would equally assert that all quotes and verification based on the BKK. Post, Nation, ASTV should be eliminated. They are propagandistic organs from one side of the Political divide, and I don't need to tell you which side. The eggregious stuff I deleted from those sources, speak to this assertion clearly. A true effort of editting in my view would eliminate all such quotes. But I have refrained from doing that in an effort at neutrality. I will read Wikipedia verifiability as you suggest, but at the same time have difficulty accepting burying truthfullness in administrivia and legalities of Wikipedia.
is this our best way to communicate Takeaway? Can we not do it via E-mail....One other question Takeaway, are you involved in any way, either via simple readership, or participation in discussions and posts, on ThaiVisa.com? For the sake of transparency, can we ascertain that, so I know what I am dealing with. Considering what you deleted, are you suggesting the following didn't happen, with respect to elevating Abhisit and his Democrat Party Government Takeaway? namely "Government based on coercive Parliamentary procedures enabled via Oligarchic and military interventions". If you think this didn't happen and they had electoral legitimacy, you and I are indeed very far apart. After all, that and the coup were the cause of all the 2010 political problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferwert (talkcontribs) 02:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
(Moved Ferwert's reply from my own talk page here as it seems more appropriate on the talk page of the subject. - Takeaway (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC))
I do not think that moving this discussion to a private discussion through emails is a good idea at all. Wikipedia content discussions should be done in the open, and not in private. After you have read the wikipedia rules and recommendations on Wikipedia:Verifiability, please respond here again. As to what my involvement is in this issue, have a look at this section of my photo gallery. I would also advise you to read Wikipedia:No original research. - Takeaway (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I am obviously dealing with a PAD-Dem operative here in 'Takeaway'. He is eeking to preserve the propagandistic slant as espoused through a number of English Language media outlets, such as the Bangkok post, Nation, affiliated English Language discussion Boards and foreign media often copying or paraphrasing that media. Deleting my input wholesale instead of addressing specific areas of concern is perplexing. Deleting entire Wikipedia entries because it does not support one's political perspectives is troublesome. I have no problem discussing matter openly in this manner if that is the best way. Whatever. But to try and bury me in Wikipedia process as a way of expediting your objectives is very obvious. Your answer to my question about your affiliation with ThaiVisa.com is taken as a "yes", and as a result, I cannot procede with someone like Takeaway. I will seek to address this matter via other sources. Debating with Thai media indoctrinated Farangs is not my idea of formulating Wikipedia entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferwert (talkcontribs) 02:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you but I obviously do not fit in your world view. - Takeaway (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
This whole question of Nuetrality is an interesting question when it comes to depicting political events that clearly have a side “A” and a side “B”. How to reconcile those two sides into a narrative reflecting the realities on both sides. I recall from my University debating activities, one needed to be able to debate one side of the issue, then turn on a dime, and argue the other side equally vociferously. In this instance, I could easily do the same thing, as the two sides of this Thai Political divide are easily defined.
The current narrative describing the events of the 2010 Thai Political Protests on Wikipedia is clearly representative of side “A”. I know the perspective of side “B” (the protesters) and this is very clear to me. I could also represent side “A” very vehemently. It is not rocket-science. However, if the author considers the neutrality of this article beyond reproach, by definition, that makes alternatives invalid, and legitimizes deleting them altogether. He refers to his 39 photo’s as evidence of such neutrality, when they are also looked at through a different lens by Side “B”. Two perspectives from a different POV demonstrate this - #1-Calling them foto’s of a military crackdown, brings their neutrality into question. Side “A’ underlying theme of anarchic protesters are bolstered by the images, and the ½ dozen or so foto’s involving military in benign poses with barely a gun in sight support the Side “A” narrative. Having seen the video’s playing at side “B” rallies with military guns ablaze, protesters faltering in their run due to a bullet in their chest, protesters lying on the ground with a bullet hole dead-center in their forehead, soldiers putting the boots to little old ladies in tents . This doesn’t even mention the nurse in the temple and a 75 year-old protester shot through the foot by an expanding bullet, another one in the eye which causes constant tears. These are the alternative perspectives not incorporated within the narrative currently in Wikipedia, never mind the political context, which is the most important. Line #1 of the current narrative is grossly misrepresentative of the political context, which is then projected throughout the article.
