Talk:Prayut Chan-o-cha

Martial Law, B.E. 2457 (1914)

The general specifically cited this century-old act as his authority. I followed a news link to one source for it here:

• Pakorn Nilprapunt (October 16, 2006, modified April 2, 2012). "Martial Law, B.E. 2457 (1914) — unofficial translation" (PDF). thailawforum.com. Office of the Council of State. Retrieved May 21, 2014. Reference to Thai legislation in any jurisdiction shall be to the Thai version only. This translation has been made so as to establish correct understanding about this Act to the foreigners. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

So far, I've only added links to it at Chulalongkorn, Vajiravudh, Palace Revolt of 1912 and Martial_law#Thailand. Some foreign press reports have referred to as being "pulled off the shelf," or words to that effect. I think the name of the Act should be worked into this article, with links to its historical provenance, but will leave that to others. The translated text originated from the Office of the Council of State (Thailand) — Thai: สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกฤษฎีกา (ประเทศไทย) —Pawyilee (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Dictator

Should he reserve as the Dictator of Thailand?Marxistfounder (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

On what basis does Wikipedia recognize this man as a 'Prime Minister' and what determines the use of 'His Excellency'

This man is totally unelected by the people of Thailand. He is a dictator by international standards. This should be clear right at the beginning of this article. Wikipedia needs consistency, not localization of 'truth'. Please consider rewriting the lead paragraph to show the controversy over this man's status for the sake of the Thai populace under his oppression. There is no free speech in Thailand and even posting on Wikipedia can be a risk to a Thai individual's freedom. This article is not sufficient or fair in its classification of the current person wielding threat-based power over the people.NaturalEquality (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The diplomatic honorific "Excellency" that is only used in inter-governmental contexts does not belong in the infobox. We do not include it in Donald Trump's, Angela Merkel's or Theresa May's infobox, either. This is not a matter of democratic legitimation. Concerning his recognition as prime minister: He is the prime minister of Thailand. It is a fact that he holds this position, he was appointed by the king and he is recognised as prime minister by all other governments of the world. It does not matter if we like the way he took power. "Dictator" is not a governmental position or title in any modern country; but dozens of presidents and prime ministers around the world are in fact dictators. Unfortunately, it is not a question of democratic legitimacy whether someone is recognised as president or prime minister in many countries (because they are no democracies). Yet, I think the article makes very clear that he took power in a coup d'état, is unelected and rules in an authoritarian way. --RJFF (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: Prayut illegally usurped power via a coup. That is clear. But that alone does not make him a dictator (although his subsequent actions may show/have shown he is one).Seligne (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Do we legitimize "polls" by unelected leaders?

Currently, the last part of the lead is a "poll" on the performance of Mr. Chan-o-cha. I don't want to remove it unilaterally, because it is a sourced item, but it seems problematic to uncritically report on "polling" under unelected regimes like this one, that always seem to report strong support despite being unable to win in free and fair elections. It hardly seems possible to have a reliable opinion poll under a military dictatorship that has been known to imprison dissidents and political enemies. Is there a wiki policy for fraudulent "polls" like this one?PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. Thailand is an unfree country, freedom of expression is severely restricted (see e.g. Freedom House report). So opinion poll ratings do not necessarily reflect the real views of the people. Moreover, Thai opinion pollsters are notoriously unreliable, they were so even in (semi-) democratic phases. Furthermore, it is unusual to include statements about poll ratings in the lead sections of articles on other countries' leaders, as well (no matter if democratic or authoritarian). Because poll ratings can shift so quickly, this is not really encyclopedic information. Most politicians have phases in which they are more, and others during which they are less popular. --RJFF (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Seligne: I cannot find comparable statements in the lead sections of any of the articles you cite as examples. Moreover those cases are quite different: Thatcher and Bush are long out of office and Putin has been in office for more than a decade, so it is possible to regard their tenures with a historical view (e.g. Putin's article does not include a specific approval rating as of today, but a general statement about popular approval during his leadership as a whole). Also, you completely disregarded the statements on this talk page, regarding the lack of freedom in Thailand (conceded that the same is true for Russia, but at least Putin was elected three times by high margins and not all of them were completely rigged; Prayut was never elected by anyone) and the unreliability of Thai pollsters that cast strong doubts on the value of this rating. Please join this discussion instead of merely restoring your version. --RJFF (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• From George W. Bush: "Nationally, Bush was both one of the most popular and unpopular presidents in history, having received the highest recorded presidential approval ratings in the wake of the September 11 attacks, as well as one of the lowest approval ratings during the 2008 financial crisis."

