Talk:2013–14 Thai political crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Thailand (Rated C-class, High-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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class)
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology / Social Movements  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology 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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the social movements task force.
 

Links[edit]

[1]>> Thai PM calls for end to opposition protests [2][3]>> Protesters in Thailand seek military support>> Shots fired as Thai protesters clash >> Thai PM and protest leader meet after clashes >> Protests rage on despite Thai PM's peace plea >> Thai tensions ease as police lift barricades>> Yingluck Shinawatra: "This is unlawful" >> Thai protests ease ahead of King's birthday >> Thai protests transform into festivals >> Protesting against Thailand's Big Brother>> Thai king calls for unity >> Protest truce eases Thai tension - for now >> Anti-government protests polarise Thailand >> Thai protests escalate amid violence>> Protest leaders vow to return to Thai streets>> Thai opposition MPs resign en masse>> Thai PM refuses to step down >> Protesters in Thailand besiege PM's offices >> Former Thai PM Abhisit Vejjajiva charged with murder>> Thai opposition: 'We want to put our house in order, our way' >> gunmen wound protesters in bangkok rally>> Bangkok braces for protest shutdown >> Thai protesters launch Bangkok 'shutdown'>> Thailand braces for new set of mass protests>> Thai protesters continue Bangkok 'shutdown'>> Thai Protesters Extend Blockade After Rejecting Poll Talks>> Thai protesters target government buildings>> Thai tensions rise after attack on protesters>> Yingluck Shinawatra: Running out of luck? > Thai PM vows to push ahead with election date>> Dozens injured in Thai protest explosion>> No end in sight to Thailand turmoil >> Twin explosions hit Thailand protests >> Thailand declares Bangkok state of emergency >> Thai 'red-shirt' leader shot as emergency rule begins>> Court defers ruling on Thailand election date >> Thai protester shot dead while giving speech>> Thai rice industry pays price for unrest >> Thai protesters vow larger rallies after poll>> Thai police retake protest camps in Bangkok >> Protesters surround Thai Government House>> Thai protests end in violence and deaths>> Several injured near Thai protest site [ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2014/02/unknown-gunmen-attack-thai-opposition-rallies-201422344753140427.html >> Unknown gunmen attack Thai opposition rallies ]>> Thai protesters to scale back demonstrations>> Thai PM supporters kick off days-long rallies(Lihaas (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)).

The beat goes on[edit]

Pawyilee (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Army as party of the conflict or neutral?[edit]

Even though the army are subordinate to the government, I would propose not to put them on one side of the infobox, but neutral below both parties. The government has deployed them to maintain order in some cases, but they have been unarmed and have not fought against either side of the conflict. Moreover, even though there have not been any indications of illoyality so far, in Thailand it is always dubious how strong the actual control of the civilian government over the army is. I would rather think of them as an independent player. --RJFF (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The infobox template is way too limited to give an accurate overview of the aspects of who's against whom. I'd rather not list Yingluck and her government as parties to the conflict at all (after all, it's the protesters who unilaterally created the conflict), but then doing it either way is problematic. Listing the government together with the Red Shirts gives the false impression that the government is calling the Red Shirts out to protest. Listing them separately would make it seem like the protesters are up against each other. The same goes for the police and armed forces. Listing them in a separate group would seem like they are taking actions on their own behalves. I'm now thinking that it might be best to have just one column for the anti-government protesters, since it's them (their leadership, their numbers) that this is mainly about. It won't hurt that much to leave the Red Shirts out of the infobox, since they're not playing a major role. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
PS I did try to list three parties in the infobox, but the template seems buggy and won't display correctly. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
PPS Regarding this edit, I'm not convinced the style guide for Thai names should apply in bibliographies. I usually treat author names for English-language references as if they were general English-language names. I'm pretty sure international journals don't distinguish between the nationalities of the authors of their cited works. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, it is not imperative to use the last name-first name order for Western names. Both is possible, that is why the "author" parameter exists next to "first" + "last". But using last name-first name for Thais just looks awkward. I agree with you that it is difficult to display the actual relationships between the different parties in the infobox. At the moment, I would prefer to keep it as it is, but take out the army (and perhaps the police). But I do not say this would be the perfect solution. --RJFF (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Paul about the red shirts being deceptive. Theyve not been called out yet...thatll happen when the coup doesLihaas (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2013 (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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


2013 Thai protests2013 Thai political crisis – Page previously boldly moved, then reverted, so here's the discussion. This article covers the protests, which have resulted in the dissolution of the Lower House. It would be appropriate to discuss the aftermath and other upcoming outcomes of the events in this article. Renaming it accordingly would reflect the broader scope of events. It would also be in line with 2005–06 Thai political crisis and 2008–10 Thai political crisis. (Also, rename again to "2013–14" if the events extend into the next year.) Paul_012 (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Date change is logical. but im not buying your arguement as to why to move it to a crisis? What graduates this from protests to crisis (or eeven uprising). There doesnt seem to be any crisis as the togovernmetn has agreed to dissolve itself and call an election. All things pointing this being legitimate even if there is a boycott (itll jsut delegitimise the oppostion which knows it has no power to enforce change democratically (calling for the military???)). This happened in Lanka before the LTTE were finished. Nothing of crisis then into the election that was stupidly boycotted.(Lihaas (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)).
  • Support: The military is meeting with members of the opposition... The opposition now is calling for an interim government even before the snap elections which have been called. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I believe the term "political crisis" is often used for this kind of situation, where the PM dissolves parliament and calls for new elections. It's obviously not necessarily a "crisis" like a typhoon where thousands of people die. But it's commonly used. A quick check shows that most of the mainstream papers including Economist, Reuters, ABC, Standard, VOA and Statesman have called this a "political crisis." Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Other Issues[edit]

Hi, There don't seem to be many English sources, but the Amnesty Bill was the straw that broke the camel's back... there are other significant issues that led to this protest (voter fraud, disrespect to the king, overall corruption, and a corrupt rice buying scheme to name a few). I've found some links to the IMF where they warn Thailand to stop the rice buying scheme or their currency will collapse, but other than that the news sources are all in Thai. Does anyone know of any THai expat journals or English news sources for the background on this??? Tcxspears (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Asian Correspondent provides Associated Press feeds; notable correspondents include Bangkok Pundit and Saksith Saiyasombut, as well as others. Suggested citation of news in Asian Correspondent, short form from Template:Cite news:
  • Bangkok Pundit.[2]
  • Saksith Saiyasombut & Siam Voices. [3]
  1. ^ Asian Correspondent (News and comments) (Bristol, England: Hybrid News Limited). Associated Press. "BANGKOK (AP) —" 
  2. ^ Bangkok Pundit. Asian Correspondent (News and blogging) (Bristol, England: Hybrid News Limited). 
  3. ^ Saksith Saiyasombut, Siam Voices. Asian Correspondent (News and blogging) (Bristol, England: Hybrid News Limited). 

22rd december protest numbers[edit]

Most news sources either gave low numbers (tens of thousands in all that I saw, but maybe some gave 150 if i recall correctly)

The numbers of millions are solely a version of the protestors and related parties.

Currect version gives huge coverage to this version in a very biased way.

Shuold be fixed as version of prptestors, and made much shorter.

It reads like a lifted page of the PDRC news release! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.144.16 (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The dire condition of the "Post-dissolution of the elected government" section[edit]

I have edited the section named "Post-dissolution of the elected government. An NPOV-section tag has been added and some portions have been removed, such as "since many hard evidences which are in the youtube vedio links are erased from this wikipedia pages many times" along with several YouTube links, in accordance with WP:RSP.

However, this section still needs a major overhaul. The vast majority of statements in the section are without sources and is not structured well like the rest of the article. Please help to fix this page.

--Ab;cd;ef (talk) 05:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are some references. somehow I cannot edit this page, would appreciate unblock for me (I prefer not to edit this politically super sensitive page with my usual handle, BTW)
WSJ article estimating protest to be 150,000 [4]
Thai paper citing Suthep (protest leader) accusing forgien media to reduce protest numbers [5]
thai paper giving protest numbers in the tens of thousands [6]
WSJ coverage of the arguments on the protest numbers [7]
All in all, the current version reads more like a protesters Press release than encyclopedic ProofReading7 (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
One more Thai English report [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProofReading7 (talkcontribs) 13:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

election sabotage section removed. Why?[edit]

It is the stated goal of the protesters to make it impossible to carry out the election plans.

It goes with directly blocking the election committee arena etc. Why has it been removed? ProofReading7 (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The content remains, but the use of the word "sabotage" is laden with negative connotations, so I removed it, as the effectiveness of the section remains without the sub-heading. Also, during the same edit, I removed a section of content written in a non-encyclopedic tone, so it was all part of trying to return the section to a NPOV.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Even the use of words like "block" or "boycott" would be an improvement.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Its also redundant here when it is [rightly] on the election page.(Lihaas (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)).

Neutrality[edit]

Whilst the text of the article itself is relatively neutral, it seems to me sympathetic towards the protesters through the omission of most criticism of the protests. I think there should be two sections at the beginning of the article, one for criticisms of the government and one for criticisms of the protests, that way the rest of the article's content about the actual events can avoid being blurred by political opinions. There is a lot of opposition to the protests which the article does not mention at all, the vast majority of the Thai electorate has voted in the flawed but popular Pheu Thai government repeatedly, and now a significant minority is attempting to overthrow a regime they dislike but which has enough popular support to win elections - inherently undemocratic. The protesters accuse the Pheu Thai government of buying votes - and claims that the majority of its supporters are either bribed or too ignorant to realise what they are voting for. A BBC interview of Pheu Thai supporters clearly shows that many government supporters are offended by this and argue that it is not true. The protesters want an unelected people's council, which has been called fascist and undemocratic by some Thai scholars. I quickly found on Google another article published by a well-regarded newspaper which echoes criticisms of the protests. The BBC reported at one stage that Thai protesters believed that one vote per person system had failed - although I can't find the link to that particular article any more. I don't have a WP:COI - it's not my country and I'm not involved in the protests, but it does appear that this article leans very favourably towards one side. Jr8825Talk 03:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I propose a "timeline"-=like section detailing the evens of the protests and then either a reaction/analysis section later or more background/context and perhaps a separate section on the "goals" of the protests and the counter-protests (which could simple be reactions/responses). Go ahead and Boldly add it.(Lihaas (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)).
It's on my to-do list, but I'm pretty busy at the moment so I don't know when I'll get round to it (I certainly won't be able to give the whole article a run-over soon, maybe I can just clean-up a few sections). The introduction is probably the best place to start, so I'll have a look at it soon - but any help would be appreciated. The Occupy Bangkok stuff is all supposed to kick off tomorrow as well so I'm sure there's going to be a lot more information coming in about the subject. Jr8825Talk 09:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

Quiet agree with the above statement. The opposition voice to the protest is almost ignored. The situation is extremely volatile, with almost every day change of stance and objective making hard to write a balanced and easily readable article. That is why I like the idea of a timeline ( can be on a weekly basis) with for each week two sections pro and anti government perspective.Fredtham59 (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

So I think weve got a resolution and no opposition. When one wants they can change it per this discussion and its unopposed, so im removeing the tag.Lihaas (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I've rewritten the intro to make it shorter, clearer and more readable, I've also added references to make it more neutral. I removed a few weasel words from the background section and transferred some of the detail previously in the introduction further into the article. I'm just about to go and add a sentence to the intro about criticism to the people's council. I'm afraid I haven't penetrated much further into the article than the first two sections and won't be able to do any more over the next few days so if someone else want to take up the mantle... Jr8825Talk 11:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I am going to change "the 2007 constitution of Thailand" to "the heavily criticized 2007 constitution of Thailand". I do not think there is a NPOV issue. It is a obvious fact well detailed on the Wikipedia pages 2007 Constitution of Thailand. Critics are from the international community, Academics, Thai Rak Thai party ( now Pheu Thai) and even the democrat. Also change to the 2007 constitution being the key behind the protest, it will indirectly reflect the point of view of the governement and pro governement without over charging the article which is in the scope of the initial NPOV issue. User:Fredtham59 (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and added 'criticized' + a supporting reference. I didn't go as far as adding heavily because it is obvious that some Democrats support it, because it's already self-explanatory (if it's important enough to mention the criticism the its obviously quite significant) and because I don't want to intro to sound to biased against the protests. Jr8825Talk 23:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Lede too long[edit]

