User talk:Patiwat/20 Sep 2006 - 30 Sep 2006

Thai democracy RIP

Your verdict? Adam 01:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I protested at the Thai Consul in New York City today. Didn't have enough time to get the press in, so only NY1 (a local TV channel) and TV Asahi interviewed me. Tomorrow we will try again with more people, and try to grab the progressive US media, and CNN and BBC if I'm lucky.

My line is this: it doesn't matter if you like Thaksin or not. Elections were just a month away, and the democratic process was moving forward. Parties were actively campaigning, a new Election Commission was established, and there have been no reports of election fraud. To abrogate the constitution less than a month before the election is an abomination against democracy.

The 1997 Constitution wasn't perfect, but it was nearly universally regarded as the most democratic constitution in Thai history, and produced what were regarded as two of the cleanest elections in Thai history. Furthermore, all the major parties had promised to amend it after the constitution after the election anyway.

The military will do two things, either ban TRT, or try Thaksin and seize its assets. The latter is the most probable - it was what the NPKC did after seizing power in 1992. The trial was total bullshit, of course and everybody knew it, but it will gave the military a quasi-legal means to permanently get rid of Chatichai, and more importantly, Arthit Kamlang-ek, who Chatichai tried to appoint as Defense Minister the day of the coup. For more impact, they might also throw a lese-majeste charge or another royal-related charge at Thaksin.

It will be difficult to ban TRT outright and still have a facade of a free and fair election. There was a reason that TRT was so successful - it had a lot of credibility in delivering popular things like rural anti-poverty programs and killing all the drug dealers. In a really free and fair election, I have no doubt that TRT/Thaksin would either win a majority or at least be a very powerful opposition. Jailing or exiling Thaksin seems to be the only way to get him out of politics. Patiwat 02:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree the coup is indefensible, although I do think Thaksin brought it on himself through his corruption and arrogance. However since it appears that the King has (again) acquiesced in a coup, no doubt the great majority of Thais will accept it. So much for Bhumipol the champion of democracy. Despite all the rah-rah of the Jubilee, this will now be recorded as a very black year in his biography, particularly if the elections are cancelled. Has Abhisit said anything? If you are staging another demo, get some photos. Adam 02:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[1] Adam 08:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that Adam, this coup risks damaging the prestige of "the institution" as a respected political player in the eyes of Thaksin's many supporters. On that note, Patiwat, I'd like to hear your views on what you think was REALLY going on here, esp with regard to the forbidden topics (yes, the stuff McCargo and Handley like talking about). Let me know where I should e-mail you if you're uncomfortable discussing here. Tettyan 17:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting, isn't it, that after the coup, there is immediate calm in the South. Nothing, not a single murder, not a single bomb. Whereas before the coup, bombs and murders were occuring daily. Its startling how quickly peace was restored. And just 3 days before the coup, Sonthi was still twidling his thumbs and admitting that although he had bravely gone against government policy by announcing he would negotiate with the insurgency leaders, he still didn't know who the insurgency leaders were. Why is it that the southern fire was doused so quickly after Thaksin was brought down?

The southern fires were relit in January with the theft of the weapons from the armory at the same time TRT won the election in early January 2001. This was before 9/11, by the way. Before the War on Drugs, too. Before Thaksin's policy's were announced (thats why I disagree with McCargo - his timing is a bit off). Why is it that the southern fire was lit so qickly after Thaksin became Premier?

That's where the facts end and the personal speculation begins... Lest you think I'm taking this way too personally, let me tell you guys, I do take this personally. I'm a Southerner and 2 of my relatives have been killed down there so far. Patiwat 18:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Really? I'm very sorry to hear that. Though a bit surprised - from what I heard (yes, you're somewhat famous with a certain circle of my acquaintances), I thought you were a Bangkokonian.

Are you familiar with [this blog] on the southern conflict?  ::::From what I gather, there was an uptick of violence beginning with Thaksin's rise to power in 2001, but the insurgency really didn't flare up on a wide scale until December 2003, with the theft from that arms depot in Narathiwat. Is that the "heft of the weapons from the armory" you're referring to, or was there an earlier theft that wasn't covered significantly? Also, which McCargo articles are you referring to, the more general "Network Monarchy" article or the one more specifically about the south?

