Talk:2013–2014 Thai political crisis/Archive 1

Links
>> Thai PM calls for end to opposition protests>> Protesters in Thailand seek military support>> Shots fired as Thai protesters clash>> Thai PM and protest leader meet after clashes>> Protests rage on despite Thai PM's peace plea>> Thai tensions ease as police lift barricades>> Yingluck Shinawatra: "This is unlawful">> Thai protests ease ahead of King's birthday>> Thai protests transform into festivals>> Protesting against Thailand's Big Brother>> Thai king calls for unity>> Protest truce eases Thai tension - for now>> Anti-government protests polarise Thailand>> Thai protests escalate amid violence>> Protest leaders vow to return to Thai streets>> Thai opposition MPs resign en masse>> Thai PM refuses to step down>> Protesters in Thailand besiege PM's offices>> Former Thai PM Abhisit Vejjajiva charged with murder>> Thai opposition: 'We want to put our house in order, our way'>> gunmen wound protesters in bangkok rally>> Bangkok braces for protest shutdown>> Thai protesters launch Bangkok 'shutdown'>> Thailand braces for new set of mass protests>> Thai protesters continue Bangkok 'shutdown'>> Thai Protesters Extend Blockade After Rejecting Poll Talks>> Thai protesters target government buildings>> Thai tensions rise after attack on protesters[http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2014/01/yingluck-shinawatra-running-out-luck-20141149928670527.html >> Yingluck Shinawatra: Running out of luck? ]> Thai PM vows to push ahead with election date>> Dozens injured in Thai protest explosion>> No end in sight to Thailand turmoil>> Twin explosions hit Thailand protests>> Thailand declares Bangkok state of emergency>> Thai 'red-shirt' leader shot as emergency rule begins>> Court defers ruling on Thailand election date>> Thai protester shot dead while giving speech>> Thai rice industry pays price for unrest>> Thai protesters vow larger rallies after poll>> Thai police retake protest camps in Bangkok>> Protesters surround Thai Government House>> Thai protests end in violence and deaths>> Several injured near Thai protest site[ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2014/02/unknown-gunmen-attack-thai-opposition-rallies-201422344753140427.html >> Unknown gunmen attack Thai opposition rallies ]>> Thai protesters to scale back demonstrations>> Thai PM supporters kick off days-long rallies(Lihaas (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)).

The beat goes on
—Pawyilee (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Constitution of Thailand
 * 1973 Thai popular uprising
 * 1976 Thammasat University massacre
 * 2005–06 Thai political crisis
 * 2006 Thai coup d'état
 * Public opinion of the 2006 Thai coup d'état
 * 2008–10 Thai political crisis
 * April 2009 Thai political unrest
 * 2013 Egyptian coup d'état, a popular and polarizing coup

Army as party of the conflict or neutral?
Even though the army are subordinate to the government, I would propose not to put them on one side of the infobox, but neutral below both parties. The government has deployed them to maintain order in some cases, but they have been unarmed and have not fought against either side of the conflict. Moreover, even though there have not been any indications of illoyality so far, in Thailand it is always dubious how strong the actual control of the civilian government over the army is. I would rather think of them as an independent player. --RJFF (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The infobox template is way too limited to give an accurate overview of the aspects of who's against whom. I'd rather not list Yingluck and her government as parties to the conflict at all (after all, it's the protesters who unilaterally created the conflict), but then doing it either way is problematic. Listing the government together with the Red Shirts gives the false impression that the government is calling the Red Shirts out to protest. Listing them separately would make it seem like the protesters are up against each other. The same goes for the police and armed forces. Listing them in a separate group would seem like they are taking actions on their own behalves. I'm now thinking that it might be best to have just one column for the anti-government protesters, since it's them (their leadership, their numbers) that this is mainly about. It won't hurt that much to leave the Red Shirts out of the infobox, since they're not playing a major role. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * PS I did try to list three parties in the infobox, but the template seems buggy and won't display correctly. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * PPS Regarding this edit, I'm not convinced the style guide for Thai names should apply in bibliographies. I usually treat author names for English-language references as if they were general English-language names. I'm pretty sure international journals don't distinguish between the nationalities of the authors of their cited works. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it is not imperative to use the last name-first name order for Western names. Both is possible, that is why the "author" parameter exists next to "first" + "last". But using last name-first name for Thais just looks awkward. I agree with you that it is difficult to display the actual relationships between the different parties in the infobox. At the moment, I would prefer to keep it as it is, but take out the army (and perhaps the police). But I do not say this would be the perfect solution. --RJFF (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Paul about the red shirts being deceptive. Theyve not been called out yet...thatll happen when the coup doesLihaas (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Other Issues
Hi, There don't seem to be many English sources, but the Amnesty Bill was the straw that broke the camel's back... there are other significant issues that led to this protest (voter fraud, disrespect to the king, overall corruption, and a corrupt rice buying scheme to name a few). I've found some links to the IMF where they warn Thailand to stop the rice buying scheme or their currency will collapse, but other than that the news sources are all in Thai. Does anyone know of any THai expat journals or English news sources for the background on this??? Tcxspears (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Asian Correspondent provides Associated Press feeds; notable correspondents include Bangkok Pundit and Saksith Saiyasombut, as well as others. Suggested citation of news in Asian Correspondent, short form from Template:Cite news:


 * AP


 * Bangkok Pundit.


 * Saksith Saiyasombut & Siam Voices.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

2013 Thai protests → 2013 Thai political crisis – Page previously boldly moved, then reverted, so here's the discussion. This article covers the protests, which have resulted in the dissolution of the Lower House. It would be appropriate to discuss the aftermath and other upcoming outcomes of the events in this article. Renaming it accordingly would reflect the broader scope of events. It would also be in line with 2005–06 Thai political crisis and 2008–10 Thai political crisis. (Also, rename again to "2013–14" if the events extend into the next year.) Paul_012 (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Date change is logical. but im not buying your arguement as to why to move it to a crisis? What graduates this from protests to crisis (or eeven uprising). There doesnt seem to be any crisis as the togovernmetn has agreed to dissolve itself and call an election. All things pointing this being legitimate even if there is a boycott (itll jsut delegitimise the oppostion which knows it has no power to enforce change democratically (calling for the military???)). This happened in Lanka before the LTTE were finished. Nothing of crisis then into the election that was stupidly boycotted.(Lihaas (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)).
 * Support: The military is meeting with members of the opposition... The opposition now is calling for an interim government even before the snap elections which have been called. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I believe the term "political crisis" is often used for this kind of situation, where the PM dissolves parliament and calls for new elections. It's obviously not necessarily a "crisis" like a typhoon where thousands of people die. But it's commonly used. A quick check shows that most of the mainstream papers including Economist, Reuters, ABC, Standard, VOA and Statesman have called this a "political crisis." Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

22rd december protest numbers
Most news sources either gave low numbers (tens of thousands in all that I saw, but maybe some gave 150 if i recall correctly)

The numbers of millions are solely a version of the protestors and related parties.

Currect version gives huge coverage to this version in a very biased way.

Shuold be fixed as version of prptestors, and made much shorter.

It reads like a lifted page of the PDRC news release! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.144.16 (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The dire condition of the "Post-dissolution of the elected government" section
I have edited the section named "Post-dissolution of the elected government. An NPOV-section tag has been added and some portions have been removed, such as "since many hard evidences which are in the youtube vedio links are erased from this wikipedia pages many times" along with several YouTube links, in accordance with WP:RSP.

However, this section still needs a major overhaul. The vast majority of statements in the section are without sources and is not structured well like the rest of the article. Please help to fix this page.

--Ab&#59;cd&#59;ef (talk) 05:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Here are some references. somehow I cannot edit this page, would appreciate unblock for me (I prefer not to edit this politically super sensitive page with my usual handle, BTW)


 * WSJ article estimating protest to be 150,000
 * Thai paper citing Suthep (protest leader) accusing forgien media to reduce protest numbers
 * thai paper giving protest numbers in the tens of thousands
 * WSJ coverage of the arguments on the protest numbers