The introduction is two paragraphs too long. It should be four or less, according to WP:LEAD. --71.254.150.87 (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

PDRC gunfight at Lak Si (1st February)[edit]

A cited statement claiming the "PDRC armed men started the gunfight" is false. The article was about the police claiming it - a claim does not mean that it is true. I've even heard news that the red shirts were the ones who started the gunfight. Anonymous people retaliated with guns - these were the ones claimed to be PDRC armed men. Despite that, there were also claims that the armed people were either from a third party or the millitary. Suthep has clearly stated that the democratic movement of the PDRC is done without weapons and PDRCs are not allowed weapons. Therefore should the PDRC really retaliated with weapons or even started the gunfight, they are not members of the PDRC but are impostors of the PDRC. PLEASE REMOVE THE UNPROVED STATEMENT AND OTHER UNPROVEN STATEMENTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.175.120 (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC) --LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you did not wait to reach a concensus and already go ahead with your edit. What you said is a claim is in fact an affirmation "Metropolitan Police Bureau (MPB) deputy chief Pol Maj Gen Adul Narongsak, who was at the crime scene, confirmed that a group of PDRC armed men started the gunfight" " There is solid evidence pointing to their involvement, said caretaker Labour Minister Chalerm Yubamrung"

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/392827/police-accuse-protesters-of-starting-gunfire-at-lak-si.

Furthermore in regard with statement made here and other edit made on the article by LilertoadKhonthai (talk) the WP:NPOV is questionable for this editor.

Fredtham59 (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A statement (PDRC started a gunfight) claimed by the police without evidence is not fact. However, in order to make this article a good one, let us agree that "it is debatable who started the gunfight". Finally, please make sure facts are both sided, because one sided facts can be misleading, despite not being biased. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that your edits came always by 4 in a row with insignificant change. I guess you know well about the WP:3RR. Also although there is no consensus you went ahead, again, without consideration for those who disagree.Fredtham59 (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"Gunshots were fired allegedly from the red-shirts" vs "Metropolitan Police Bureau (MPB) deputy chief Pol Maj Gen Adul Narongsak, who was at the crime scene, confirmed that a group of PDRC armed men started the gunfight".

First a hight ranking police officer making an affirmation as an eyes witness have more weight than allegation. Second on which ground clear accusation made by a policeman who was at the scene is not fact.Furthermore such information is particularly relevant as the protest is labeled as "peaceful". Finally LilertoadKhonthai said "let us agree that "it is debatable who started the gunfight", then went ahead with edit. I did not see anyone agree with this editor. Jeanlepetit (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


Most news in Thai language confirm the police version, gunfight started from PDRC side.49.230.118.12 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


  • A statement (PDRC started a gunfight) claimed by the police without evidence is not fact.

well, account of the events made by reputable foreign journalists confirm police accusation:

According to Kocha Olarn a CNN International's producer in Bangkok "The group of men reached my position and there was only a low cement barrier between us. Suddenly they started firing handguns in the direction of the pro-election protesters. One man carried a large green bag, which looked to conceal a rifle." http://www.smobie.com/en-gb/story/694397/Caught_in_a_gunfight_CNN_producer_s_account_of_Thai_election_violence

Nick Nostitz made a similar account " 16:20 ...One Red Shirt protester was shot in the side of the chest ...16:40 ...I heard an explosion, and then the sound of gunfire" http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2014/02/07/the-laksi-gunfight/

" All of a sudden, I heard the sound of firecrackers being thrown back and forth though I couldn't work out exactly where the noise was coming from. Then -- the sound of a gunshot. I saw pro-election protesters flinch http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/03/world/asia/thai-protests-gunfight-kocha/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.29.229 (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Answer to LilertoadKhonthai (talk) his edit 01:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC) on Events at Phan Fah Bridge[edit]

Whatever there is consensus or not the edit has been reverted to his previous state following wikipedia policies:In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. WP:NOCONSENSUS. If you disagree there is various legal channel to challenge it go ahead. I also strongly recommend you to look at it WP:HARASS Fredtham59 (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Events at Phan Fah Bridge[edit]

I personally find the description of the conflict at Phan Fah Bridge one sided. By one sided I mean it is mainly from the police point of view, referring to one police losing his leg from attempting to kick a grenade and one shot at the head. I fine with these facts and understand that the facts aren't biased, however I feel that this section lacks the facts from the protester point of view, such as the fact that:

  • The protesters were praying (which I have evidence).

“Later, the officers instructed us to leave the area. The protesters resisted the police’s order by sitting down on the road and praying,” Mr Samdin said. (http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/learning-from-news/395639/cmpo-25000-man-police-force-to-retake-5-rally-sites)

The incident started near noon as a typical police operation with officers behind shields slowly moving towards and through protesters, many of whom were praying. - http://www.posttoday.com/%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B5%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%A0%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A9%E0%B8%B2/278550/5-killed-as-violence-stalls-police-operation-to-retake-5-rally-sites

  • That there was a discussion to partially open Ratchadamnoen Klang Road, which the protesters agreed, before the police came back demanding the protesters the leave the area entirely. Bangkok Post Link Above

LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


Soulparadox editing are always extremely neutral so I must disagree that it is "one sided". As a foreigner who have no interest in the conflict I find it extremely down toned as there is a lot of report that point to the protester responsibility over the violence. I suggest to emphases on it. I disagree agree to add the fact that protester was praying as they did it with the only intend to obstruct police as reported by dharma army leader.

Alleged discussion have not be confirmed by other source than PDRC leader. PDRC propaganda ???? Independant sources mention that attempt made by police failed without other details.

Jeanlepetit (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


Actually I also found the description of the conflict quite one-sided, especially the description of casualties and how the police employ their weapons. The text have detail description of police side's casualties, e.g."one police officer was shot in the head and subsequently died.[172]", while in fact there are even more protesters shot dead on site (2 or more), but the text left this facts out which leave the impression that police using only rubber bullets and tear gas, while there are so many photos and vdo clip that clearly shows that police used military weapons, e.g. M16 assault machine gun. On the other hand, I've seen alot of foreigners that are not really understand the situation, or only get info from regular secondary sources, but try to be experts on the situations. So, please be careful on writing something that you don't really understand. 171.99.173.0 (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


Totally agree with Jeanlepetit.

I've seen alot of foreigners that are not really understand the situation, or only get info from regular secondary sources, but try to be experts on the situations. So, please be careful on writing something that you don't really understand.

French TV news reported suthep as saying something very similar on stage. Foreigners editors are perfectly able to understand the situation but might have a different perception inherent to their culture. They have access to quality information free from PDRC, Thai government and business advertisers interference. Fredtham59 (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


I agree with anonymous contributer 171.99.173. The fact that you are a foreigner does not mean you have a better understanding of the situation in Thailand than thai people. User:Fredtham59 User:Jeanlepetit If you wish us to stop making references to the PDRC, please also stop making reference to the police or any member of the Parliament and remove any other statements claimed by police. This is because the police aren't neutral, they are allied with the government which opposes the PDRC. Any claims by a member of the police are as possibly "biased" as the PDRC. As for the praying, I have images showing that and the protesters were definitely praying. You may say that that fact is insignificant, I believe that it is significant because we must make sure that the readers of this article know all the facts to make judgement - whether the PDRC or the Government are right. Without facts supporting the PDRC this article is literally condemning the PDRC as the villain. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


According to Fredtham59,"Foreigners editors are perfectly able to understand the situation but might have a different perception inherent to their culture. They have access to quality information free from PDRC, Thai government and business advertisers interference." If that's the case, why this article still says that police use only rubber bullets and tear gases, while even CNN showed VDO clips that have police using military weapons with demonstrators. Intentionally omitting some critical facts could also be considered as misleading in Thai culture (may not be in French, perhaps). 171.99.173.0 (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


I couldn't care less as Soulparadox (talk) wrote entirely the edit you mention. Go to ask him, สลิ่ม.Fredtham59 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


User:Soulparadox, I really liked how you simplified the section regarding the conflict at Phan Fah Bridge and agreed that most of the content you removed was unclear and unnessessary. However, since your version only contained the facts from the police point of view (how one got shot in the head and how one injured his leg from kicking the grenade), and lacks the facts from the protester point of view, I find this section quite one sided. Some facts that were missed out and could make section two sided, were the two facts User:LilertoadKhonthai have bullet pointed. By two sided I mean that the section gives facts from both points of view and allow the readers to excersise judgement whether which side is right or wrong. 171.99.173.0 (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way Fredtham59, you did mention "Foreigners editors are perfectly able to understand the situation but might have a different perception inherent to their culture. They have access to quality information free from PDRC, Thai government and business advertisers interference." wasn't it? The statement seemed to conveyed to me directly that whatever the Foreignners editors reported must have been the only truth we accepted, in which I totally disagreed based on the ratinale I earlier provided, ขี้ข้า. 171.99.173.0 (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


I do not own the page, but try and do my best with diction, tone, syntax, and grammar. In terms of verifiability, I removed sections that were based on subjective accounts, rather than those provided by the news articles (incl. accounts within those articles), but I may have made mistakes. So, I am more than happy to continue collaborating on the page. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


I am also not blaming your editing. I just would like to ask if it is ok to add the fact that the protesters were praying into the section since like the anonymous contributor 171.99.173.0 I find the section one sided, LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


As previously explained, I have tried to base my contributions on the content of media reports only, rather than anecdotal content (even if people have spoken with the media). I understand that the media can be biased, but—in accordance with Wikipedia principles—such an addition is reasonable if a suitable and reputable citation is inserted to support the content. Also, I repeat, I am not the arbiter of this page and any mistakes I have made should be corrected. The page may also contain excessive detail due to my edits—I will try to review this as well. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


I agree with the fact that evidence that is told or claimed by someone may not be reliable, but in this case I also have photographic evidence that shows that the protesters were praying. I will post it as a link since I am not sure if it will break any wikipedia copyright issues. http://www.bangkokpost.com/media/content/20140218/597428.jpg LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC) PS. Your english volcabluary was a bit too difficult, I had to look it up on the online dictionary.


There should be a Bangkok Post article with that image, so you should revise the article.--Soulparadox (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


(http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/learning-from-news/395639/cmpo-25000-man-police-force-to-retake-5-rally-sites) it is quoted by the Mr. Samdin though, but it is backed up by photographic evidence. 61.91.144.100 (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC) I wrote that I just forgot to log in LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


I assume that we have reached a consensus since User:Soulparadox mentioned that it is ok to add the fact that the protesters were praying as long as it is cited with a reliable source. I have photographic evidence from Bangkok Post. Therefore I shall go ahead with the edit and only User:Soulparadox is the one who should be the only one to undo it. If you, Soulparadox still find it a bad idea to put the fact in, do let me know and we shall continue to sort this out in this section of the talk page. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


Prior to assume that we have reached a consensus, you should understand it's rules WP:CONS and then might understand that there is NO CONSENSUS. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by User:Soulparadox own views about what is the most appropriate.

Lets look at what I disagree:

By one sided I mean it is mainly from the police point of view, referring to one police losing his leg from attempting to kick a grenade and one shot at the head.

It is not a police point of view, but a pure fact, no more no less.

Later, the officers instructed us to leave the area. The protesters resisted the police’s order by sitting down on the road and praying, Mr Samdin said.

I also invite both of you LilertoadKhonthai , 171.99.173.0 to carefully read the following WP:CIVIL as it will certainly help to find an acceptable solution.