The War on Drugs is a completely different matter. Most people assume that the palace and Thaksin were at loggerheads on this issue, but the digger you deep, the more it appears not to be the case. Paul Handley certainly doesn't think so either. Neither does a good friend of mine who saw much of it up close and personal. May you live interesting times, Tettyan 00:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You might have misinterpreted something there about the War on Drugs. I was referring to rumors that the War on Drugs caused some revenge seeking southern drug dealers to get even with the government by funding the southern fire. As for the War on Drugs and the King, I agree, and you don't have to read things very deeply. The King in his annual speech of 2002 was very critical of drug dealers, and in 2003 was said the War on Drugs was a good thing.

I thought I had posted the 2001 events up onto the South Thailand insurgency article (that's how I use Wikipedia, by the way, as a memory aid that dynamically corrects itself for errors), but can't seem to find it now. Lemme look it up later. The McCargo article I'm referring to is the one specifically about the South.

Bangkokpundit isn't bad. Our views differ on some things, but he's just not that fun to read. I'm much more of a fan of the Sarasonteh blog. He's got bite.

As for my origins, well, I've got many roots, including far-south, south, "forest", west, and Bangkok, some mon, singaporean, malaysian, and vietnamese to round it off. I consider myself a southerner because in my view, Bangkok people are slow, silly, and don't have any balls; and once you've eaten southern food, the cuisine of any other region just sucks in comparison. I think these attributes define "southerner". :-) Patiwat 00:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of silly Bangkokians, I think the silliest thing about this coup is the fact that the main reasons Bangkokians hate Thaksin: his arrogance, his supposed restrictions of the media, his violations of human rights, his supposed trampling on free elections - are all made even worse by the junta. They most arrogant people, are after all, the guys with guns. The junta has restricted the media back to 1991 levels, and even then, we had Mong Taang Moom to take a bit out of the government's hide. And even the NPKC didn't try to arrest people on a hunger strike. As for free elections, I don't really see a free election (with Thaksin able to run and lead TRT) coming within the next year. Yet, the hypocrite Bangkokians are chearing the junta on! It'll serve them right when the junta wont let go, and things are spiral down to 1992/1976/1973 levels again... Those silly Bangkokians, they should eat some Kaeng Som to drive some sense into their brains :-) Patiwat 00:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

just passing, I think you are very gentle with Thaksin and very hard with the Bangkokian. Did you read the "Thaksinisation of Thailand"? Thaksin control over the media is well documented and only today have a look at the Postbag of the BP. Cronism and nepotism were a reality under Thaksin, that is why, even if I agree with you about the use of miliatry power in general, when the system has been milked dry and the constitution is no more than vefig leaves for tyranny (in its original greek meaning), what remains? Democracy is more than a name, it is spirit.Roger jg 14:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sonthi Boonyaratglin

I changed the references on Sonthi Boonyaratglin to one style, arguably the easiest one to use. I thought you might want to know since you've done some excellent work improving that article. DRK 21:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your contribution. It might also be useful if we included the publication date in the reference, since some of those websites might be taken down later, and knowing the date might help a reader/researcher in finding the article. Patiwat 21:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sondhis

Are Sonthi/Sondhi Boonyaratglin and Sondhi Limthongkul related? Adam 02:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

์*No! Limthongkul is a Chinese, and Boonyaratglin comes from an old Bangkok Muslim family. Just their first name is the same. Patiwat 04:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

hi

I saw one of your Wiki comments on bangkokpundit and read your user profile here. I'm pretty sure that you're the "Patiwat" that I once knew via email/phone. Did you work at "B" company in BKK with Jan? Seems like you're back in NYC? I just started this account, I have no idea how to use Wikipedia. Sarah Padthai2go 14:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats me all right. You're the Sarah from Wellesley, right? Still in NYC? Shoot an email back to anonymous.thai.1@gmail.com Patiwat 19:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Preview Suggestion

I just wanted to make a quick suggestion:

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. alphaChimp^(talk) 00:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. Was this for any site in particular? Patiwat 09:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Coup

Thanks, You are doing a very good work but it is going to be hard to keep it clean ! Regards ~R

Many eyeballs are there to help me :-) It is worth it, though. Without a site like Wikipedia that compiles it all together and screens out the lies, Thais would still be victim to the news blackout and be blind about how the rest of the world views this abomination. Patiwat 09:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The King and the Coup

Hello, it's DTRY here. I've just read your reply on my talk page and wish to ask you some questions. In your reply you said:

Hi there! I read your post on the article on the coup, and was a bit surprised that you inferred that I was trying to drag the King into the political mess. I posited no hypotheses about the King's role.