 * All in all, the current version reads more like a protesters Press release than encyclopedic ProofReading7 (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * One more Thai English report  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProofReading7 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality
Whilst the text of the article itself is relatively neutral, it seems to me sympathetic towards the protesters through the omission of most criticism of the protests. I think there should be two sections at the beginning of the article, one for criticisms of the government and one for criticisms of the protests, that way the rest of the article's content about the actual events can avoid being blurred by political opinions. There is a lot of opposition to the protests which the article does not mention at all, the vast majority of the Thai electorate has voted in the flawed but popular Pheu Thai government repeatedly, and now a significant minority is attempting to overthrow a regime they dislike but which has enough popular support to win elections - inherently undemocratic. The protesters accuse the Pheu Thai government of buying votes - and claims that the majority of its supporters are either bribed or too ignorant to realise what they are voting for. A BBC interview of Pheu Thai supporters clearly shows that many government supporters are offended by this and argue that it is not true. The protesters want an unelected people's council, which has been called fascist and undemocratic by some Thai scholars. I quickly found on Google another article published by a well-regarded newspaper which echoes criticisms of the protests. The BBC reported at one stage that Thai protesters believed that one vote per person system had failed - although I can't find the link to that particular article any more. I don't have a WP:COI - it's not my country and I'm not involved in the protests, but it does appear that this article leans very favourably towards one side. Jr8825 •  Talk  03:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I propose a "timeline"-=like section detailing the evens of the protests and then either a reaction/analysis section later or more background/context and perhaps a separate section on the "goals" of the protests and the counter-protests (which could simple be reactions/responses). Go ahead and Boldly add it.(Lihaas (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)).
 * It's on my to-do list, but I'm pretty busy at the moment so I don't know when I'll get round to it (I certainly won't be able to give the whole article a run-over soon, maybe I can just clean-up a few sections). The introduction is probably the best place to start, so I'll have a look at it soon - but any help would be appreciated. The Occupy Bangkok stuff is all supposed to kick off tomorrow as well so I'm sure there's going to be a lot more information coming in about the subject. Jr8825  •  Talk  09:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

Quiet agree with the above statement. The opposition voice to the protest is almost ignored. The situation is extremely volatile, with almost every day change of stance and objective making hard to write a balanced and easily readable article. That is why I like the idea of a timeline ( can be on a weekly basis) with for each week two sections pro and anti government perspective.Fredtham59 (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So I think weve got a resolution and no opposition. When one wants they can change it per this discussion and its unopposed, so im removeing the tag.Lihaas (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the intro to make it shorter, clearer and more readable, I've also added references to make it more neutral. I removed a few weasel words from the background section and transferred some of the detail previously in the introduction further into the article. I'm just about to go and add a sentence to the intro about criticism to the people's council. I'm afraid I haven't penetrated much further into the article than the first two sections and won't be able to do any more over the next few days so if someone else want to take up the mantle... Jr8825  •  Talk  11:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I am going to change "the 2007 constitution of Thailand" to "the heavily criticized 2007 constitution of Thailand". I do not think there is a NPOV issue. It is a obvious fact well detailed on the Wikipedia pages 2007 Constitution of Thailand. Critics are from the international community, Academics, Thai Rak Thai party ( now Pheu Thai) and even the democrat. Also change to the 2007 constitution being the key behind the protest, it will indirectly reflect the point of view of the governement and pro governement without over charging the article which is in the scope of the initial NPOV issue. User:Fredtham59 (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added 'criticized' + a supporting reference. I didn't go as far as adding heavily because it is obvious that some Democrats support it, because it's already self-explanatory (if it's important enough to mention the criticism the its obviously quite significant) and because I don't want to intro to sound to biased against the protests. Jr8825  •  Talk  23:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

election sabotage section removed. Why?
It is the stated goal of the protesters to make it impossible to carry out the election plans.

It goes with directly blocking the election committee arena etc. Why has it been removed? ProofReading7 (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The content remains, but the use of the word "sabotage" is laden with negative connotations, so I removed it, as the effectiveness of the section remains without the sub-heading. Also, during the same edit, I removed a section of content written in a non-encyclopedic tone, so it was all part of trying to return the section to a NPOV.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Even the use of words like "block" or "boycott" would be an improvement.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Its also redundant here when it is [rightly] on the election page.(Lihaas (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)).