For the following reason :

  • Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of WP:DISRUPT
  • A lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.WP:CONS

I will revert your last editing and keep User:Soulparadox version as we apparently all agree, to a certain extend, with it.Fredtham59 (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


It is highly likely that I am not the most experienced copyeditor in this discussion—and I am still working through Wikipedia's policies, etc.—so I am more than happy to follow the lead of someone with greater expertise.--Soulparadox (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


A neutral article or section must not cling to a general idea or message ("Violent PDRC protesters defy and attack police" in this case). You, User:Fredtham59 are clinging to this point and denying all facts that contradict to this. A fact does not need to be claimed by many reputable sources to be a fact as long as it has a strong supporting evidence. In this case I have photographic evidence and I can show you more if you want. I can also add the fact as a quote if you want but it is unnecessary since there is strong proof that the protesters were really praying. You also claimed the fact that how the police lost a leg and got shot by the head is legitimate: I respect that. But you are making the PDRC looking like villain in this section by hiding a counterweight fact from the readers. I therefore find this article one sided (not biased). If you still don't get my point, please let me know and I will explain it with more detail. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Fredtham one more thing, you said

I couldn't care less as Soulparadox (talk) wrote entirely the edit you mention. Go to ask him, สลิ่ม.Fredtham59 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You implied that you have little to do with this and I should talk to Soulparadox instead of you, yet you intervened when we have almost reached a consensus. Why did you intervene if you "couldn't care less"? LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


" You implied..."

Agree with you if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential like the context. To clarify, it was my answer to "Argumentum ad hominem" comments made previously.

From now on, I consider the topic "argumentum ad nauseam". The edit will stay as it is according to wikipedia rules (Cf. my edit 07:51, 28 February 2014). Feel free to open procedures to have the issue sorted out.

Thanks to all for your time and patience. Best Regards, Fredtham59 (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


You claimed that there is no consensus because not everyone agrees, then there is no consensus in the PDRC gunfight at Lak Si either. I do not agree with that, and I dont think the anonymous contributor 171.99.173/175 agrees either since he started the issue. Please also explain what those French words mean and why cling to the idea of "Violent PDRC protesters defy police order and attack police". Let us argue with reason. Thank you. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Not French but Latin. Most users with sufficient English skill will understand. Do your homework using Google.

Khunthaibkk (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Fredtham 59 follow rules, you ignore or adapt them to suit your own agenda.Khunthaibkk (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Fredtham59 You still did not explain why cling to the idea of PDRC protesters defy police order, and if you do cling to this idea, why disagree about putting in the fact? LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

We have reached concensus on my talk page. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

your edit suggest that police attacked praying protester by firing at them. The news you mentioned said " The police operation at Phan Fah began with officers moving slowly forward. There was pushing but little violence. PATTARACHAI PREECHAPANICH " "The incident started near noon as a typical police operation with officers behind shields slowly moving towards and through protesters, many of whom were praying."

Also the news you cited did not said anything about the reasons that prompted the police to fire rubber bullet, fortunately an other article from the bangkok post do http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/395788/4-killed-64-hurt-in-city-clean-up-clash . It said :"But the situation deteriorated when a large number of protesters attempted to obstruct the police operation, prompting officers to fire tear gas and rubber bullets at them. As the police advanced from Ratchadamnoen Klang to Ratchadamnoen Nok Avenue, they were targeted by bomb blasts and gunshots, prompting the officers to retreat and call off the dispersal operation. Back to the news you mentioned it said :"Then, once again, there was a sudden attack by unknown gunmen. Speculation is high that one of the attackers was the so called 'popcorn' gunman seen firing a gun through a corn sack at Laksi intersection on Feb 1, 2014." We agree to add that protester are praying, but some change are needed, I will modified your edit in a wikipedia way: neutral using cited news.Fredtham59 (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with that, as long as the facts of the protesters were praying remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.173.0 (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

BBC CLIP[edit]

According to cited news: http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/396382/blast-clips-spark-accusations-confusion


That is the version of the democrat and protesters, it is not my own interpretation but from the article itself:

Some observers in the Democrat Party and the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) appeared to confuse this blast with BBC footage of another explosion. They said CNN's footage tells a different story from footage captured by the BBC in a report by the British broadcaster's Bangkok-based correspondent Jonathan Head.

That is the newspaper conclusion:

However, the BBC clip clearly shows footage of a different explosion. The BBC clip showed a grenade was thrown at police lines from where the protesters were situated.

Confusion is about the protester and democrat version, not the content of the BBC video clip.Fredtham59 (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood, yet I still disagree with adding an unconfirmed fact into the article. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That you disagree is not a surprise, you never do. A fact is something that has been confirmed, how a fact can be unconfirmed ? A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven.

  • Policemen get injured by grenade is a proven fact.
  • The existence of the BBC video clip showing a grenade hurling from the protester line at police is a proven fact.
  • The content of the BBC video clip is confirmed by the bangkok post itself. It is a proven fact.
  • The editing of the CNN clip made it unclear how much time had elapsed between the two shots.It is a proven fact.
  • CNN reporter Saima Mohsin did not say where the grenade was thrown from in her report.It is a proven fact.
  • Democrats and PDRC saying that A CNN clip contradict the BBC clip is a claim not a proven fact.
  • Futhermore The bangkok post confirmed that however, the BBC clip clearly shows footage of a different explosion.It is a proven fact.

If you can convince me with proven fact that there is good reasons to remove the disputed content, I will do.Fredtham59 (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No doubt on the outcome fredtham59 reasoning is unbeatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khunthaibkk (talkcontribs) 20:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Fredtham59 (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)is right. He has serious references to cite. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)disagree .but did not support his claim. Lets give him few days more.Alfasxp07 (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Princess Chulaporn's photo interpretation[edit]

It's quite an enormous claim to say that she supports PDRC, so should there be enough concrete evidence more than speculation and interpretation to make this claim stand? The current reference is at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thai-princess-uses-social-media-to-declare-war-photos-posted-by-princess-chulabhorn-mahidol-widely-interpreted-as-a-sign-of-her-support-for-antigovernment-protesters-9122267.html, which does not sound very firm for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biglobster (talkcontribs) 13:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I will not comment on the content but technically: Help:Introduction to referencing/1

  • a reliable source must be able to support the material. that is the case.[[9]]
  • Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources.Pavin Chachavalpongpun, associate professor at Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, Japan [[10]]
  • "Widely interpreted" means there is a large consensus. Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 16:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Wikipedia's policy, but the word "interpreted" itself already implies that the fact might not be the same as it seems to be. I feel like the first source does not directly support the claim, as it shows no evidence rather than "experts" comments and conjectures. The latter one was self-published by an associate professor, it is far from an academic publication. --Biglobster (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


I personally get bored to have to argue with Thai idiots. Content already deleted why do you still need to argue about it ???? Kwai Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 21:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thank you for Wikipedia's author spirit.--Biglobster (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


User:Fredtham59, please remember to assume good faith WP:FAITH and have some respect for Thais, that this is a Thai political crisis. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Royal family member's status of Juljerm[edit]

I would like to dispute the claim that Mom Jao Juljerm is a part of Thai Royal Family's member. His great-grandfather is Chulalongkorn, who is the grandfather of the current King of Thailand Bhumibol, which makes him a far relative of the King rather than a family. --Biglobster (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


"Members of the royal family" in this article, is preceded by a wikipedia link Royal family that said: In some cases, royal family membership may extend to great grandchildren and more distant descendants of a monarch.


I am disputing the claim in Thai version too. The word in Thai cannot map directly to English. For example, the word "พระราชวงศ์" mentioned there can be translated as "royal family", but it actually means close family of the King in Thai, which obviously excludes Mom Jao. The point is that there is no clear boundary for the English word "royal family", and I suggest using the common definition of the word "family" here, which typically does not include far relatives. --Biglobster (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
My edit that you undid was about "Mom Rajawongse Prediyathorn", which is not what I am disputing here and you seems to agree that he is a commoner so please edit back. --Biglobster (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Lets wait few days and see what others editors have to say about both issues Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 15:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the phrase "some members of the royal family" is misleading. It is extremely so the way it is currently included in the infobox. Readers might come away with the impression that some of the King's immediate family are implicitly supporting the protest, which is grossly inaccurate. This is worsened by the fact that this isn't even discussed in the article body. I'd strongly suggest that it be removed from the infobox altogether, since these are only certain individuals whose status as royalty is not significant in the wider scheme of things. If the individuals are mentioned in the article body, they should probably be described as minor royals. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I will not comment on the content but technically: Help:Introduction to referencing/1

  • a reliable source must be able to support the material. that is the case.[[11]]
  • Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources.Pavin Chachavalpongpun, associate professor at Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, Japan [[12]]
  • "Widely interpreted" means there is a large consensus. Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 16:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That said, in regard with Paul_012 (talk) greater experience, I agree to lets him make change as he seems necessary once the topic is considered closed. Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 16:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Relocation of content[edit]

(Also concerns User:Fredtham59) I strongly suggest that we try our best to keep the content of the section "Timeline of events" as chronological as possible. Some content in the section continued violence, the most recent section, regards events dating back to Janurary. The event of the protesters hitting someone with a brick on the head is the same as an event that was already mentioned earlier in the article. The content can be found in the occupation of Bangkok section but is about a protester shot in the abdomen. The protesters attacked the alleged gunman, leading to hitting the head with a brick incident (some may say that the protesters attacked first I think it's best too add both claims). I think it is best to add details there rather than writing about it separately. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead. Between a version from a general article and a version related exclusively to the shooting with a lot of details of what happened, the last one is obviously more accurate with police version and 2 independent witness. I will not discuss any further on the issue. For the time line concern it has not and cannot be always respected: "Assault case puts spotlight on PDRC" is a recent news, although some mentioned fact are older that the main article itself. I only mentioned a very few. More generally, I think that to add a section " continued violence" and it's insignificant content in regards with what is at stake was a stupid idea and that the whole section should be deleted. Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 14:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I must say that I do not agree. It is not fair to say which part is more reliable than another. I do agree with including both claims though. I also would like to say that you always provide one sided claims that make the PDRC look bad. If you look at my monk assulting section, I included both claims by the monk and the PRDG protester. I am planning on changing the section name to "post election invalidation/events leading up to 29 march rally" (we can agree on a good name) and include the events after the election invalidation and have all violence prior to election invalidation moved to their respective points in the timeline of events. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

That you disagree is not a news, you never..., so unless there is a consensus later on the matter, I will revert the edit to it's original state in accordance with wiki rules :

A lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.WP:CONS.Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 15:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hidden agenda: Royal Succession[edit]

I got an undo for this. I am not sure which reliable source the user Fredtham59 think is backing this claim, but I guess it is from Pavin in http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Commentary/2014/Jan-17/244284-what-is-really-behind-the-thai-political-protests.ashx#axzz2xHL24YdY , which I do not see it as really reliable based on WP:SOURCE. It is very opinionated, from an activist against lese majeste law in Thailand published in an online article describing events in Thailand from a local newspaper in Lebanon. As the burden of proof is an obligation of the writer, I would like to discuss whether you could find a concrete reliable source for this claim in respect of WP:EXCEPTIONAL on all of the basis listed there. --Biglobster (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • The editor responsible for this edit and that you should contact is Alfasxp07.
  • Cited news not only limited to the dailystar but Reuters completed and confirmed by asian times online, The diplomat ... and much more by other non cited reliable sources but easily found by any editors of good faith.
  • Cited news do respect sufficiently WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:SOURCE to have your edit undo.

Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 17:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


Highly reputable french news confirm Alfasxp07 edit:

[[13]] "The crisis of royal succession in the heart of the conflict / La crise de succession royale, au coeur du conflit "

[[14]] "the leader of the protest, Suthep Thaugsuban, actually aims at restoring a strong monarchy where elites would keep the keys of power, after several electoral defeats of their old Democratic Party. / le leader de la contestation, Suthep Thaugsuban, vise en réalité à rétablir une monarchie forte où les élites garderaient les clés du pouvoir, après plusieurs défaites électorales de leur vieux Parti démocrate.62.4.8.228 (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I find the material irrelevant and has little to do with a crisis involving the PDRC and the Yingluvk government. I strongly believe that it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.55.43.56 (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If there is really any concrete evidence to support that there is such 'hidden agenda', it would be very notably appropriate to put it there. However, it is impossible to convert opinion to a fact. The hidden agenda claiming is quite controversial and contradiction to the fact in many way. For example, red shirt also show supports the crown prince http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26904622. The claim that he is unpopular has also been since a long time back then even before Thailand knows Thaksin. I'll come back with more issues of the claim but Happy Songkran Day for now and for all. --Biglobster (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Because of the strict Lèse majesté in Thailand it might be controversial in Thailand but not in western country where freedom of speech is respected.The edit I made is widely discussed and analised which is not the case in Thailand.

Request for strong evidence is just insane because of that law that oblige even journalist and news agency to act with extreme caution. Even some wikipedia editors who plan to visit thailand one day must restrain themselves on such topics, fortunately I am not concern. Thai national as biglobster that show strong opinion by systematically opening dispute for any topics related to the royal family here and on the thai version, know well about it.

Other related than those already cited from reputable journalist, academics, analyst, specialist .....including primary and secondary sources that show that is more than a widespread opinion but fact:

" While public attention focuses on Yingluck, the real battle behind the scenes involves ..."

The Daily Beast enjoy a high reputation and won a Webby Award for "Best News Site" in 2012 and 2013.

"The leaders of the 100,000-odd protesters who blocked some of Bangkok’s key intersections Sunday are said by knowledgeable political analysts to be deeply involved in not just a battle for political primacy but for control of the looming succession of the country’s monarchy."

http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/bangkok-uneasy-calm-masks-succession-struggle/ "The public power struggle is nominally an attempt to use protests and possible court rulings to oust Thaksin’s sister, Yingluck, from her job as Prime Minister. And while that is certainly true, the top elites – royals, bankers, property magnates and others are said to have a much deeper agenda. They are believed to be aligned with the popular Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn; those backing Thaksin have aligned with the crown prince, Vajiralongkorn, who is regarded as both pliable and widely unpopular. Control of the monarchy means control not only of presumed moral authority but also the Crown Property Bureau, which is worth billions and holds vast amounts of Bangkok real estate"

Asia Sentinel is an other reputable news publisher

"Part of the urgency Suthep is showing is due to this fear that a Thaksinite government will be in power when the king passes away and that will allow the Thaksinite government to play some leading role in managing the transition.”

by Dr Michael J. Montesano a specialist on economic and political change in Southeast Asia. He has undertaken research on Thailand for more than twenty years and written widely about developments there.

"The protests of the past few days are just a struggle for dominance of the country's political system after the succession to the throne," says an expert who declined to be identified in the media citing lèse-majesté law"

By Deutsche Welle a highly reputable news.

"Whoever is Prime Minister as the moment of transition approaches will have the power to determine the rules governing the succession...Fear of this development drives the persistence of those who want the current government removed...If the current government is replaced by one supported by opposition leader Suthep Thaugsuban and his “yellow shirts”, the new government can rewrite the rules of monarchical succession to allow another candidate to ascend the throne"

From an other reputable editors The American Interest and contributor Walter Russell Mead.Contributors to the journal are predominantly already established (rather than up-and-coming) commentators known for their expertise in international affairs, global strategy, and military matters.

"the reins of the Thai monarchy depends on the outcome of the current power struggle"

This might be true, but it doesn't imply hidden agenda. Thongchai is also another one who is actively against lese majeste law. --Biglobster (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

By Thongchai Winichakula Professor of Southeast Asian History at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Winichakul was named to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2003.

"This is all about the succession to the throne," said one source with close connections to the army high command who wished to remain anonymous. "Factions inside the palace, the army and the Democrat Party are concerned about what will happen after the succession. They think that Thaksin will be in control of all of Thailand because of his links to the crown prince. The generals are frightened by that. It would mean the end of the traditional elite."

South China Morning Post. The author is the The Daily Telegraph Asia Correspondent

"Thailand’s traditional ruling elite, who closely associate themselves with the monarchy, oppose Thaksin because they resent losing influence to a popularly elected leader.They are uneasy about what will happen when the king dies, and whether Thaksin could influence the succession"

You forgot the prefix "Others claim that...". I wonder who? They might mean Pavin. --Biglobster (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


"What's going on behind the scenes? ...The royal succession is absolutely central to the ongoing conflict"

Andrew MacGregor Marshall Reuteurs journalist for 17 years.

"The unspoken backdrop to all this is the coming royal succession."


Alfasxp07 (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your sources. I wish I could see something beyond analysis and conjecture, which is WP:PRIMARY , because they seems to know very well what's going on behind the scenes without providing any evidence. To tell one's purpose or agenda, we need at least some actions, Suthep's in this case, to identify his agenda no matter hidden or not, which is not nothing near the lese majesty law violation and those analysts failed to provide one. If we are going to put all 'hidden agenda' here, it would be a mess. Consider putting Phue Thai's hidden agenda for helping Thaksin, Suthep's hidden agenda to help Democrats winning the election after reform, and the list goes on. It is very impossible to dispute one's claim like those where there's no data to dispute, as the analysis based on pure credibility of the analyst. Please do not invoke WP:PERSONAL here, you might say I like disputing claim and not limited to royal-related issues, I just always run into problem when I fix ones. You might put 'some analyst' said, and provides the reliable sources or some analysts who are free of conflict of interest, but I will dispute factual claim of that as long as no evidence or any data provided. --Biglobster (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There is enough relevant materials for a full paragraph. Dispute few lines is totally unjustified. Wiki rules are entirely respected. Khunthaibkk (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Biglobster, there is a difference between fact and a comment from an academic. 27.55.39.86 (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


Following an obvious WP:PUPPET by 27.55.39.86 and 27.55.43.56 and the possible involvement of a third user sharing the same view, I will request investigation of possible sockpuppetry, including requests for CheckUser intervention for those 3 accounts.

http://www.domaintools.com/research/traceroute/?query=27.55.43.56 http://www.domaintools.com/research/traceroute/?query=27.55.39.86

Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 02:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you do not waste your time, but I am afraid my suggestion is also waste of time. Those IPs are not identifying themselves as two different person, and they do not response to the same content so they might be very same person without violating anything. When the investigation completed, DO tell the result here that no persons in this discussion, especially me, are related to those IPs. --Biglobster (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

An excellent primary sources is a video interview part of a documentary by Vice News, entitled “Bangkok Rising - Is Thailand on the Brink of Civil War?” The documentary is still available on YouTube. 

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3917

"Suthep is only the figurehead. I'm fighting the one who is really behind the mob. You know the meaning, right?"  After a pause, he asks the reporter if she understands the implication of his gesture. He then says the name of the alleged de facto leader of the anti-government protest."

Police warn that those who share Red Shirt leader’s video will be charged with lese majeste so you will have to find the link to the video by yourself. http://2bangkok.com/pm-yingluck-orders-police-to-investigate-red-shirt-leader-for-lese-majeste-remarks.html

Although it seems to me that Wikipedia regulations are well respected, under the current circumstance, lese majeste law that treat with up to 15 years jail direct comment on the issue, WP:COMMON and WP:IGNORE  should apply.Jeanlepetit (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the source. That one was quite a big stir in Thai social media so I have watched it already. I really respect him to say what he believes to be true, but he is obviously on the opposite side of Suthep and involves directly in the conflict so it is WP:NOTRELIABLE on the ground of conflict of interest. Anyway, even he went that far and is taking his toll by violating lese majeste law, he provided no evidence, no witness and no explanation where he did get this information from, which would be very useful and really get us to somewhere. I do not think we can apply WP:IGNORE lightly for WP:EXCEPTIONAL conspiracy theory like this, the burden of proof still belong to the writer and if one cannot provide related stuff so it is impossible to prove, or disprove, that there is such thing no matter what the limitation one may claim there is. Lese majeste law does not automatically imply that there is really something left unsaid or undiscovered that can support the claim. --Biglobster (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Fredtham59 The user 27.55.43.56/27.55.39.86 is me, just through a different device while I was on vacation. Me and Biglobster are not related to each other. Therefore stop wasting time coming up with theories regarding puppetry since I can also suspect that you, Jeanlepetit, Khunthaibkk and Alfasxp07 are the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.173.0 (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I am thank you for your support. I suggest we do not object him and let him do what he wants as long as it is not disrupting the discussion. The worst thing that will happen is that he just wastes his precious time, and I wonder if his action really complies to WP:AGF as he did not even give you a chance to identify yourself. Anyway, please consider registering for a login so we can recognise who you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biglobster (talkcontribs) 03:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


I was not thinking about Biglobster but an other single edit signed twice at PDRC gunfight at Lak Si by 171.99.175.120 and LilertoadKhonthai and bingo who show up :

http://www.domaintools.com/research/traceroute/?query=171.99.173.0 http://www.domaintools.com/research/traceroute/?query=171.99.175.120

According to Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Editing_while_logged_out, as long as he does not tell you he is a different person, it is not a sock puppetry. Wiki sessions expires are common and sometimes people forgot to check on that. That's why you should ask him to identify himself first but maybe it is too late already. --Biglobster (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:MEAT A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 12:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Do identify who is your suspect for WP:MEAT here. I am sure nobody here is protected by lese majeste law.


Discussion closed for me. A majority obviously agree with the edit. Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 03:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Do care WP:VOTE. Majority is not the reason to end the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biglobster (talkcontribs) 04:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


If you do not listen and do not try to find consensus, you are wasting everyone's time WP:LAME.

With all links provided on the article and talk page : You have been proven wrong.

  • Then you mentioned WP:EXCEPTIONAL , so let see at all it's aspect :

- "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources":

With all links provided by reputable and different news the claim is covered by multiple mainstream sources: You have been proven wrong.

I accept your counterargument. --Biglobster (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

-"challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources (WP:PRIMARY are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved and that may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care,) or those with an apparent conflict of interest":

The claim is supported by one or two primary sources. There is no self-published sources and on all links summited, very few might be considered as an apparent conflict of interest. Most link provided are WP:3PARTY or secondary sources( WP:SECONDARY provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them ).

- "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended".

There is not such things within the materials provided.

I accept my mistake. I read the guideline wrong. --Biglobster (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

- "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them".

Which community are we speaking about:

- Thai community, there is no conspiracy to silence them but a very harsh Lèse majesté.The law is considered draconian, used to clamp down on any critical perspective about Thai institutions. There is hundreds articles that said it !

- The foreign community: With all links provided by reputable and different news the claim is covered by multiple mainstream sources. The claim did not contradict the prevailing view within.

If now your point is to say that Alfasxp07 did not choose the best link for his edit, I totally agree, and I will push to suggest him for new links to better illustrate his edit; If Your point is to have it simply removed my conclusion is as follow :

Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. There are editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on even when there are proven wrong, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process. You wanna play that game, so do it alone Biglobster. Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 12:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

PS: I replied to your claim above for the one I accepted. --Biglobster (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your lengthy post, I will try to go one by one. First, you argue that the source is WP:SECONDARY, and you might be superior than me to identify the source. So please tell, for example, in this link http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/thailand-on-the-brink/2/ that which part is secondary for the "hidden agenda" claim, and which part is primary? I assume there must be primary source in there because, to my humble knowledge, secondary source always based on primary source. Correct me if I got anything wrong. --Biglobster (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I confirm that you get it wrong. "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter" WP:THIRDPARTY. Third party are considered by Wikipedia as the highest level of all sources and primary the lowest.