Patiwat, sorry if I misunderstood your post, but what is THIS?

“ As per Wikipedia policy, let the facts speak for themselves, and only note speculation when it is published by someone else's. The facts in this case show that after the April elections, Thaksin confidently publicly declared victory. The next day, he had an audience with the King, and a few hours later, appeared on TV, practically crying, saying that he wouldn't accept the Premiership. And a few days ago, General Prem had an audience with the King at the same time the tanks started rolling out of Lopburi. Patiwat 14:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC) ”

Now, wasn't you trying to imply that:

1. The King had talked Thaksin to step down after his victory?
2. The King and privy councillor Prem were secretly support the coup?

That post was made on 14:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC). Yet, when you sent me your post on 18:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC) you claimed that you wasn't "trying to drag the King into the political mess."

An hour and a half later, you added speculations from both Thai and foreign analysts that suspect the King was indeed behind the coup.

And then your today's edits (22 September 2006) just seal it.

Come on, I've read a lot of your edits on the King's page, and come to a conclusion that you don't like Him very much. I support Democracy and freedom of thought (as long as it doesn't cause harm to yourself and others.) You may have your own reasons to distrust the King, and I have my own reasons to trust Him. If we have disagreements, we can always engage in a civil debate. It's not like I'm going to hunt you down and kill you for lese majesty or anything. At least try to be sincere here, okay? - DTRY 15:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. In the post you quoted, all of my statements are factual, verifiable, and uncontroversial. I framed no hypotheses. I did not advance a pet theory. If those facts I presented made you infer that the King was in the conflict, then it certainly wasn't because I dragged him into it.

As for the Thai and foreign analysts saying the King was behind the coup, well, I didn't exactly manufacture any of that myself. And given how Sulak always makes controversial remarks regarding the coup after a coup (he did it after 1991 as well, for which he was tried for lese-majeste), it was only a matter of time before somebody used that BBC article in Wikipedia.

I got nothing against the King. I respect some aspects of his thoughts on rural development, and with 2 eyes, I wish I could sail half as good as he did in his prime with only one eye. But wikipedia is not a hagiography. We gotta present the entire picture. And that entire picture includes an active role in politics. When I look at my own political heros, its tough for me to say that I've agreed with every political judgement they've made in their lives. That doesn't mean I don't trust them or look up to them any less; it just means that I need to deeply understand how their judgement works. And I can't do that if I don't have the complete picture, one that isn't neccesarily available to the guy on the street. That's what I'm trying to do with my articles. Patiwat

You're obviously knowledgable and passionate about Thai politics. Why don't you have a look at Constitutions of Thailand, which I've pretty much edited on my own. It needs another set of eyes.

19sept blog

here it is: http://19sep.blogspot.com/ not sure it is the same person Roger jg 16:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No. of protestors at Siam Center

Please check the nation article. It does not give a number of protestors Roger jg 09:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I seeing:

Public stages its first protest

Nearly 100 people staged the first civilian protest against the coup last night, calling it illegitimate and a violation of Thai democracy.

-- Patiwat 10:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

archiving 2006 Thailand coup

Should we archive the talk page tonight? The main contributors seems to have reached agreement on the current issues. We could start a new talk with the remaining issues, mainly future of the article, whereabout of thak's familly, development regarding the CRDM.... Roger jg 10:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, just don't archive everything. A handful of issues are still open. Patiwat 10:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There must be light in the darkness...

WikiThanks

Thank you !