There are two perspectives of both these clashes as well as the politics behind them. My attempt to bring them into the equation have been summarily deleted. Even my request to at least discuss the alternatives to the current narrative have been dismissed. In large part using process related methods.
I understand however, another reality that will be at play. Side “B” as discussed above, is an electoral majority in Thailand and accordingly the underpinning of elected Governments. It is a gross minority among Native English speakers. There is always the tendency to dismiss English language perspectives outlining the above by that community, to the extent that its’ minority can appear to be otherwise, and those who provide this balance be seen as aberrations. Within the balance of majority vs. minority, that does not apply.
I will address the process issues at play, in order to bring some balance to Wikipedia entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferwert (talkcontribs) 03:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be under the impression that I am the sole author of this article. I am not. If you had looked into the edit history of the article, you would have seen that a whole host of people have edited this article (click here for the edit history). As for your remark "He refers to his 39 photo’s as evidence of such neutrality", I did not. You asked me what my connection was to this whole affair, and I told you by showing you the photos I made, meaning that I supplied images for the article because I happened to be staying in Bangkok at a place that suddenly turned into a front-line. You need not search anything behind my words other than what I have stated. Also, if I have any sympathies for one group over another, it would be for the UDD and not for the PAD. I have already written down the reasons why I oppose your edits on your user page. I advise you again to carefully read up on Wikipedia policy first and familiarise yourself with how Wikipedia works (including how to sign your signature). - Takeaway (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether you are the sole author of the article is irrelevant. Its' slant is most obvious. It is generally assumed that English native speakers are firmly lodged on one side of the political divide due to the English language domestic media influences and their linguistic limitations. In spite of being the dominant political movement in the country, the UDD is a unilingual organization. I did not search for anything behind your words as stated, in relation to those photo's. You did. By suggesting they were indicative of nuetrality, when in fact they are not. I provided the alternative POV. If you have sympathy for the UDD, that claim is refuted by its absence from this article that you defend tooth and nail....Claiming neutrality doesn't make it so. "By their works shall ye know them" and this article speaks volumes. To use Wikipedia process to diminish my POV is seen for what it is. Wikipedia process expertise does not translate into a balanced POV in this article. I am seeking to rectify that, and I will..... Using my signature has yet to be explained to me in plain English. To start with, what is a "tilden" When someone can do that, I will comply. Being a Luddite, does not equate to Political naivete....Ferwert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.77.163.78 (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You, User Ferwert, were under the impression that I was the sole author and it obviously did matter to you. Also, if you would reread what I have written to you (and everything is nicely archived here on Wipedia) I have never said that I was neutral because of the photos I made so please don't put words in my mouth. You alone kept repeating that I claimed to be so. I repeat again for you that I replied to your question as to what my role was in this affair and that was that I supplied photos. You also keep repeating yourself about the alleged non-neutral slant of the article whereas you are the one who is trying to change it from a factual, non-partisan account of what happened to contain pro-UDD phrases. Your edits are non-verifiable and completely unsourced, based only on your self-proclaimed expertise and self-proclaimed neutrality. I also ask you again to stop accusing me and putting words in my mouth. As for signing your signature, people have tried to explain to you several times in plain English how to do it but it seems that you only see what you are able to see and only hear what you are able to hear. I see no further need to interact with you and I hope you will refrain from interacting with me too. - Takeaway (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-interaction is probably best, as I have achieved my objectives, of bringing into serious question the purported neutrality of an article. At least the spin from the Domestic media who are generally perceived as being propaganda organs for one side of the political divide, plus the spin of farang political discussion Boards they sponsor and control, all of whose agenda's are reflected in this article, needed exposing.The extensive quoting of these sources in this article, pretending it is normal journalism, is sufficient proof of the intentions of the author(s). The opening sentence alone is misdirection. The overall theme and objective of these protests had nothing to do with the Democrat Party. The principle demand of the protesters was electoral, over against the coup of 2006. The coup was central to everything, which is not reflected in the title, nor that first sentence, nor the underlying theme of the article. You took great care to delete it and everything else I wrote, seeking to protect the agenda. Regardless, at least here I choose cessation of interaction. The media and other sources described above, simply ban such interaction, for fear it influences negatively their opinion management practices. Such banning practices, mirrors exactly your deletion actions here, disguised as protection of Wikipedia processes....Ferwert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.77.161.104 (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)