Mark Fenn is a British journalist based in Bangkok. He has written for publications including the Times of London, The Independent, South China Morning Post and the Far East Economic Review. Except in his reporter capacity he is not involved in the conflict. This is not a press release and there is no WP:COI. As he is the sole author of the "hidden agenda" part, it is a Third party sources, highly valuable according to Wikipedia. Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 17:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like your explicit confirmation here that you are asserting that Mark Fenn's publication is a reliable source that qualified enough to be one, or one among other sources, to support "hidden agenda: royal succession" statement as a fact. --Biglobster (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
For the relevant community, I am not sure I get your point. This is about Thai politics so by WP:COMMON the relevant community is obviously Thai community and the contradiction stands. We are all people, and we all do have thought. --Biglobster (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."

  • The claim of an hidden agenda is the mainstream from news so in no way it do alter the mainstream assumption.

Now about the relevant community I am sure that there is nothing to do about the nationality of those directly involved as Wikipedia do care only about the sources reliability and cited example are scientist community, medical community....

  • The political community should be the most appropriate but it is just a local conflict with no great interest and consequence for the rest of the world so at this stage the journalist community from reputable institutions with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, seems the most appropriate when it come to a such topics.Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 17:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
To make a milestone, I would like your explicit confirmation here that your assertion is that the relevant community specified in WP:EXCEPTIONAL in this context is, at this point, not Thai community, political community, or Thai political community at all, but the relevant party is journalist community from reputable institutions with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. My interpretation might be a bit inaccurate so please fix it to make it match your POV. --Biglobster (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


  • To quote a famous saying: "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." Biglobster above is a perfect example of pounding the table.
  • Biglobster do master Wikipedia policy but ignore talk page discussions and yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material and by doing so be guilty of WP:DISRUPT.Here is the proof: [[15]]

It confirm what I said previously: There are editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on even when there are proven wrong, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process. You wanna play that game, so do it alone Biglobster.

I invite other editors to not argue with the crustacean, he is the one who open the dispute,he is the one who deliberately ignore the rules, so if he want to go further he can use legal channel offered by Wikipedia to have it resolved. From now on, I consider the topic "argumentum ad nauseam" Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 21:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulation Fred Tham, you have finally reached the bottom of the Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. I removed the citation because I thought we reached the consensus on the smaller part that Pavin is in the conflict of interest and his opinion should not be taken as a reliable source, or did anyone object me on that ground? Again I feel WP:AGF and WP:PERSONAL are not respected here extensively and my action has been judged without discussing what I did and why I did that. The last edit was my attention to make it clear for your POV so we can continue on that milestone instead of editing this big discussion, but I guess my attempt was a failure.
My last negotiation is, remove the content or make the statement as an opinion instead of fact. If this is not acceptable, so I guess it would leave me no choice. Kindly note that editors who refuse to discuss might be perceived as WP:DISRUPT instead the one who are trying to do so with WP:CIVILITY. Thank you for your compliment about me mastering the rules anyway, but actually I am not and I did accept my mistake above already. --Biglobster (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

AsFar as I know, I do not give any mandate to anyone to act as my representative. I followed the conversation with great interest and did not notice any mention of --Biglobster (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)the edit you made or any consensus on the cited mater. Also on which ground and authority do you consider fredtham as your sole detractor. From now on, keep in mind that both of you are not the only party involvedl. I will have a look at your proposal and inform all editors on the outcome. Take it as a personal attack if you wish, but biglobster, you are totally direspectful and deeply lack of honesty and forwardness.Jeanlepetit (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry If I jumped to a wrong conclusion and wrong action, and I didn't mean to. If you are going to review, please take your time review status of Pavin as well. I hope it is clear that the discussion is to find out and discuss whether content and citation belongs there and how should it be stated, not to prove that I am right or wrong. I am not sure which part of the discussion show my disrespectful, dishonesty and lack of forwardness? If you reply me here, I won't take it as WP:PERSONAL but it's up to you. --Biglobster (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Respect my vote !Khunthaibkk (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but at this point only your opinion counts, not your vote. You can open a vote if you like, but do give some more opinion if you would have any. --Biglobster (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion if it would continue, I got few points to assert after all if it was not clear:

  • Pavin is a reliable source or not? I assert he got conflict of interest, so his opinion is too bias to take it as a neutral one.
  • This is WP:EXCEPTIONAL or not? I assert that it is, due to current prevailing view in Thai community. Though Fred Tham asserted that the "relevant view" in this context is not Thai community, but the relevant party is "journalist community from reputable institutions with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Again, correct me if my conclusion of your comment is wrong.
  • This is an opinionated piece, or a fact? I have been asserting since the beginning that it is opinionated and conjecture, and should comply to WP:YESPOV "Avoid stating opinion as fact."
  • Can we take those author's publication e.g. Mark Fenn, regarding "hidden agenda" as a statement of fact? I did say no, but I do not have any replies on this matter yet.
  • If this is all has been fixed, is it still belong to the top of the page? Because we have not reached the consensus of all issues, so this is to be discussed later.

If I forgot to mention anyone's point regarding to the issues above, feel free to put it in. --Biglobster (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I have seen enough of these arguments (including Lak Si gunfight, Phan Fah Bridge, Royal status) to conclude that you, Fred Tham (especially), Jeanlepetit and Khunthaibkk are using Wikipedia rules (quoting them like lawyers in a court) to hinder and take advantage of other editors. 171.99.173.0 (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Pavin is a reliable source or not? I assert he got conflict of interest, so his opinion is too bias to take it as a neutral one."

  • COI and BIAS because he has led a campaign from outside the country to modify Thailand’s draconian lèse-majesté law ? WOW, there is no much left in the western world as that law is widely considered as insane. But let's say that I agree, do my edit is about the law 112: NO !
His position can be advanced easily if he can assert and make people believe that there is more and more things left unsaid because of lese majesty law, don't you think so? --Biglobster (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"This is WP:EXCEPTIONAL or not? I assert that it is, due to current prevailing view in Thai community."

  • Wiki do give examples, all are professionals field community so between a professional community and an ethnic one I confirm that the professional one is appropriate. The journalist community from reputable institutions with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is a good one.
  • The Thai community is directly concerned by the conflict and according to thai and foreign news deeply divided, there is serious issues with BIAS, NPOV, COI within the community.
I have one counterargument question. Pavin is Thai. Does he also subject to bias, NPOV and COI? --Biglobster (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The WP:EXCEPTIONAL also did not say that prevailing view or the community must be neutral and non-biased.
  • You assert that " the idea of a hidden agenda" is against a prevailing view in Thai community, on which ground ?
Before I explain my assert, I have one request. As you propose "hidden agenda" word, please explain why the agenda is called "hidden agenda." Who is hiding it and hiding it from whom? --Biglobster (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"This is an opinionated piece, or a fact? I have been asserting since the beginning that it is opinionated and conjecture, and should comply to WP:YESPOV "Avoid stating opinion as fact."

Sorry but I failed to see which part of that essay tells that WP:THIRDPARTY = fact, especially third-party opinion and/or analysis. Could you probably point it out for me? --Biglobster (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Can we take those author's publication e.g. Mark Fenn, regarding "hidden agenda" as a statement of fact? I did say no, but I do not have any replies on this matter yet."

  • On the diplomat article that you dispute there are paragraphs (paragraph is a self-contained unit of a discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea) the first one is about the "hidden agenda" by Mark Fenn a reputable journalist working for a reputable agency with editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. So yes it is a fact.
Sorry to repeat your word, but do you mean any text publish by a reputable journalist working for a reputable agency with editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking can be cited as a fact? or do you mean any text about "hidden agenda" publish by a reputable journalist working for a reputable agency with editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking can be cited as a fact? --Biglobster (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Alfasxp07 (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)



For clarity, please follow the time line and do not make edit between other previous edits. Here are the new questions you added after I responded to those you previously made.

  • His position can be advanced easily if he can assert and make people believe that there is more and more things left unsaid because of lese majesty law, don't you think so? --Biglobster (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have one counterargument question. Pavin is Thai. Does he also subject to bias, NPOV and COI? --Biglobster (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The WP:EXCEPTIONAL also did not say that prevailing view or the community must be neutral and non-biased.

  • Sorry but I failed to see which part of that essay tells that WP:THIRDPARTY = fact, especially third-party opinion and/or analysis. Could you probably point it out for me? --Biglobster (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC
  • Sorry to repeat your word, but do you mean any text publish by a reputable journalist working for a reputable agency with editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking can be cited as a fact? or do you mean any text about "hidden agenda" publish by a reputable journalist working for a reputable agency with editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking can be cited as a fact? --Biglobster (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Before I explain my assert, I have one request. As you propose "hidden agenda" word, please explain why the agenda is called "hidden agenda." Who is hiding it and hiding it from whom? --Biglobster (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

And here a previous question that I choose to not answer:

  • If this is all has been fixed, is it still belong to the top of the page? Because we have not reached the consensus of all issues, so this is to be discussed later.

Also since the start there was only one question ( put it into balance with the numerous one you made)and you set condition to give an answer.Enough is enough, you are going to far !!! From now on, I agree with fredtham edit:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013%E2%80%9314_Thai_political_crisis&diff=604505968&oldid=604488009 and admit that I should have follow his wise advice ! Alfasxp07 (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

If it is for "hidden agenda" definition, I did not set the condition. I just want to make sure what your "hidden agenda" means so we don't waste our time arguing on different ground. Can I take it that you refuse to make your point and refuse to clarify the content you added to the article? --Biglobster (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the "hidden agenda: royal succession" phrase be included as a fact?[edit]

Closing as no consensus. Although there is a majority of voters in support, at least two (Jeanlepetit and Fredtham59 are the same editor. The !votes of several IPs are the only contributions they have ever made to Wikipedia, and almost all the remaining editors in support have only created accounts to edit this article (and have very similar user pages). Number 57 15:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

These are sources current cited to support the phrase "hidden agenda: royal succession":

  • "The leaders of the 100,000-odd protesters who blocked some of Bangkok’s key intersections Sunday are said by knowledgeable political analysts to be deeply involved in not just a battle for political primacy but for control of the looming succession of the country’s monarchy." http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/thailand-land-snarls/

I got a complain about my link selection, so all the cited sources in the article are listed below.

"The unspoken backdrop to all this is the coming royal succession. "

These articles, analysis and opinions, in more or less degree, imply the monarchy-related benefit, relationship and/or agenda of the ongoing protest in Thailand. Considering these sources, should the claim "hidden agenda: royal succession" be represented as fact?

Related guidelines, policies and essays discussed earlier are WP:THIRDPARTY, WP:YESPOV, WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:RELIABLE --Biglobster (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


Threaded discussion[edit]

Support I see a lot of reliable source citations describing the "hidden agenda" not only the one you selected. I would see the intent behind this news selection as dubious. A good mix of opinion by experts, analysts, academics and neutral articles from news agency and reporters having a reputation of fact checking. I also took into account the "Hidden agenda: Royal Succession" section.14.207.223.50 (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • If you have more reliable sources than the one listed, cite it here would be very helpful to support your comment. The above links was chosen by an editor who support the claims, and taken directly from the earlier discussion. --Biglobster (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
You request outside input concerning dispute about citations validity. I did and I will not do any research for an article I have no interest in. You made change to the lead, the previous version was very dubious indeed 14.207.223.50 15:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose As the original poster, I oppose to include this as a fact. Despite the high number of news sources provided, I found that all sources are opinion piece and articles from news organisation and none of them represents "hidden agenda" as a statement of fact. Moreover, many of them does not even say that there is such hidden agenda.