Note : When I introduced the picture, it was meant to be a THANK YOU note. I do *not* support the barnstar system. I started putting it on meta, on Raul talk page first as a simple thank you. It is meant to be little, to be gentle, to be hardly visible at all, not to be displayed in user page. Those who use it as a barnstar have made me great wrongness, because this little thank you note was precisely meant to be different of the barnstar system, all splattered on user page. If you appreciate what I do for Wikipedia, please DO NOT KEEP this on your user page, but leave it simply as a little thank you flower on your talk page and let it fall in your archives. This is simply what it was meant to be. This image is under GFDL, so, yes, you can do whatever you want with it, but if you want to be nice and stick to its original spirit, please do NOT use it as a barnstar. It pains me. Anthere 06:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you, Roger jg. Are you saying that you were the creator of BoNM_Thailand.png and that you created it with the intention that it would be displayed in users' Talk pages, but not displayed for the world at large to see on the users' User pages? If so, then please accept my apologies. I received the Thailand Barnstar from someone else, and that person stated that I could place it on my User page. I guess I'll find some time later to create an alternative Thailand Barnstar... Patiwat 10:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

p.s., So is "Anthere" a pen-name of yours or something?

no, this thanks box asks the user to put this message too! Sorry for the confusion! I'll know for next time. Roger jg 09:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Awards given to me

Thanks for the awards! I like them very much! Humanoid 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciated them. I've never given the Barnstar of Liberty to anyone before. Please keep up your contributions. Wikipedia needs passionate opinionated contributors, to maintain its incisiveness, and it needs them from all sides of the political spectrum in order to maintain balance. Keep up the fight! Patiwat 20:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Transliteration of Thai names

You might well be right. I thought that the transliteration section was somewhat justified in this case, since the pronunciation of King Bhumibol Adulyadej's name is so very different from that which the transliteration suggests. However, I'm not in the habit of adding such sections to articles, and in this case, I was merely making an edit requested by an anonymous user on the talk page, so you might want to pursue this discussion there. Personally, I think the transliteration section spoils the flow of the article, but I also think that cramming so much information into the header makes it very difficult to read; I would therefore favour the box system which you illustrated in your postscript. TheMadBaron 23:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, when I read your post next to the unsigned post, I thought you were the author of both.

Weird transliterations are extremely common in Thailand: "Shinawatra" should be "Chinawat", "Nyanasamvara" should be "Yanasangworn", "Paripatra" should be "Boriphat", "Vejjajiva" should be "Wetchachiwa", etc. How about we try to get input from others in Talk:Bhumibol Adulyadej or Wikipedia:Thailand-related topics notice board? That way, whatever the consensus is can be applied to all Thai bio articles. Patiwat 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarifiation 2006 Coup D'etat

Hello Paitwat, I have clarified the name of the section relating my disagreemnt with the method used by Humanoid. I am still considering putting this article under POV as it does not portray the current situation with fairness and accuracy for non-thai. Or at least ask it to be reviewed. Roger jg 09:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please make it a bit clearer where the argument or POV is (be specific please). I have a hard time keeping track of the debate between you and Humanoid - hence I wasn't able to give my opinion on whether it is POV or not. Patiwat 10:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I really hate to jump into this, but as someone who has contributed very little to the coup page maybe my comments can help. Here's one POV example (and I am not sure whose contribution this is, but there are many similar examples): in the public disapproval section there is a very nice quote from Anand Panyarachun, but one sentence in the quote has been italicized. Why? The quote is perfectly clear on its own. Adding the italics emphasizes Anand's disapproval, as though the quote were being offered to make a point in a debate about how much disapproval of the coup there is. The italics are not Anand's, so they aren't required to express, in a neutral manner, his POV. Therefore, they are an expression of the POV of the contributor who added them. This, I think, is what there is too much of in the article now. During the first days after the coup the article was maintaining NPOV very well. But now a reader can pretty much tell which parts are coming from contributors of which perspective. That really detracts from the quality of the article, giving it an argumentative tone. Strangely, even careful documentation can contribute to an argumentative tone. For example, I think the footnote supporting Anand's status as a respected intellectual is superfluous. The link to the Wikipedia article about him has been provided, and that article makes his status sufficiently clear. The contributor (whether you or someone else) added the footnote, I am guessing, because there have been a lot of attacks on the anti-coup contributions, with the attackers often demanding more documentation. But the effect, ironically, is to alert the reader to the debate going on behind the scenes, and thus to detract from the NPOV ideal. Documenting a bland description of Anand's place in Thai society, which any curious reader could verify simply by following the link to the article about him, has the same effect as adding the italics. It suggests that objections are anticipated to what is being asserted, which tells the reader that he or she has slipped out of the comfortable world of what is generally accepted and stumbled into the realm of advocacy. Debate of course is fine on the talk pages, and on the coup article talk pages there is plenty of it. But when the debate discernably spills over into the article, so that the article itself starts to read like a dialogue between advocates of warring points of view, then there is more POV in the article than is desirable. I hope my comments seem contructive. I think you and Humanoid have well earned your Thai Barnstars (?) with your work on the coup page. If I seem to have chosen very tiny issues of POV to point out, that is because I think such small issues best illustrate how extremely difficult the task of maintaining NPOV can be, especially where feelings are (as here of course they should be) strong. David Watson 05:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, David. Comments below. Patiwat 06:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• The italics: Thanks for pointing out the italics in Anand's coup. As you can see in the Discussion page, I wasn't sure what sections from Anand's long interview with the FEER to include in the article. I therefore put italics around sentences that might be candidates for inclusion - those are the italics that you saw in the article, that I have just removed.
• The footnote to the article on leading intellectual figures: Informational claims should be backed up by references to external sources, not other Wikipedia articles. In order to reduce any distraction, I might place the footnote at the end of the sentence, rather than right in the middle. That would also be more consistent with accepted citation practice.
• I haven't earned a Thai Barnstar on coup article yet. My current Barnstar came from taking Bhumibol Adulyadej to Featured Article. When this whole thing cools down, I hope to nominate the coup article for Featured Article status as well.
• Feel free to nitpick :-) Wikipedia gets better only through incremental improvements.