Lede too long
The introduction is two paragraphs too long. It should be four or less, according to WP:LEAD. --71.254.150.87 (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

PDRC gunfight at Lak Si (1st February)
A cited statement claiming the "PDRC armed men started the gunfight" is false. The article was about the police claiming it - a claim does not mean that it is true. I've even heard news that the red shirts were the ones who started the gunfight. Anonymous people retaliated with guns - these were the ones claimed to be PDRC armed men. Despite that, there were also claims that the armed people were either from a third party or the millitary. Suthep has clearly stated that the democratic movement of the PDRC is done without weapons and PDRCs are not allowed weapons. Therefore should the PDRC really retaliated with weapons or even started the gunfight, they are not members of the PDRC but are impostors of the PDRC. PLEASE REMOVE THE UNPROVED STATEMENT AND OTHER UNPROVEN STATEMENTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.175.120 (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC) --LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you did not wait to reach a concensus and already go ahead with your edit. What you said is a claim is in fact an affirmation "Metropolitan Police Bureau (MPB) deputy chief Pol Maj Gen Adul Narongsak, who was at the crime scene, confirmed that a group of PDRC armed men started the gunfight" " There is solid evidence pointing to their involvement, said caretaker Labour Minister Chalerm Yubamrung"

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/392827/police-accuse-protesters-of-starting-gunfire-at-lak-si.

Furthermore in regard with statement made here and other edit made on the article by LilertoadKhonthai (talk) the WP:NPOV is questionable for this editor.

Fredtham59 (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A statement (PDRC started a gunfight) claimed by the police without evidence is not fact. However, in order to make this article a good one, let us agree that "it is debatable who started the gunfight". Finally, please make sure facts are both sided, because one sided facts can be misleading, despite not being biased. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that your edits came always by 4 in a row with insignificant change. I guess you know well about the WP:3RR. Also although there is no consensus you went ahead, again, without consideration for those who disagree.Fredtham59 (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"Gunshots were fired allegedly from the red-shirts" vs "Metropolitan Police Bureau (MPB) deputy chief Pol Maj Gen Adul Narongsak, who was at the crime scene, confirmed that a group of PDRC armed men started the gunfight".

First a hight ranking police officer making an affirmation as an eyes witness have more weight than allegation. Second on which ground clear accusation made by a policeman who was at the scene is not fact.Furthermore such information is particularly relevant as the protest is labeled as "peaceful". Finally LilertoadKhonthai said "let us agree that "it is debatable who started the gunfight", then went ahead with edit. I did not see anyone agree with this editor. Jeanlepetit (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Most news in Thai language confirm the police version, gunfight started from PDRC side.49.230.118.12 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

well, account of the events made by reputable foreign journalists confirm police accusation:
 * A statement (PDRC started a gunfight) claimed by the police without evidence is not fact.

According to Kocha Olarn a CNN International's producer in Bangkok "The group of men reached my position and there was only a low cement barrier between us. Suddenly they started firing handguns in the direction of the pro-election protesters. One man carried a large green bag, which looked to conceal a rifle." http://www.smobie.com/en-gb/story/694397/Caught_in_a_gunfight_CNN_producer_s_account_of_Thai_election_violence

Nick Nostitz made a similar account " 16:20 ...One Red Shirt protester was shot in the side of the chest ...16:40 ...I heard an explosion, and then the sound of gunfire" http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2014/02/07/the-laksi-gunfight/

" All of a sudden, I heard the sound of firecrackers being thrown back and forth though I couldn't work out exactly where the noise was coming from. Then -- the sound of a gunshot. I saw pro-election protesters flinch http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/03/world/asia/thai-protests-gunfight-kocha/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.29.229 (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Answer to LilertoadKhonthai (talk) his edit 01:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC) on Events at Phan Fah Bridge
Whatever there is consensus or not the edit has been reverted to his previous state following wikipedia policies:In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. WP:NOCONSENSUS. If you disagree there is various legal channel to challenge it go ahead. I also strongly recommend you to look at it WP:HARASS Fredtham59 (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

BBC CLIP
According to cited news: http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/396382/blast-clips-spark-accusations-confusion

That is the version of the democrat and protesters, it is not my own interpretation but from the article itself: Some observers in the Democrat Party and the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) appeared to confuse this blast with BBC footage of another explosion. They said CNN's footage tells a different story from footage captured by the BBC in a report by the British broadcaster's Bangkok-based correspondent Jonathan Head. That is the newspaper conclusion: "However, the BBC clip clearly shows footage of a different explosion. The BBC clip showed a grenade was thrown at police lines from where the protesters were situated."