Biglobster (talk)

Support Most editors do provide reasonable arguments to consider the edit factual (hidden agenda section) Biglobster only confirm that alone he intend to block the concessus process. Jeanlepetit (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose A good mixture of academics and analysts - still not a fact. If it is a fact, we can include that "Loch Ness monster exists" "Ghosts exists" as a fact. Both claims were not provent or officially stated as a fact, just a mixture of comments, predictions and analysis. Most journalists who do claim so are biased and therefore not reliable. One more thing, why would an anonymous contributor contribute in this talk page as their first time? I see that 14.207.223.50 has made no other contributions to Wikipedia according to his or her contributions page. This contridicts to the fact that "you did and you will not do any research for an article you have no interest in". Very suspicious indeed. 171.99.173.0 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Support I Thai people, I edit Wikipedia long time in Thai and I connect from internet café cannot login my account coz afraid 112. It is fact! Every Thai people know but cannot speak coz law 112. Thai newspaper cannot speak coz 112. Farang news are right.31.220.30.241 (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Support As above editor, will not used my wiki account or IP for this sensible topic. Biglobster main argument "an opinion piece" is junk. Citation to back this edit are strong from famous agency and reporters with a reputation for fact checking. Very few citations might be from biased sources but there are confirmation by independent reports so there are as worthy as the others. Also as said above it is a well know protest issue to most Thai. Biglobsterand 171.99.173.0are only trying to deny the truth with fallacious arguments as did the lese majeste law on the Thai society and trying to block any related edits.101.108.0.77 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You seems to have a hard time admitting they are all opinion pieces, even it is as obvious as your logical flaws. Biglobster (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Support. Factual edit .All has been said by those whom support it Khunthaibkk (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


Support I share views aired by 101.108.0.77 and other esspecialy those in hidden agenda topics. Biglobster (talk)"obvious as your logical flaws" Is it necessary ? 58.11.58.172 (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Support No much left to support the edit all necessary explanation already made. On the other side nothing serious to counter the edit rightness. I only see a "guy" Biglobster (talk) with strong opinion trying desperately and very hard to have his very own POV accepted against the community will!

  • You did not answer the only asked question at the hidden section:" the idea of a hidden agenda" is against a prevailing view in Thai community, on which ground (in accordance with wikipedia verifiability)?

Deluxpizzatopping (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Because you have not clarified what the "hidden agenda" actually is yet, and then you just left the discussion. Biglobster (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Hidden agenda is always a highly speculative term. Articles should only focus on given/proven facts. I advise the editor to reword the statement so that it is clearly stated that it is speculation. If the information is relevant to the article (in my opinion, it is) it should be added but not presented as a fact. Arcillaroja (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Support See my explanation in the previous talk page discussion [16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredtham59 (talkcontribs) 14:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Support I already motivated my support on a previous discussion (cf.hidden agenda:royal succession. Agree with Arcillarojabut in such specific case it is because of the lese majesty law that prohibit Thai as a whole and also foreign media, analyst and anyone who might have business or wish to go one day in thailand to talk or write about it and facing a heavy jail term. Without that law it will be no more hidden agenda or at least no controversy as everyone could speak freely.Alfasxp07 (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Support I am Thai and I know well my country to provide readers with a usefull contribution.I understand that a number of Wikipedia editing rules are a result of egregious abuses of editing--No original research, Neutral point of view, verifiability and secondary sources were developed with good reason. But these rules can also be misused and abused. One user on this talk page is particularly concerned. This issue could be seen as limited to the topic we are treating, but I see it as a larger issue. The 112 Lèse majesté in Thailand is of great concern regarding this edit. From those part of the conflict to foreign press every must show restraint. The topic is now so much discussed on foreign and Thai social media, that the law enforcement is on the verge to be harsher [17] and[18]. There is enough support from news and the way the event is related leave no doubt that the wiki edit is factual and should be transcript as a fact. Ladypalm999 (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Despite all the links to recent news article, I think this just more of the same old royal tittle tattle that cycles around every few years. Anyone who follows Thai politics has heard it more than once already. Vajiralongkorn has been crown prince for forty years now. If the king wanted somebody else as heir apparent, we would have heard about it when the constitution was revised in 2006-2007. No matter how many people think the crown prince is a jerk, that won't stop him from becoming king. I should add that Sirindhorn has been a focus of this type of story for many years, and the reason has nothing to do with Thaksin. In 1977, she was awarded the title "maha chakri." This title is often translated as "crown princess" and suggests that the king was preparing her for succession. The king gave up on the idea of making Sirindhorn heir apparent sometime around 1980, but she still has this title. Many Thais don't realize that the title is strictly honorary, so it has led to a lot of confusion. The cheerful dwarf (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The content is just plain analysis and opinion. It should be included as an opinion, not a fact - or not included at all. It should not be in the introduction either: the introduction should be short, concise, and only contain the major facts and events. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Thaksin's intention and intervention[edit]

It is reasonable to inform article readers about Thaksin intervention and intention behind the amnesty bill, so they understand better what is going on behind-the-scene and why the bill has been changed drastically that way. For my regular reverters, Please give your reason why we should not mention him, because right now I feel I have touched the untouchable. If no reason is given, I will assume I should go on. --Biglobster (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What is the point to talk with a such contributor:Biglobster (talk)
  • His edit has been reverted by many users but he is still pushing to have his very own point of view accepted.
  • He opened this discussion for this edit :[19]
  • Then went ahead four hours later [20] without waiting for user comment. He not only disrespect users who are trying their best to improve the article, but also show no respect for Wikipedia rules with a lot of warning on his talk page.

Conclusion: I have much to say about this edit bus because of this editor behavior will not engage myself with endless and pointless discussion. Not a surprise there seems to be no willingness on the part of the other editor for any discussion Ladypalm999 (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

And then you felt you need to register an account just to criticise me? Biglobster (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I also created an account recently and I agree with Ladypalm999 (talk). I am not yet familiar with all wikipedia details but as a experienced reader the way you are inserting things on this article makes me believe that you are biased and lack of neutrality. Deluxpizzatopping (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the lead section[edit]

I understand that a consensus has already been achieved regarding the adjective "criticized" describing the 2007 constitution, but WP:CCC clearly states that editors can change consensus-achieved content. An introduction, as I mentioned earlier, should be concise, and convey the key facts directly to the reader. The adjective criticized, apart from it's unnecessariness in the intro, is also very biased. The term criticized suggests that the amendment is a good thing. Not everyone criticizes it. I am fine if you detail the criticism of the constitution later in the article. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Public opinion about the constitution may be included in the main part of the article (or, even better, in the article Constitution of Thailand), but not in the lead section of this article, which is already too long and should be condensed to only summarize the key points. --RJFF (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


WP:CCC clearly states that editors can change consensus-achieved content. Yes, but also:
  • A lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.WP:CONS
  • Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of WP:DISRUPT. Actually concerned editor is RJFF (talk)for this edit [[21]]
  • If there are two editors who have a dispute over the presence of content, either can be guilty of a three-revert rule violation if they engage in an edit war. If a second editor steps in on one side, and two editors outnumber one, the reverts count collectively in the three-revert rule. You are already both engaged into edit war.

So if you prefer to play the wiki policy and guidelines over common sense, it's fine.

oppose See my explanation on this section[[22]]. The constitution was criticized on the "senate" part. The senate part is part of the ongoing protest. I will not mention the dubious argument:"already too long and should be condensed" in regard with this edit: [[23]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredtham59 (talkcontribs) 22:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I have read the discussion on "Neutrality". The problem of the article then was that it was biased against the government. I don't see any problem like so now. The term criticized will simply make the reader "agree that it is a good thing to amend the constitution". You also said that many people criticized it, but there are also some who support it.
My answer to The constitution was criticized on the "senate" part. The senate part is part of the ongoing protest. Is that you did not say in the article that the area that the criticism is going on is the "senate part". This makes it extremely misleading.
I shall quote RJFF that Public opinion about the constitution may be included in the main part of the article (or, even better, in the article Constitution of Thailand), but not in the lead section of this article, but I am not saying that the lead is too long and should be condensed (something you said is not an excuse for this edit). I am going to say that the lead section should be very neutral and contain very little or no opinion, because it needs to convey the key facts directly to the reader. I hope you are aware that there are many readers who only read the lead section of the article, I sometimes do that too. This is why it should contain very little opinion.
In a polite response to your addition to the Wikipedia rules, I would like to remind you that if you are to take advantage of A lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.WP:CONS and not agree to the removal without reason, you will be subject to WP:TEDIOUS. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:TEDIOUS? Just give a try and start by enforcing your own statement : I will do this by dealing with biased information and making the information have both points of view. Information with only one point of view could mislead the reader, despite not being biased.

As I said in the new section I opened on the talk page, you and other Thai editors do not accept any mention of the governement POV or explanation on why they made change to the constitution. In the lead there is no mention of the government stance and not to mention of the red shirt counter protest and to make it even more understandable: Not even one word about them. There is a huge media coverage, but nothing in the lead, so do not teach me about WP:TEDIOUS and look at your own edits prior to judge mine. Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 03:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that the adjective "criticized" is really redundant, it does not add any information. If the MPs of the Pheu Thai Party (elected by the majority of voters!) launch a change to the Constitution, it is obvious that an important part of the public (i.e. those who support the Pheu Thai Party) do not like certain parts of the constitution, else they would not have tried to change it. So the wording "government-proposed amendment to the criticized 2007 constitution" does not add any relevant content vis-a-vis "government-proposed amendment to the 2007 constitution". If no one had criticized certain parts of the current constitution, no one would have wanted to change it. The reasons why they wanted to change it cannot be discussed in the lead section anyway, but should be explained in the article's body. --RJFF (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


I am a reader with no time to edit article and no understanding on wikipedia rules so will not comment on it. Recent change to the introdustion are disastrous and will drive pure reader like me away. I had a conversation yesterday with collegues who share the same interest for wikipedia and we all agree. About the content we see the article turning toward a pro suthep article (not tottaly yet) as it was at its' early stage. Editors should take into account readers interest instead to fight about rules especialy when those rules are used to serve other purpose tham readers best interest. Thanks to all for your work !125.25.205.103 (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If no one had criticized certain parts of the current constitution, no one would have wanted to change it : You got the point and that it is why criticized is important, junta drafted, junta propaganda to preomote it while other can't speak against it, referundum under the threat that if not accepted the junta will stay into power. For reader with no knoledge about the crisis in Thailand since 2005 will certainly give more attention to the constitution otherwise will might under estimate it's importance and misunderstand why the governement wanted to change it. 125.25.205.103 (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

How can it be redundant, there is no repetition in expressing the idea previously. It might be obvious for those well informed about Thai politic and what about the other , probably the reader majority ... . Without going into details into the lead, the importance of this fact if prominent to the article understanding. "government-proposed amendment to the 2007 constitution" vs "government-proposed amendment to the criticized 2007 constitution" make a huge difference by a single word on what is one of the most important part of the protest. Then only the reasons why they wanted to change it should be explained in the article's body.Zizoulalalouzi (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It is court rule and it is pure fact. Putting "criticized" there is unusual, and make an impression that the court rule or the court itself are against critics or those who criticize the constitution or support junta drafting, which is not the case. The 2007 constitution also got a referendum, but I do not see we should put it in as well. --Biglobster (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality and major change to the lead without concertation[edit]

WP:TMC Avoid "drive-by" tagging: tags should be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it. I did not see any discussion attempt, major change to the lead section has been made without any discussion with other editors. Not a surprise there is an ongoing edit war : [[24]]

WP:NPOV Most undo was made by Thai editors who might have a conflict of interest as they are directly concerned with the subject. In this edit for example [[25]] without any improvement to the length, wiki citation 2006 military coup was changed to new military coup.

Although the article title is "2013–14 Thai political crisis" which involved different party,not only the protest which is the visible part of the iceberg, there is no mention of the red shirt counter protest, government point of view and any mention about the protest many controversy since the very little attempt to have it rectified is systematically undo. There is not only a WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUEissue as MOS:LEAD recommend including any prominent controversies. Look like those editors do not want to have anything that might contradict or explain why the situation is not as simple as a street protest and do not want any interference in the lead that might tarnish a "clean protest".