I have clarified the dipute here Public disapproval and protest of the 2006 Thailand coup d'état. Like David Watson I think there is a lot of small words being inserted and that POV many pieces of informationand sometimes, just the title of a section can lead to POV. This is why I have often asked for contextual info to balance the insert. Note that I did not ask to put the justification of the coup in context someone else did. We had to add a context to the restriction of freedom of speech because of editors wanting to misrepresent access to information in Thailand. I really think we should stick to the facts. Regarding my position on the coup, I can assure the two of you that it is very clear: I am a non-judgemental pragmatic. I would not have predicted thsi coup. Now that it has happened, it's our duty to report it has it has happened withou ttrying to qualify each piece of info.Roger jg 13:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yo, it wasn't me

I've veiw that article a lot but never edited it

Apologies. I saw your name in the edit history and thought it was you who made the edit. Patiwat 10:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Throne Hall

The Throne Hall, Royal Plaza, Bangkok, with the equestrian statue of Rama V in the foreground

I thought I had a photo of it. You might find a use for it. Adam 11:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Commons there's a more close-up view as well - Image:Bangkok old parliament.jpg andy 16:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mine is more artistic :) It looks a bit like the Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne. Adam 00:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thailand 2006 interim civilian government

Hi patiwat, I have done quite a lot of work on Thailand 2006 interim civilian government. If you have the time to have a look let me know what you think Roger jg 13:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Map as promised

Central Bangkok

Tell me if you think I have missed anything of importance before I upload this to the coup article. Maybe the sites of the protests? (PS Time to archive your Talk page) Adam 14:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job, Adam. Notes below. Patiwat 18:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Should somehow make note that Siam Center and Siam Paragon (those were listed as protest sites) are next to Siam Square
• Police HQ is near Ratchadamri (across from the World Trade Center, Hyatt, and Gaysorn on Rama I, next to the Police Hospital and right before Siam). Not sure what is located at the place you listed as Police HQ - maybe the old Police HQ?
• Throne Hall should be Ananta Samakhom Throne Hall. There are other Throne Halls (Phra Thi Nang) as well.
• Some landmarks and major roads should be labelled on the map: Chao Phraya River, Sanam Luang, Ratchwithi Rd., Phayathai Rd., Phetburi Rd., Larn Luang, some N-S-W-E navigation arrows
• The official name of the Heroic Monument should be the 14 Oct Monument (I think - not sure)
• I'm not sure what that U-shaped building in Thammasat is supposed to correspond to. At the very simplest, TU shoul be represented as a box with the four lines not touching (the TU football field, originally stated as a protest site, is in the middle)
• The Old Royal Palace is the Emerald Buddha/Grand Palace complex, right? If so, it should be moved slightly so its many buildings should fill in a larger portion of that block.
• Nitpick: you might want to represent the Democracy Monument as 4 dots and 1 dot in the middle
• You could probably crop the north of the map (anything above Chitlada). I'm not sure if you need so much road detail in the center of Bangkok.