Confusion is about the protester and democrat version, not the content of the BBC video clip.Fredtham59 (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood, yet I still disagree with adding an unconfirmed fact into the article. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That you disagree is not a surprise, you never do. A fact is something that has been confirmed, how a fact can be unconfirmed ? A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven.


 * Policemen get injured by grenade is a proven fact.
 * The existence of the BBC video clip showing a grenade hurling from the protester line at police is a proven fact.
 * The content of the BBC video clip is confirmed by the bangkok post itself. It is a proven fact.
 * The editing of the CNN clip made it unclear how much time had elapsed between the two shots.It is a proven fact.
 * CNN reporter Saima Mohsin did not say where the grenade was thrown from in her report.It is a proven fact.
 * Democrats and PDRC saying that A CNN clip contradict the BBC clip is a claim not a proven fact.
 * Futhermore The bangkok post confirmed that however, the BBC clip clearly shows footage of a different explosion.It is a proven fact.

If you can convince me with proven fact that there is good reasons to remove the disputed content, I will do.Fredtham59 (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No doubt on the outcome fredtham59 reasoning is unbeatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khunthaibkk (talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Fredtham59 (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)is right. He has serious references to cite. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)disagree .but did not support his claim. Lets give him few days more.Alfasxp07 (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Events at Phan Fah Bridge
I personally find the description of the conflict at Phan Fah Bridge one sided. By one sided I mean it is mainly from the police point of view, referring to one police losing his leg from attempting to kick a grenade and one shot at the head. I fine with these facts and understand that the facts aren't biased, however I feel that this section lacks the facts from the protester point of view, such as the fact that: “Later, the officers instructed us to leave the area. The protesters resisted the police’s order by sitting down on the road and praying,” Mr Samdin said. (http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/learning-from-news/395639/cmpo-25000-man-police-force-to-retake-5-rally-sites) The incident started near noon as a typical police operation with officers behind shields slowly moving towards and through protesters, many of whom were praying. - http://www.posttoday.com/%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B5%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%A0%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A9%E0%B8%B2/278550/5-killed-as-violence-stalls-police-operation-to-retake-5-rally-sites LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The protesters were praying (which I have evidence).
 * That there was a discussion to partially open Ratchadamnoen Klang Road, which the protesters agreed, before the police came back demanding the protesters the leave the area entirely. Bangkok Post Link Above

Soulparadox editing are always extremely neutral so I must disagree that it is "one sided". As a foreigner who have no interest in the conflict I find it extremely down toned as there is a lot of report that point to the protester responsibility over the violence. I suggest to emphases on it. I disagree agree to add the fact that protester was praying as they did it with the only intend to obstruct police as reported by dharma army leader.

Alleged discussion have not be confirmed by other source than PDRC leader. PDRC propaganda ???? Independant sources mention that attempt made by police failed without other details.

Jeanlepetit (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I also found the description of the conflict quite one-sided, especially the description of casualties and how the police employ their weapons. The text have detail description of police side's casualties, e.g."one police officer was shot in the head and subsequently died.[172]", while in fact there are even more protesters shot dead on site (2 or more), but the text left this facts out which leave the impression that police using only rubber bullets and tear gas, while there are so many photos and vdo clip that clearly shows that police used military weapons, e.g. M16 assault machine gun. On the other hand, I've seen alot of foreigners that are not really understand the situation, or only get info from regular secondary sources, but try to be experts on the situations. So, please be careful on writing something that you don't really understand. 171.99.173.0 (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with Jeanlepetit. "I've seen alot of foreigners that are not really understand the situation, or only get info from regular secondary sources, but try to be experts on the situations. So, please be careful on writing something that you don't really understand."