• From Margaret Thatcher: "Her standing in the polls rose by 11% after a January 1978 interview for World in Action in which she said "the British character has done so much for democracy, for law and done so much throughout the world that if there is any fear that it might be swamped people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in", as well as "in many ways [minorities] add to the richness and variety of this country."

(I did not have to look hard in the above articles and I stopped searching after the first mention. I am sure I could search through a rogues gallery: Hitler, Idi Amin, Mussolini, Robert Mugabe, Castro, et al. , and find examples of references to popularity polls, elections, and the like.

I am unsure why you want to bowdlerize the Prayut article. The fact that he was unelected seems to me to be beside the point. We are writing about reality here, not politically correct longings for the way things "ought to be". Regarding the interim constitution proposed by the junta and ratified by the Thai electorate (what is an election but an official poll?): would you have us not write about it? Would you employ "constructive censorship"?

There is a lot in the Prayut article that is strongly critical of him. The paragraph you want to censor is one of the few positive mentions in the article. That may be what you are objecting to, but I oppose its deletion as it is real, it is impeccably sourced, and it is relevant to understanding the current state of Thai society and Prayut's role in it. Seligne (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand why you accuse me of censorship or other bad intentions. Hopefully, you did not find my above statement aggressive or accusative, as it was certainly not intended that way. As you can see from my statement in the previous talk thread ("On what basis does Wikipedia recognize..."), I wholly agree with your position that we should present realities as they are, and not wishful thinking.

As I have said before, the articles you cite (Putin, Bush, Thatcher) contain general stataments about approval ratings during their tenure as a whole, viewed from a historical perspective, and not an individual poll rating at an arbitrary point in time. Perhaps, historians will make such statements at the end of Prayut's tenure (whenever that will be) or after, say, eight years in office. But as of now, there is not much historical literature about the "Prayut era" and it is not appropriate to place a single, random poll rating in such a prominent place in the article. --RJFF (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh i just realized there is a discussion on this, I was a bit bold and removed it earlier without checking here first (this isnt one of my normal topics). Nonetheless the reason for my removal is conveyed very well by RJFF. A single random poll from one point in time does not fit in, all of the examples Seligne cited are general poll trends, not just a single random poll. Using a single random poll on wikipedia is like saying Romney was the favorite to win the 2012 US election because one poll on Gallup predicted he would win, when in reality the aggregate poll trend had Obama as the favorite. Also, as pointed out above, unlike Bush's US and Thatcher's UK, Thailand is not a free country currently and the reliability of polls is questionable. Considering the fact that a little over a year ago the Bangkok Post reported a "poll" that said the junta had a 99% approval rating, its not likely Thai polls under the current regime are scientific. [1]. The only other country I can think of where a "poll" would be that favorable to the government is North Korea. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Land deal and actual father and mother

Unless I missed it General Prayuth's father and mother's names are not mentioned. He is listed as being born in Nakhorn Ratchasima yet he claims that his 600 million baht land plots in Bangkok were his from when he was a kid. There's too much mystery here. What is his family background and why would someone from a very poor part of Thailand give so much land to a kid at a young age? If anyone has any more details on Prayuth's life and birth family please add more to this page. His parents are listed here at this link but this is the only one I have found 203.131.210.82 (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Nakhon Ratchasima is not that poor; moreover even in poor provinces, not everyone is poor. Given that his father was a high-ranking military officer (Sen. Col. Prapat Chan-ocha), I do not see a contradiction between his family being originally from Bangkok and Prayut being born and raised in Nakhon Ratchasima. Military personnel are often deployed to different parts of the country and Nakhon Ratchasima is a major army garrison (headquarters of the 2nd Army region), so many soldiers live there with their families for some period of their career, without being originally from that province. Of course, this does not necessarily explain all of Prayut's pecuniary circumstances. --RJFF (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Should nomination Reporters Without Borders be included?