The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is WP:LEADSENTENCE As I already said the subject is not only the protest but the political crisis which involve different party and relation with event before the protest erupted which the actual lead do not reflect.

The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. WP:MOSBEGIN It was the case prior to the contested edit but not anymore. Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 02:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to add certain facts about the red shirt movement. However, the movements should be an event major enough that it deserves to be on the lead - if not, it can still be in the article's main section, I don't see any anti-government points of view in the lead. And when there is a point of view there should be one from both sides. (E.g. If you want to include why the government wishes to amend the constitution you must also include a reason (not an excuse) of why the constitution turned it down. The lead section should not have any (or very little) opinions and points of view regardless of side. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It is always very difficult to write a Wikipedia article about ongoing, strongly contentious processes. With this short-term perspective it is hard to decide which aspects, actions, events will appear important in the future. Now, the article is predominantly based on reports in news media - not the best source to assess political, social, economic backgrounds and nexus. In the months and years to come, political scientists, sociologists and even historians will publish articles, chapters and books about this conflict, which will make it much easier to write a well-sourced, balanced article about this topic. Today some points still appear important to us that will appear secondary in 1, 2, 5 or 10 years time. On the other hand, background factors will become obvious that may still be unrecognizable at present. --RJFF (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:YESPOV is very important. If we stick to that then the article would be fine. I think if any red shirt protest or counter protest did affect the crisis at all, it should be mentioned in the lead. Anyway, as RJFF said that it might be hard to determine whether it would be notable in the future or not, so I think we should stick to the present fact and not the conjecture. --Biglobster (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


Wiki guidelines appreciates the length of the lead from the number of paragraph, it is a fail. All read carefully the lead recommendation and also read some featured article. I do not know what the motivation behind those changes but obviously none of the lead recommendation are applied. If it is too long which is disputable, as recommended by Wikipedia prior to any change we should debate on talk page, right ? So for all those who like to cite wiki rules, maybe you should accept that the process must restart before the added tag and all edits reverted. Anyway if we fail to reach a consensus, WP:CONS should apply. Personally when I look at a previous edit and undo it seems that change made to the lead are more an attempt to have some very own POV respected than to achieve Wikipedia lead recommendation or neutrality. Also some editors do have the same crustacean smell.... look at those 2 edits [[26]] [[27]] with the same wrong arguments as the cited article do mention "from petrol bombs that landed by police" and previously corrected [[28]]

It is only one example from many others that confirm what I said about the lead : it seems that change made to the lead are more an attempt to have some very own POV respected than to achieve Wikipedia lead recommendation or neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deluxpizzatopping (talkcontribs) 06:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You said that "it seems that change made to the lead are more an attempt to have some very own POV respected than to achieve Wikipedia lead recommendation or neutrality". Would you mind listing those POVs that you say we are trying to "have respected"? Because I don't see any apart from a few pro-government ones that have been removed, making the lead quite neutral to me. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any POV of whomever at all in lead section, except of those "analysts" for "hidden agenda." The rest are fact and no pro-government or anti-government opinions at all. --Biglobster (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Fredtham59, I see that you have mentioned quite a lot about our (me, Biglobster, RJFF) lack of neutrality in the lead section. The original version of the lead contains unnecessary pro-government POVs making it very biased. Removal of those POVs are an attempt to achieve neutrality in the lead section. A lead should contain very little or no POVs regardless of side. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Please read my commemt at :Changes to the lead section. Lack of neutrality is obvious from Biglobster,Hethokrilliondata and a bit less from RJFF. I feel like I am facing ASTV - pro pdrc tv chanel- analyst when I read your comment here125.25.205.103 (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I am a new editor and as a novice I also would like that important change be discussed so every one who want to contribute should have a say. Wikipedia is a based on users participation and concencus over edits isn'it? I will not go as far as the previous edit but the neutrality of the lead is questionable by omission of some fact now gone.Zizoulalalouzi (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposing a major removal of content[edit]

I suggest removing the section regarding the plans and announcements prior to the occupation of Bangkok. The 5-10 paragraphs leading up to 13th January in the Occupation of Bangkok section talks about Suthep's plans regarding the shutdown (not all of them were true: e.g. They planned to close 20 major intersections, they only closed 7) and unnecessary pro-election opinions. They obscure the navigation of the article, I think they should be removed. Since the scale of removal will be large, I wish to have an agreement before commencing. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree in some degree:
  • Plan for intersections blocked should not be in details like that, because the final outcome is already known to be 7 so 7 intersections should be the details instead. It should say something like "20 intersections planned, though 7 actually blocked as follows 1) 2) 3) etc."
  • Due weight is necessity. Unnecessary pro-election or pro/against whatever opinions consideration should take due weight into account. Having said that, I agree that there are some excessive opinions in the article. The opinion should be used sparingly to help readers understanding the topic, and we stick with the fact for the rest. Even pro-election (i prefer defining them as against-Democrat) opinion is dominating the article right now, we should not limit to removing those for clean up.
  • Lots of small changes maybe more appropriate here than one big change. --Biglobster (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


As the political crisis is still on process, we should wait and see what to remove and what to keep. I strongly oppose any change right now as I do for the lead section but will agree to a major rewriting process not only for the mentioned section but to the whole article later. Also by removing part of the article some ref will not be accessible for verification such as news from bangkok post and later rewriting will be much more difficult.Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 16:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"Lots of small changes maybe more appropriate here than one big change" agree but as I do not trust your autoproclamed NPOV It will have to be discussed and I will not accept any compromise if no prior discussion with other editors with a clear consensus.Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 16:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not that I have time or plan to do it myself, but I am not sure why anyone would need your approval and follow your rule, and why I need to come to discuss to get consensus for everything I am going to edit. One thing I am sure is that no one own this article. --Biglobster (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No please, enough damage to the introduction, do not destroy the rest of the article as you already did for the intro, leave the task to more neutral editor.125.25.205.103 (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The political crisis has settled quite a lot. I shall proceed. It is far too detailed and full of comments and plans that were not put into action. I shall not do this in one edit and please feel free to make comments. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I support this. Thanks for your efforts! --RJFF (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

"Joke" cited source[edit]

I just read it carefully, and found out that the cited source for "joke" calling is for drafting process of 2007 constitution and not for the constitution or even its draft.

I am not sure how we should fix this. Any ideas? IMHO, I don't think it is related to the court rule at all, and should be corrected and moved to the appropriate part instead (if any) --Biglobster (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

you are right,I made a mistake will undo the edit back to weng statement. Unless we reach a consensus for the lead section, will not comment further as all related edit made will have to be back prior the added tag and I personally will not oppose the removal of this statement. Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 15:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Weng statement also criticise the drafting process. Note the date 17 Jan 2007, at the time no draft has been created yet. --Biglobster (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Do we really need this exact quote? There are so many critical statements about certain parts of the 2007 constitution, it might be WP:UNDUE to chose just this quote by an individual (the UDD was not even founded back then), that was made before the constitution was even drafted and stands in no direct connection to the current crisis (please note also WP:Synthesis). I agree that the quote is very vivid, but we do not write this article to create effects, but to inform neutrally. --RJFF (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree and I don't think we need that after all, at least where it is right now. --Biglobster (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I assume that there is a consensus. Biglobster and RJFF agree that a comment is not necessary. Fredtham59 says "he personally will not oppose the removal of the statement." I shall proceed with the edit. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not think the edit is undue as weng statement reflect the majority or at least a widely perception of the constitution by analyst and human right organization.Zizoulalalouzi (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not due or undue, it is inaccurate. Weng could not comment on the constitution that hadn't been even drafted yet at the time, it is common sense. --Biglobster (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

POV lead?[edit]

Could you please substantiate which parts of the lead section create the impression of it being biased, in order to solve this problem? Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think "Hidden agenda" is only single POV exists in the lead section. This should be moved out of the section to somewhere else, with explain that the theory is not really widely accept apart by those several analysts and commentators. Andrew M. Marshall who is a main advocate of "hidden agenda" theory really hates PDRC[29], and, according to his Facebook page, he seems to be proud of it. While I am aware that biased sources are not prohibited, it must be used carefully and make sure that the readers would realise that the opinion is not from a neutral source. --Biglobster (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe that Pavin Chachavalpongpun and Thongchai Winichakul are serious, knowledgable and respected Thai political analysts. I do not think that they would just echo Mr Marshall's theory. --RJFF (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
All can be knowledgable, but being biased really depends on context and not their knowledge. In this case, Pavin is main advocate for anti-royalist and anti-lese majeste law, and Thongchai is also anti-royalist but in my idea he is more respected than Pavin. Anyway, now they sees PDRC as a royalist, or even ultra-royalist, movement and anti-royalists are obviously in the opposite side and subjected to some degree of bias. Their opinions might be useful and again I am not saying this is prohibited, but to achieve due weight the fact about their advocacy and where they align politically must not be omitted and not be hidden under the facade of analyst status. Whether they are echoing each others is not really something we could ever prove or disprove, but I do not think we need to discuss and have consensus on that matter. --Biglobster (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead and the background sections suggest that the mentioned political crisis is a single events while in fact it is the continuation of different protest and coup since 2005 and as it is a "yellow" protest this time, a repeat of previous attempt to remove "thaksin or thaksin influence" which are a repeated failure as he win over and over "yellow" protest.
  • The lead do focus on Thaksin or if the bill has been rejected it is not because of thaksin only. The protest might be triggered by the bill but as both side did reject it for 2 very different reason why one side should be mentioned and not the other one. I am not convinced at all by previous comment to do no not have it mentioned .Without the mention of abhisit and suthep the bill would have probably be accepted and the protest be of different nature.
  • The change made to the constitution are primordial to the understanding of the protest. The lead as it is now do suggest that the constitution has been drafted and approved in a "democratic manners" which is not so obvious since all the process from the committee selection, the drafting and the referendum have been heavily criticized, it is a misleading edit that hide an essential fact. Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 11:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that these theses are subjective and depend on POV. As I said: Historians will probably put these current events in a bigger historical context, analysing and reflecting backgrounds and nexus. As of now, it is not our task (or right) as Wikipedia users to do the historians' job. It would contravene WP:No original research (at least in its form of WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material that advances a position) and perhaps WP:NPOV. As of now, we can only describe the events as they have happened without arrogating judgment or claiming to know the "truth" about the background and meaning of these events. Of course we can write about the opinions of certain players, observers and analsysts. But this is not for the lead section, it belongs in the respective sections of the article's body.
By the way, the lead nowhere hints that the 2007 constitution was drafted in a democratic manner. It only says "the 2007 constitution". If you click the link, you will immediately find that it was "drafted by a committee established by the military junta". What else do you want? This article is about the 2013/14 crisis, there is a separate article on the 2007 constitution. This is what wikilinks are for, so we do not have to repeat everything and create huge lead sections, that overwhelm and daunt readers. --RJFF (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I support this. Furthermore, labelling it "criticized" does not make it more understandable for readers. Fredtham, as the original editor for this, might be able to shed some light on the topic that how he wants readers to understand that so other editors can see if it is okay or not. --Biglobster (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
And please show me a single source that says that the protests were triggered by a potential amnesty of Abhisit and Suthep. Every oint source says they were triggered by the potential amnesty of Thaksin. --RJFF (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Replying to your 3 points.

  • The PDRC are not yellow shirts. There are some yellow shirt members in there and they share a similar ideology, yes. But they are two separate movements.
  • The main point that causes people to go against the amnesty bill is the pardoning of Thaksin, not Abhisit and Suthep. I understand that some red shirts protest against the bill for the latter reason, but there must be concision in the lead, so we stick to the main point.
  • The 2007 constution was accepted through referendum, it is legitimate. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

There is a consensus to merge. One editor comments that this article is already too long, which is a valid concern; however, 2014 attack on Thai protest camp is currently only 68 words long, so there are probably better candidates for subarticles. Sunrise (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Paul 012 has proposed to merge 2014 attack on Thai protest camp into 2013–14 Thai political crisis.

