Talk:2008 Thai political crisis

Consolidating Other Articles

I really think that information from History of Thailand since 1973 and Politics of Thailand regarding the crisis should be moved here. There are some citations as well. What do you think? RainKing (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and feel free to do so. There's a lot to be done with this article. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 07:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Template:Politics of Thailand

I think this article doesn't really belong to the politics series. The subject is historical rather than political, and if the History of Thailand since 1973 template were a side box format, I think we would agree to keep the history box over the politics box. I believe the politics box should be reserved for time-independent (& current) institutions, elections, laws, etc. rather than historical events. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 20:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User:YURiN's edits

I don't believe an encyclopaedia article needs to go into such detail on the various issued decrees and their exact statements. Please trim them down if possible. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 17:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RoyalPAD.jpg

The image Image:RoyalPAD.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

PAD = "right wing"?

When I read in this article: "...facing civil unrest from the right-wing People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD).." it makes me think: are the PAD really a "right wing" groupt? In People's Alliance for Democracy under "Supporters" are mentioned a couple of "conservative groups" - even Buddhists, but "right wing" rather reminds me of Jean-Marie Le Pen. He and PAD do not have much in common, don't they? --hdamm (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Le Pen is extreme right wing. Other "conservative" parties are gnerally regarded as being on the right albeit on the lesser end of the scale. Admittedly, the larger conserative parties in many western democracies tend to be desribed as "right of centre", they are still right wing. Since the PAD wishes to disenfranchise what it regards as "uneducated" rural populations abd a parliament more alligned to Royal patronage then Right Wing would be a fair description Dainamo (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

image biased?

The image of PAD members attacking an anti-pad member seams to be biased, as im sure the opposite must have occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.150.12 (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What to do in 2009?

What will we do to this article when it becomes 2009 and the crisis has not yet ended? Patiwat (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The problems did not start in 2008. The article needs to be renamed. This is particularly true since it's an article on the main page. Chergles (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the 2005-2006 crisis should be renamed the Thaksin crisis while the current crisis should be called the post-Thaksin crisis. That's not going to happen though (because some people will claim that Thaksin is directing the current crisis). When the current crisis extends beyond the new year, I think we should just rename it the 2008-2009 crisis. Deal with it using redirects? Patiwat (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether such a rename isn going to happen has little to do with Thaksin's actual involvement. We have to see what society and academia retrospectively decide to call the crises, preferably from a historical point of view. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 12:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We'll name it 2008–2009 Thai political crisis, just like 2005–2006 Thai political crisis. It's not our or Wikipedia's place to invent and establish common names, so we can't name them "Thaksin crisis" and "post-Thaksin crisis" unless a substantial part of the media, the experts or something like that uses those names. —Nightstallion 07:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

How to reorganize

Please make specific suggestions as to how this article should be reorganized. Or else I will remove the tag. Patiwat (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the article gives undue weight to some specific events while skimming over or neglecting others. That the lengthy text regarding the court decision was removed seemed to be an improvement, but I think the article should give as much weight to background information and consequences of the crisis as to the series of events themselves.

I've created a new section called "Origins of the crisis" where I try to give some context for Thaksin's popularity, why various factions hate him, and other key things leading up to the reformation of the PAD. I'm glad to see there is a section on economic consequences. A section on political/social consequences would also be welcome. But I don't see the need for a wholesale reorganization. Patiwat (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The article now is not so much in need of reorganization as filling gaps in coverage and continuity, though. The court cases, for example, have been ongoing during the protests, but no mention has been made of their progression. Feel free to remove or change the template message.

On another note, "or else", even if it conveys a clear meaning, feels confrontational to me. I would personally try not to use such phrases to avoid misunderstanding. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 08:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No misunderstanding or confrontation intended. Usually, the person putting such a tag in makes specific suggestions for improvement in the Talk page. I didn't see any, nor any discussion about organization. Patiwat (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Motives of the protestors?

Has there been any discussion of the motives of the protestors and why they choose to invade the airport at the end of November? Was it solely to try and stop the PM returning? It seems a bit odd to me since they appear to have achieved little other then seriously damage the countries reputation and tourism industry. What resolved the crisis was the court and from what I gather people knew the verdict was probably coming in December so it would have made sense to just wait Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please fix 2005-2006 Thai political crisis to 2005–2006 Thai political crisis

{{editsemiprotected}} at the start of the "Origins of the crisis" section. The latter, with an en-dash, is the correct name of the referenced article.