I believe this information should be included: Prayut has been nominated as "Press Freedom Predator" twice by Reporters Without Borders. It has been covered by Thai news outlets such as this Khao Sod English report, so it is notable enough for inclusion.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we can add a criticisms section and add this info Sixfingeredamish (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Is he or isn't he?

At least two different IP editors have jammed "is a Thai politician" and "is a thailandian politician" into the lede. Does 'election' via a coup make you a 'politician'? Is he a politician? Shenme (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Signature

The current signature used on the article is his English signature. There's another file for his Thai signature, shouldn't we use that instead as it is his "real signature"? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Signature_of_Prayut_Chan-o-cha.png Sixfingeredamish (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Prime ministerial viewpoints

How better to capture some of the essence of the man than by using his own words as reported in responsible media? As for questioning the neutrality of the selections, all are properly sourced. No one is prevented from adding to the section provided a reputable source is cited. As for length, he does happen to be the head of an important SE Asian nation. One reason WP has sections is to allow readers to skip over what is not of interest to them. I would be in favour of removing the distracting tag.Seligne (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree they should be broken out into different sections baconbits (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the content should be reorganized and rewritten as continuous prose rather than a list. The section's scope is unclear and goes against Wikipedia principles on list integration.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The list is de facto in chronological order for the most part. As more content/sections get added to the article I can see moving his quips to the appropriate place. Farang, you mention "WP list integration". Can you tell me where I can read about this? Can't find anything at first glance. Thanx. Seligne (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for MOS:EMBED.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Political Party

Prayut is not a member of the Phalang Pracharat Party despite being its candidate. This is an important distinction. baconbits (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Name

Must we abide by his mandate spelling his name? To my knowledge, most international media outlets (BBC, CNN, etc) are still spelling his name Prayuth Chan-ocha. --Varavour (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that the Thai Government website spells his name "Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha". See http://www.thaigov.go.th/index.php. Seems to me we ought to go with what the Thai Government says, not CNN. Your take? Seligne (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I do want to restart this discussion. I really think we should use Prayuth over Prayut since virtually all English media uses that spelling. It is therefore the commonly used spelling. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names) baconbits (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Moved revisited section to bottom. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't treat government press briefings as authoritative, since they tend to just use whatever spelling the translator came up with. Support renaming the page to follow WP:COMMONNAME. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no reason not to follow the way Prayut romanises his own name. Both major English language newpapers in Thailand, "Bangkok Post" and "The Nation", use that spelling. Why would foreign papers be a better source for the spelling? Furthermore it is very unusual to spell any Thai words to end with "th". −Woodstone (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, the AP, New York Times, Washington Post, etc use "Prayuth Chan-ocha" This is not about who is a better source, it's about which is more commonly used. baconbits (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Woodstone, do we have any indication of which is the way Prayut actually spells his name? I doubt we've seen a copy of his passport or ID card, but maybe there are other primary sources? --Paul_012 (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
    • The most direct way is to look at his official Facebook page Prayut Chan-o-cha. Or look at the Opening of Asean meeting. −Woodstone (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm not quite convinced that those two sources are an accurate reflection of his personal preference. As far as we knew some members of staff from his office and the MFA registered the Facebook page and wrote the press release, most likely without personally asking him how the name should be spelled. There are many examples of the Prayuth spelling on the MFA's website,[2] though granted it's much less common than Prayut, so it's still debatable what the WP:COMMONNAME spelling is. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Quite a while ago there has been an official announcement to the press that he wanted to change the spelling of his name from <first name> Chan-ocha to Prayut Chan-o-cha. I have seen it in the Bangkok Post, but cannot find a reference. I do not remember whether he changed the spelling of his first name at that time. But I did find this not authoritative source. A curious mix is found at the CIA. −Woodstone (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Ah, so this was what originally prompted the 2014 discussion. I had completely forgotten. Thanks; this answers my question. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Back to the original point, though. Taking another look at Google results, I don't find Prayuth to be overwhelmingly more common than Prayut, so the WP:COMMONNAME argument probably doesn't support renaming right now. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Personal Religion

What is Prayuth's religion? Is he Muslim or Buddhist? 118.174.194.4 (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)