Talk:Sufficiency economy

Article name

This page was moved from the Localism (Politics) page so that the topic could have it's own space. Localism is a broad theory and the Sufficiency Theory of Thailand is specific in its details. A link has been included from the previous page to here and past discussions on this topic can be seen there.

There were questions of the NPOV and the references were out of whack, as they are now.

--Ryandwayne 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved the article "Thailand sufficiency economy" because of the former name does not representative enough to communicate readers about its political, economic, and cultural context. As the name "localism" states the sharp contrast with globalisation. In addition, the very first name of this article is "Localism in Thailand" as it appears as a sub-article in Localism (politics). It is in the purpose of academic to communicate it consistent the name that the very first critic of Thai economy, Kevin Hewison, calls it as "localism".

Lastly, you cannot translate "sed-ta-kit poor-pearng", the name in Thai version, word-by-word; nor end up like "sufficiency economy". Since it is not one of economic schools of thoughts and should not confuse somebody to believe it is an economic schools of thought.

I may add that localism is only a movement that try to change way of life and the way consumers thought about themselves and environment. It has nothing to do with economic schools of thought. The localism movement can comepare to environment movement in mid 70's, or global warming movement in 90's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Econman123 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 17 Dec 2007

Leaked Cables

Did anybody else find this citation a little weak? According to a leaked top secret telegraph from the US Ambassador in Thailand to the US Secretary of State, the tenets of Sufficiency Economy are "vague and malleable" and its popularity stems from “public reluctance to criticize anything associated with the revered King.”[1]

Domain: http://thaicables.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/06bangkok5706-what-is-the-sufficiency-economy/

Vandalism

Vandalists keep deleting criticism section. They argue the article is POV. To make it NPOV: NOT to delete the criticism, but to write counter-argument. What they are doing is only to blank good argument.

... Is this your first time in wiki or something? Unless you have the reputable source for criticism, you don't add in anything that's POV. Wikipedia is not a public forum for debate and discussion (that's for *gasp* talk and discussion* page). Suredeath (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I may refer to wikipedia policy. Please read it carefully.

Unreferenced information

"One of Wikipedia's main guidelines is that all information must be externally referenced. But for various reasons, a lot of information on Wikipedia lacks references. This does not automatically mean that the information is incorrect or otherwise does not belong, as most such information was added on good faith, and the user who added it was either unfamiliar with Wikipedia's guidelines for citing or forgot to provide a reference. Therefore, it is a good idea if you believe the information was added on good faith to let users know first rather than immediately deleting the information." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Econman123 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Those stuffs that are added on good faith is a matter of factly thing like "The Sky is Blue", "Stephen Chow is Asian". When you added POV things, it NEEDS to have reputable source like "Roger Ebert finds Batman Return horrible".Suredeath (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's one for original research "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and represent those sources accurately."Suredeath (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Biased Source

The Economist was running heavy hit pieces on Thailand via Economist employee Sam Moon running PR for Thaksin Shinwatra after the 2006 coup. The Economist is also a member of the Chatham House, an elitist combine of globalist corporations with vested interests in opening up Thailand's markets to globalism, thus are heavily critical of Thailand's "localism." Chatham House member Amsterdam & Peroff is also defending both Thaksin Shinwatra, and his political party's United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship. The Economist article is an editorial, not a factual report and cannot be used as an impartial, objective source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.238.38 (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)