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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organized crime 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.
The mention of sean parlaman seems rather POV in my eyes. Perhaps i would go so far as to call it an attack. I'm gonna take it out, as calling someone a con-man pedophile doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Gilgamesh Rex (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, I just looked at his article and did some light reading around. Why is everyone using such strong language against this dude? If he was saying the same things (which he most definitely was) why stoop to his level, especially in an encyclopedia? Gilgamesh Rex (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not responsible for the strong language in question but:
Parlaman did not say the same thing as D!B!T! Rather, he said many things, many of them flatly contradicting things that he'd said earlier.
It's fairly easy to show that Parlaman was, indeed, a con-man and pædophile. Light research might not reveal that because Parlaman used the Web to kite credentials (like others kite checks), and a cursory investigation could have one swimming in a sea of illusion.
Anyway, I see no particular reason to reinsert the language that you removed, but your comments here warranted some reply.
I have removed the proposed deletion tag, but I would not oppose a merger of the content here with the article on Vachss, so long as this article were turned into a redirect.
I've added some references and would be willing to seek-out more for the article, but I'd like to see some consensus as to whether a merge is preferred to a stand-alone article, before I plot-out how much of my time to invest in this article. —SlamDiego←T 08:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Given that the references you mention are not available online...would you mind summarizing what exactly the references include that makes this whole organization notable.... I would strongly support a merge and delete...I do not believe this is a notable company. benjicharlton (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that these references establish notability, though I am sure that enough references of the right sort can be tracked-down to do so, because I remember the campaign and something of the coverage that it received (not as much as was sought, but enough for notability). (Again, while I know that references can be tracked-down, I don't know what investment I want to make in doing so — including at what rate — unless I have a better idea about what would come of the effort.) The campaign was begun by a notable person, and at its peak was openly supported by a few notable corporations. While (by virtue of the structure of the the organizaton) it's impossible to know how many supporters it had, apparently hundreds were sufficiently involved to write to the Oregon legislature in protest when it ws discovered that an NGO in Thailand has misallocated a grant (intend to support ESL in Thailand or somesuch) in order to use the funds to attack D!B!T! Major Thai media fulminated against D!B!T! Various Thai exporters were sufficiently concerned to relabel their products from “Made in Thailand” to “Made in Siam” (to obfuscate). —SlamDiego←T 08:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)