Thanks for that. I will make most of the changes you suggest. Re the police: my map identifies the site on Th Si Ayutthaya as "Metropolitan Police Headquarters" and the site you nominate as "Pol Royal". I would not of course be surprised to learn that there are two, three or 16 different police forces in Bkk. Can you explain the difference? Adam 09:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Metropolitan Police Bureau has jurisdiction in Bangkok, but the one across from the WTC is the สำนักงานตำรวจแห่งชาติ - the National Police Office - which replaced the Police Department a few years ago as the umbrella for the entire Thai police force. Patiwat 09:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. (Whoever they are they all have really cute uniforms). I have reworked the map and will now instal it in the coup article. Adam 10:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cute uniforms?!? Surely you jest :-) You must mean those girls in hotpants that were photographed dancing for soldiers.... Patiwat 10:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Chacun a son gout. Adam 10:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The map looks great! But 9. should be "October 14 Monument", not "October 4 Monument". A tiny point: you note that Siam Square is site of post-coup protests, but Thammasat, Chula, and the Democracy Monument were used as well.

If others want modify your map (e.g., if a new location becomes significant), will making changes on a .gif file cause degradation in quality over time? If so, you might want to upload a version in a lossless format. Patiwat 10:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I will correct 4 Oct, but there isn't room for much else. Others can of course modify the map if they choose, although I would rather they didn't. I don't know what a lossless format is. Adam 11:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

GIF is fine here. The format that degrades with each modification is JPEG. -- Lerdsuwa 16:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I give up (again)

Practically all my important contributions to the coup have been completely deleted, mostly by Roger_jg. Even in the subarticle on public disapproval. The wiki has a clear policy on verifiability and NPOV. My additions to the articles were in accordace with those policies. I had reliable sources referenced. And the NPOV policy clearly states that all sides deserve to be heard. As it stands, in the subarticle, the section on reactions from common people (and poor) was completely deleted. They are the most numerous in the country, yet they are not mentioned at all in the subarticle. And there is only one paragraph (at the moment) left in the main article about the poor's disapproval. Since you're the only other major contributor there besides Roger_jg, and you're not biased, I am hoping/requesting that you can do something about the poor people's voices not being heard. As for me, I don't see the point of contributing anymore when all my most important contributions keep getting deleted by Roger_jg. I have a lot of work to do outside of wikipedia, and when my wikipedia work has resulted in absolutely no progress (being completely deleted), I have little reason to think that further contributions to the article will make any difference. So I am giving up again. I don't think I'll contribute to the wikipedia articles on the coup in Thailand again until I see that Roger_jg is not involved anymore. Humanoid 22:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't give up yet. Lemme have a looksie. Patiwat 22:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue with the article right now is that its title proclaims that its coverage is the "public", but its actual coverage is focused on the views of organized groups and the intellectual/academic elite.

The one data point we have that includes the "common man", the opinion poll, gives the reader a quantitative picture about what people think of it. But it doesn't give any insight at all into why the common man, who has been the focus of Thaksin's government, either supports the coup or doesn't. For that we need either deep and objective analysis, which nobody has been able to provide yet, or a very selected, balanced, and referenced selection of quotes that provide insight on both sides of the fence.

The quote that you provided is a very powerful and sincere statement that digs deep into the driving factors behind supporters of Thaksin who are against the coup. I particularly like it because it can stand on its own, without any commentary.

However, it must be balanced by an equally powerful statement from a supporter of Thaksin who is for the coup. They exist, and in my opinion, they are the majority of the nation now. Why don't we both try to find a quote from one of them that's been published in the press; a quote that can also stand on its own in clearly illustrating why somebody who has benefit from Thaksin's policies and voted him back in 2005 and 2006 is now supporting the coup.