  • I support the merger: We should not create separate articles about every single incident during this crisis. It is much more beneficial to put them in context and treat them in this article. --RJFF (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The title is even ambiguous: there have been several attacks on protest camps in Thailand in 2014. --RJFF (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "Support". It seems like an article for a single attack. --Biglobster (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree. There have been many attacks (some with a even larger scale) that have taken place during the crisis yet did not have an article of their own. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge & redir. --CrunchySkies (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Jr8825Talk 13:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - the main article is far too long as is. Either details should be cut, or some content moved into subarticles. Maybe this subartcile is not a good one to have (I have no idea), but adding more content to the main article in general is movign in the wrong direction. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge and redirect. PaintedCarpet (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I've simply redirected here after considering several places were the content could be merged. It's unclear to me what significance this incident has in the greater scheme of things; it took place just before the coup, but doesn't seem to be any kind of trigger for that. I decided the incident fails WP:NEVENT. If it later turns out to be significant, there's still the page history for 2014 attack on Thai protest camp. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead too long[edit]

I would like to invite all users involved in editing this article to make specific proposals on how to shorten the overly long lead section. Obviously my ideas of what could be cut were not acceptable to everyone. So please join the discussion in order to find a compromise solution. --RJFF (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The messy intro has been bugging me a while too, so I'll see what I can come up with in my sandbox. Jr8825Talk 14:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I hope we can remove the part about there being a "hidden agenda." This is very openly about two guys who just don't like each other going at it. Between Bhumipol and Thaksin, I'll take the one who didn't murder his own brother. Does anyone know what it was about Thaksin that made the king object to him in the first place? Thaksin got stuff done and one upped the king. If there is any other issue involved, the king has kept it to himself. The great huha (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't around at the time to participate in the RfC, but I think there is no doubt that the monarchy should be mentioned, given the number of mainstream, reputable sources that have mentioned its - possible - role in relation to the crisis. (BBC, AlJazeera, Bloomberg, The Independent are all listed in the RfC discussion, I've also come across this Economist article as well.) The question in my mind is whether it is a significant enough factor in the crisis to warrant mention in the introduction - and given the extremely divisive nature of Thai politics, I think it's highly unlikely that everyone will agree about that (as the RfC has already shown). While I'm no professor of Thai politics, I would personally say that it should be included, as a majority of analysts I have read have mentioned it in some form. I'm still chipping away at the intro in my sandbox, and once I've got something reasonable I'll bring it here to be dissected/torn to shreds. Jr8825Talk 09:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not a professor of Thai politics, either; but there are professors (or assistant professors, or lecturers, their actual academic title is not that important) of Thai politics who have published their observations and analysis of the current conflict. Several are already linked in the article (Pavin, McCargo, Montesano, Nelson, Ukrist), we could add many more (Pasuk & Baker, Connors, Thitinan, ...) Each of them has their own thoughts and explanations of what is behind this crisis, including social conflict (lower/lower-middle class vs. upper-middle/upper class), regional conflict (North/Northeast vs. South; or capital vs. periphery), economic interests, and also succession (at least mentioned by Pavin and Thitinan; I think it is not that important what journalists say, scholars are better qualified to analyse the political/social/economic/cultural... backgrounds). In my opinion it is problematic to only mention one theory of what is the background of this conflict in the lead section, and neglect the other reasons that are discussed by high-profile analysts as well. This would be selective and unbalanced in my view. I would rather have a separate section in which all potential causes of the conflict can be discussed, mentioning which author(s) represent them (and, if any, which author(s) reject them). If we discuss all potential reasons that are contributed to the debate by any analyst in the lead section, the lead will be huge. And this could daunt readers rather than inviting them to continue reading. --RJFF (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I have just come across the draft in your Sandbox. It looks quite good. Mentioning the different potential causes without going into detail is a viable option, in my view. As far as I am concerned, your proposition definitely goes into the right direction: Providing a concise, but sufficiently informative and comprehensive introduction into the topic, without going into too much detail. I really like your work. --RJFF (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I would go a little further and cut the clause "Deeply controversial in Thailand". Firstly, "controversial" is a weasel word that should be avoided where possible, and secondly it is self-explanatory: Were it not controversial, there would not have been a political conflict. --RJFF (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So here's my proposal (below). I've tried pretty hard to sit on the fence without making it deathly boring! It does include strong adjectives, but I don't think they are in this case 'weasel words' because they are a widely-accepted factual description of the crisis - (e.g. the protests aren't just divisive [(adjective) "tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people"], pretty much every analysis agrees that they are greatly polarising Thai society, so they are deeply divisive). The same goes for the protesters, they don't just see Thaksin as corrupt, but view him as far more corrupt than anyone else. I chose words such as 'disenfranchised' because they have been so widely used in coverage of the crisis. It's a tough line between being concise yet thorough so someone unfamiliar with the situation will get a feel for it, so any feedback would be appreciated. Jr8825Talk 17:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for intro[edit]

This RfC was closed because consensus was reached. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Please dissect/destroy (see above conversation for more info). For some reason the refs aren't working properly, but all the text is there, have a look in my sandbox for a duplicate of the intro with the full reflist. Bear in mind that the blank references there are due to the fact that I copied the section straight out of the existing article, so named references introduced elsewhere in the article (such as the infobox) won't appear. I'm more than happy to put the work in to transfer the intro into the article (duplicated refs will have to be sorted out, as well as moving any information in the existing intro further into the article) as long as no one greatly opposes it. Jr8825Talk 17:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Great work! Thank you very much. Overall I agree with your proposal. In my opinion you have really put the most important issues in a nutshell. Your proposal summarises the most important events, actors, developments and potential causes. It is, as I have written before, both comprehensive and concise.
I still think that we should avoid the use of "contentious", "controversial" and "divisive", not just because they are weasel words, but also because we do not need them. If you write that some see Thaksin as "highly corrupt and damaging" and on the other hand he "enjoys strong support in many poorer areas", you do not need to write that he is divisive. It is self-evident. If the transfer of the security officer leads to charges and an impeachment of the prime minister, you do not need to write that it was controversial. It is self-evident too. If you write that critics said the CC ruling was "politically motivated and an abuse of judicial power", you do not need to write that it was contentious. It is just redundant. Moreover I would not only mention the 28 deaths, but also the hundreds of injured. Not only those who are killed are victims of the violence, but also those who are (sometimes gravely) injured. All in all, your proposal is still a major improvement and brings the article a great step forward. --RJFF (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to be a little fussy: The Thaksin camp did not win a large majority in 2007. They were slightly ahead of the Democrats and only had a majority due to a coalition with minor parties. --RJFF (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • What's missing from this version of the intro is the emotion that is driving the conflict: Thais from the northeast vote for pro-Thaksin parties because they resent being looked down on by city slickers. Urbanites claim that people in the countryside are ready to sell their votes for a few baht and a bottle of Singha. This is yet another smear against the farmers as far as Thaksin supporters are concerned.
  • An even bigger oversight is that there is no mention of the king. Until you realize how many Thais would jump out a window for the king, you have no idea what this conflict is about. The schools don't teach anything about democracy or rule of law. Political education is just king, king, and more king. In short, there are plenty of Thais ready to disrupt elections or support a military coup if that's what they think the king wants. It's enough to give you, "a headache as big as a farm," as the Thais would put it.
  • There has always been speculation about royal succession. There always will be. That is the nature of monarchy. Reporters connect whatever they are writing about to current events in order to make it appear fresh. In the business, it's called a "news peg." The great huha (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made some of the changes suggested by RJFF (removal of 'large' majority, removal of contentious (I think that is pretty obsolete), added the injuries).
Over the usage of "controversial" , I would argue that the intro might otherwise imply that Yingluck's action was definitely wrong or right, whereas controversial shows that there is argument over her actions, not just the court's ruling and punishment of her.
About the word "divisive", I still think that's actually one of the most important parts of the intro. In other countries people may hate or love politicians, but this is not necessarily taken in such a personal way as it is in Thailand, I have read various articles about how the crisis is 'tearing families apart' over their political views and hatred between the two camps in the past is widely documented. I think that the word is pretty key to understanding the gravity of Thailand's crisis.
  • In response to The great huha's points, I think the intro does implicate reasonably clearly the emotion that is driving the conflict, through the words 'deeply divisive'. I don't personally think that more need be added to the intro, seeing as it is a 'political crisis' after all. I would say that the emotions should be clarified and explained further down in the article itself (which is next on my hit-list after the into!). However, if other people also feel that I've overlooked the intensity of emotions I'm more than happy to re-work or add a clause to that effect.
The monarchy. Are you saying that aside from the succession, you think there should be a point about royal interference in politics (the princess)? Yes check.svg Done If you're saying it should be mentioned because of it's influence, I think that would be better suited to be explained in the background section, rather than the intro, because it is an issue applicable to all Thai politics, not just this crisis in particular.
About the royal succession, even if you think it just a 'news peg', the amount of coverage it has had from reputable sources (such as the Economist for example, which isn't exactly a tabloid paper about to take liberties for sensational headlines) I think it definitely warrants a mention, regardless of your or my personal opinions.
Thanks for the feedback, Jr8825Talk 04:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I've added a mention of royal influence on politics, I'll add more cites later. Jr8825Talk 05:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
In its current version the proposal is totally acceptable to me and a massive improvement vis-à-vis the status quo. If we followed The great huha's proposal we would get a problem with WP:NPOV. I think that everyone who is interested and observes this conflict has an opinion about it and it is very difficult to stay neutral. But Wikipedia does not have the ambition to hold the truth, but neutrally report all significant views on a topic, without taking sides (even if one side may deserve our sympathy more than the other). In my view, Jr's proposal seems to be sufficiently balanced as it presents the views of both sides, as well as the analysis of third-party observers. I strongly support replacing the lead section in its current version by Jr's latest proposal. --RJFF (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I've now gone and cut away at some of the excess citations, which were probably WP:CITEKILL. (Here's a link to the version with lots of refs.) Jr8825Talk 15:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Even better! --RJFF (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have argued: (1) PRDC supporters protest and disrupt elections because they think the king wants them to do this. (2) Thaksin supporters are people from the countryside who don't appreciate urbanites looking down on them. I don't see how either of these propositions are POV or even controversial. Anyone who has talked to the members of the two groups can confirm what I am saying. The great huha (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Talking to members of the two groups is original research, not what Wikipedia should do. Moreover, not everything that is verifiable has to be included in the lead section. Otherwise the lead section would be as long as the whole article. Jr's proposal already includes that a rural-urban divide and royal influence in politics are considered factors behind the conflict. There is no need to go into more detail in the lead section. --RJFF (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I really like your version of the intro. It contains all the key facts and does not contain excessive points of view. I oppose to the addition of more royal-related content (hidden agenda royal suggestion can stay as an opinion as it is now). The old intro has been spammed with pro-government points of view. let's hope that other editors won't be doing that to this one. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I certainly feel vindicated by this news. Not only will the junta continue Yingluck's economic policies, including her "corrupt" rice-buying scheme, but they are bringing back Thaksin's old economic team to implement them. How long before military officers are appointed to the major corporate boards again, as they were in 2006? The great huha (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Umm... what exactly has that got to do with improving the intro (or the article for that matter)? We're not here to debate who is worse! Jr8825Talk 12:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
You realize that the article has a 14-paragraph section on the rice-buying scheme? It's an article about an unfolding news event. I don't see anything improper about linking and discussing the latest news in this area, whether we decide to include it or not. The great huha (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Jr8825, Not much objection here, shall we proceed? It has been here for some time. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I was biding my time to see if there'd be any other responses, but I'll go ahead and make the change now. I'd appreciate if someone could close the RfC, thanks. Jr8825Talk 06:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for your efforts. Unfortunately I cannot close it, because I took part in it. --RJFF (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.