 Not done Semi-protection will expire in two minutes. Ruslik (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Captions under the photos

This commentary seems highly biased in favor of the military and coup forces. In fact some of the comments are out right provocative and are seething with a Pro-Coup bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.88.146.130 (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the entire gallery as per WP:BRD and put the text below for now. I have 2 problems with these, verifiability and the captions. The captions need to be re-written to comply with WP:NPOV and to be encyclopedic. 'inhabitants of the flats' do not swarm for example. Anything contentious like 'The liquid gas truck that the red shirt protesters threatened to blow up ' needs to be verifiable via a reliable source. If that can't be done then the image can't be in the article. Similarly 'while shots are being fired by both sides'..says who ? If it's not verifiable it has to go. Use of the word 'riot' is questionable unless the word is derived from a cited reliable source and preferably the majority of reliable sources. I could go on but I won't apart from to say that wikipedia isn't iReport.

<gallery> File:1HumveeatRatchaprarop.jpg|Thai army Humvee at Ratchaprarop road, Bangkok. Taken during the red shirt riots; 13 April 2009. File:10Rodeshirtsconfronterenmilitaireninanderestraat.jpg|Red shirt protesters confront the military on Pracha Songkhro road just off Din Daeng road, Bangkok. File:2Degastruck.jpg|The liquid gas truck that the red shirt protesters threatened to blow up in the midst of the Din Daeng flats, Bangkok. Just minutes after this picture was taken the army moved in; 13 April 2009 File:8Rodeshirtsschietenterugengooienmolotovcocktails.jpg|Storming of the Din Daeng/Pracha Songkhro intersection by the Thai military; 13 April 2009 File:4Dindaengflatbewonersvallenderodenaan.jpg|After the liquid gas truck which the red shirts had threatened to blow up in the midst of the Din Daeng flats was removed the inhabitants of the flats swarmed on the street to attack the red shirts File:MilitairenbestormenDinDaengPrachaSongkhrokruising.JPG|Thai military storming the Pracha Songkhro/Din Daeng intersection while shots are being fired by both sides. (Bangkok, Thailand); 13 April 2009 </gallery>

Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Assassination attempt on Sondhi Limthongkul

What would be the best way of working this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8003531.stm) into the article? Should it be put in the section on the April 2009 state of emergency, or would it be better to start a new section for it? Caleb Jon (talk) 03:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009 states of emergency section has serious POV problems and distorted facts

For the most blatant act of twisting the fact from a citation (that was originally negative for the protesters) and make it into a misleading statement that shed a different light, making the military seems so cruel (which is false in this particular incident), go see my discussion in the Abhisit wiki talk page here: Talk:Abhisit_Vejjajiva ,first section. (The other guy there read it and says 'Indeed Patiwat, you have clearly cherry picked the information in that source to skew the reading of the incident' .. oops.. did I just mentioned the writer's name?)

The reason I cited it is becuase.. the exact same paragraphs is COPIED from there to this article! (no doubt by the same writer) And the problem is, I don't know how much more misrepresentation there is, especially a sensitive article written from a guy who has make thousands of edits on Thaksin's article (where many guys there mention POV problems in the article... see its discussion) And I'm not here all the time to check on an added POV statements unlike some writers who can professionally respond to a partially biased facts within 1 business days.(see history on Thaksin's page)

Therefore, I'm putting up a NPOV tag until all distortet facts (meaning lies) like the one I mentioned is resolved. I hope that all fair writers here can help check on the neutrality of the pages and preventing the wiki from becoming politically-biases.

(To P, I never want to make personal attacks, but the fact is that you deliberately distorted the facts to make readers misinterpret what really happened. That act ,then, makes your political affiliation relavant to the article. Please write fairly and don't do it again.)

Donny TH (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Found another trick.(Pointed out by Manop, thanks) It's Reverse Psychology. The writer add an often unrelated accusations by opponents which sounds silly/rediculous/non-sense (especially when readers don't understand Thai culture, or don't know the unmentioned context). The readers then see the silliness of the accusaion then look at the accused in a better light. How smart...

The first one if the mentioning of Earawan Shrine incident in all political articles, see here Finland Plot discussion.

Thanks Dave for finding another one using this tactic here in Thaksin's page. --Donny TH (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)