So far, I have only come across three kinds of people (a) anti-thaskin, anti-coup, (b) anti-thaksin, pro-coup, (c) pro-thaksin anti-coup. I have not seen anybody of the (d) pro-thaksin, pro-coup kind. I also don't think we need to find a (d) to balance my inclusion of voices from (c). The inclusion of (c) is more than balanced by all the inclusion of (b), which is the direct opposite of (c). The opposite of (c) is (b), not (d). Humanoid 02:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, if information is available, there is no policy that we need to find contradictory information (for balance) before we can add it to an article. If 99.99% of people think the sky is blue, are we not allowed to claim that the sky is blue in wikipedia until we can balance it by finding a claim by somebody who thinks the sky is red? The thing is, wiki policy says that all views should be given a chance to be heard. The wiki policy does not say that a particular view cannot be heard until we first find a contradictory view to balance it. Humanoid 02:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a very good selection of views from pro-thaksin supporters from Bangkok Pundit: http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2006/09/where-did-all-his-supporters-go.html . Humanoid 02:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's why I think there are a lot more of (d) out there. Recent pre-coup opinion polls put the nationwide % of people that would vote for TRT as 50% to 60%. Nobody ever suggested that he might loose his majority, and some even suggested he might win as many seats as 2005. But after the coup, 85% supported the coup. Thus, it stands to believe that unless if people's fundamental views towards Thaksin have changed over night, that there are between 35% (if the 15% of the population that is against the coup is composed completely of Thaksin-supporters) of to 60% (if everybody that supported Thaksin now also supports the coup) of the population who support both Thaksin and the coup. Assume what you will, a purely analytical approach suggests that (d), the pro-Thaksin pro-coup is a significant portion of the electorate.

Now to practical matters, you've suggested a excellent quote that illustrates the views of (c). The complete article should contain illustrations of the views of (a), (b), (c), and (d) if any can be found. As a matter of diplomacy and practiality, I think we should start by adding at least one other alternative view. Why?

Here's a slightly differing analogy of an issue equally controversial: "Views among the public about the invasion of Iraq varied considerably. Miss X, whos husband died in the WTC attacks and was an avid supporter of Bush, noted 'Osama had help from Saddam, and we gotta get them both." If that is all that the article said, the reader might assume that all pro-Bush people hurt by terrorism supported the invasion. That is not true, so we'd have to round it out by saying "But Mr Y, whos son died in the Bali bombings and is a life-long conservative, disagreed with the invasion, 'I want to trust Bush, but I can't.' Dr Z, a New England liberal, noted 'Invading Iraq will make terrorists hate America even more.' However, Mrs A, a California Democrat housewife, noted 'I don't like Bush, but I like Saddam even less. He's mean, and we should take him down...."

I was planning on searching through some interviews to illustrate (a) or (b), but was busy today. I'll have another look at the issue tomorrow morning (that'll be evening, Bangkok time).

-- Patiwat 06:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that I did not delete the section on the "common people" in the subpage Prostest, I put and NPOV banner on it. Someone else deleted. I'd also like to point out that it is I who created a Thaksin reponse section and who made the effort to include the woman's witness in the main article because I belieev it was useful. I also like to clarify that since I am a foreigner I have little interest in taking side in Thai politic for one side or another. My interest is to make people like my friend who know nothing or little about Thailand understand what is happening without taking side. This being said, I will keep editing statement that I believe are POV or biaised or not respect fairness of tone, or that lead the reader or that give undue weight. I would like to thanks the two of you for your efforts and Patiwat is right, Humanoid you shoud not hive up, your contribution have been and will be useful. Where we disagree is not in the event but in the presentation of the events.

I would like to give you one example from the same article:

Thaksin's wife and son, initially reported as having left Thailand for Singapore ahead of the declaration of martial law, were later reported in Thailand. It was suggested they remained to look after the family's finances. On Monday 25 September Pojaman Shinawatra left Bangkok at 1:30 am (1830 GMT) to join her husband in London.

and the same with POV and biaised reporting:

Thaksin's wife and son, initially reported as having left Thailand for Singapore ahead of the declaration of martial law, were later reported in Thailand. It was suggested they remained to look after the family's finances. But on Monday 25 September Pojaman Shinawatra left Bangkok at 1:30 am (1830 GMT) to join her husband in London.

The difference is one word ( ilet you find it), but change completely the sense. POV can be very subtle and often we all do it unconscioulsy.

I'd like to add a short story. Last night (friday) i was at democracy monument, having a drink with Thai and farang friends at Cafe Democ. The traffic was very busy and we enjoyed our whisky on the Drum and bass tunes of teh DJ whilst 2 young soldiers where watching us with big smiles. Now, I don't know how many coupd d'etat the two of you know where such thing is possible. I sincerely hope the stituation will saty like that and not worsen. I am available for chat on MSN, just mail me Roger jg 04:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Perceptions can be deceiving, Roger jg. You don't see the violence, but the seeds have been sowed. *All* Thai coups are inevitably violent, you just have to look at the right timeframe.

The 1972 coup was initially bloodless - the military puppetmasters wanted to get rid of their civilian puppets. A year later, 400,000 people were out in the streets, lots of people died, and the King appointed one of his Privy Councilors to the Premiership. The Royalist government appointed a convention that drafted a constitution designed to produce weak elected governments. Violence grew. In 6 October 1976, the military massacred, raped, and mutilated students at Thammasat University. (this will be celebrated with a protest next week by the survivers).

The military seized power on the evening of 6 October 1976, with blood still on its hands.

In 1977 coup was initially bloodless - again, the Generals wanted to get rid of their civilian puppets. This time, they appointed a general as Premier. He was suceeded by another General: Prem, a favorite of the King. So, we have a coup that seems bloodless, right? Wrong - 1977 was a prelude to 1981.

The 1981 coup was initially bloodless. The "Young Turks" faction of the military was sick and tired of the near limitless power of the palace/Prem coalition and the slow pace of democratic reform, so they launched a coup without royal approval. After the Young Turks seized Bangkok, Prem and the royal family fled to Korat, and the palace endorsed the government. The coup fell apart. So, 2 coups and still no blood, right? Wrong again - the loosers in 1981 nursed their wounds for another try.

The 1985 coup was very bloody. Even some unlucky foreign journalists got killed. The "Young Turks" came back from exile and decided the only way to get power was with force. Again, the palace endorsed the government, and the coup fell apart. But it takes the sight of blood to cool people down again.

The 1991 coup was initially bloodless and pretty much the same situation as this coup: allegations of corruption, claims that the government was not duly paying respect to the king, fundamental driving it all was a power clash in the military, public giving warm welcome to the military, military gave us a bullshit interim charter, puppet civilian government gave us a bullshit constitution. The military wouldn't let go, people protested, lots of people died, were tortured, disappeared.

It's karma, man. Military intervention in politics is an act of violence, even if no blood is spilled at first. It's like a drunk man that threatens to beat his wife. Seeds of hatred and frustration are sown, and eventually you will see a burning bed. It's a law of nature: you sow the wind, and you reap the whirlwind... I don't want it to happen, but the wheel of karma has to come full circle. Patiwat 09:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that the 30th anniversary of the 1976 massacre is next week. Unfortunate timing indeed. Will the regime allow commemorations? Will there be trouble if they do not, or if they do for that matter? Adam 10:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Article 3 of the draft interim charter might guarantee the right to assemble (I haven't seen the full text of the charter yet). Regardless, my mom tells me there's going to be a protest happening whether the junta allows it or not (she was part of that generation). I'd go with her if I didn't have a frickin' job interview in Boston on Friday.... Patiwat 11:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong redirecting page & List of Thailand-related topics

I found that the page Phasuk Phongpaichit is redirecting to itself. Please recheck where the page should be redirected to.

And please add new Thailand-related page to List of Thailand-related topics so we can track any changes via this global link.

Thank you for your contributions :-)

- PaePae 08:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Interim PM

See [2] Rlevse 13:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1985 Coup

I noticed your mention of the death of Australian journalist Neil Davis - survived Vietnam to die on the streets of Bangkok - http://groups.google.com.au/group/bit.listserv.seasia-l/msg/d83dcbae92963e48?dmode=source&hl=en

PMA 11:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was a really gut-wrenching tear-jerking tribute. It really is tragic that he died, but at least it was "in the line of duty". Thanks for the link. Sooner or later, I have to get down to writing articles on the April Fool's Coup of 1981 and the 1985 Thailand coup. Patiwat 12:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)