French TV news reported suthep as saying something very similar on stage. Foreigners editors are perfectly able to understand the situation but might have a different perception inherent to their culture. They have access to quality information free from PDRC, Thai government and business advertisers interference. Fredtham59 (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with anonymous contributer 171.99.173. The fact that you are a foreigner does not mean you have a better understanding of the situation in Thailand than thai people. User:Fredtham59 User:Jeanlepetit If you wish us to stop making references to the PDRC, please also stop making reference to the police or any member of the Parliament and remove any other statements claimed by police. This is because the police aren't neutral, they are allied with the government which opposes the PDRC. Any claims by a member of the police are as possibly "biased" as the PDRC. As for the praying, I have images showing that and the protesters were definitely praying. You may say that that fact is insignificant, I believe that it is significant because we must make sure that the readers of this article know all the facts to make judgement - whether the PDRC or the Government are right. Without facts supporting the PDRC this article is literally condemning the PDRC as the villain. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

According to Fredtham59,"Foreigners editors are perfectly able to understand the situation but might have a different perception inherent to their culture. They have access to quality information free from PDRC, Thai government and business advertisers interference." If that's the case, why this article still says that police use only rubber bullets and tear gases, while even CNN showed VDO clips that have police using military weapons with demonstrators. Intentionally omitting some critical facts could also be considered as misleading in Thai culture (may not be in French, perhaps). 171.99.173.0 (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't care less as Soulparadox (talk) wrote entirely the edit you mention. Go to ask him, สลิ่ม.Fredtham59 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Soulparadox, I really liked how you simplified the section regarding the conflict at Phan Fah Bridge and agreed that most of the content you removed was unclear and unnessessary. However, since your version only contained the facts from the police point of view (how one got shot in the head and how one injured his leg from kicking the grenade), and lacks the facts from the protester point of view, I find this section quite one sided. Some facts that were missed out and could make section two sided, were the two facts User:LilertoadKhonthai have bullet pointed. By two sided I mean that the section gives facts from both points of view and allow the readers to excersise judgement whether which side is right or wrong. 171.99.173.0 (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way Fredtham59, you did mention "Foreigners editors are perfectly able to understand the situation but might have a different perception inherent to their culture. They have access to quality information free from PDRC, Thai government and business advertisers interference." wasn't it? The statement seemed to conveyed to me directly that whatever the Foreignners editors reported must have been the only truth we accepted, in which I totally disagreed based on the ratinale I earlier provided, ขี้ข้า. 171.99.173.0 (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not own the page, but try and do my best with diction, tone, syntax, and grammar. In terms of verifiability, I removed sections that were based on subjective accounts, rather than those provided by the news articles (incl. accounts within those articles), but I may have made mistakes. So, I am more than happy to continue collaborating on the page. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I am also not blaming your editing. I just would like to ask if it is ok to add the fact that the protesters were praying into the section since like the anonymous contributor 171.99.173.0 I find the section one sided, LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As previously explained, I have tried to base my contributions on the content of media reports only, rather than anecdotal content (even if people have spoken with the media). I understand that the media can be biased, but—in accordance with Wikipedia principles—such an addition is reasonable if a suitable and reputable citation is inserted to support the content. Also, I repeat, I am not the arbiter of this page and any mistakes I have made should be corrected. The page may also contain excessive detail due to my edits—I will try to review this as well. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that evidence that is told or claimed by someone may not be reliable, but in this case I also have photographic evidence that shows that the protesters were praying. I will post it as a link since I am not sure if it will break any wikipedia copyright issues. http://www.bangkokpost.com/media/content/20140218/597428.jpg LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC) PS. Your english volcabluary was a bit too difficult, I had to look it up on the online dictionary.


 * There should be a Bangkok Post article with that image, so you should revise the article.--Soulparadox (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/learning-from-news/395639/cmpo-25000-man-police-force-to-retake-5-rally-sites) it is quoted by the Mr. Samdin though, but it is backed up by photographic evidence. 61.91.144.100 (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC) I wrote that I just forgot to log in LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I assume that we have reached a consensus since User:Soulparadox mentioned that it is ok to add the fact that the protesters were praying as long as it is cited with a reliable source. I have photographic evidence from Bangkok Post. Therefore I shall go ahead with the edit and only User:Soulparadox is the one who should be the only one to undo it. If you, Soulparadox still find it a bad idea to put the fact in, do let me know and we shall continue to sort this out in this section of the talk page. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Prior to assume that we have reached a consensus, you should understand it's rules WP:CONS and then might understand that there is NO CONSENSUS. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by User:Soulparadox own views about what is the most appropriate.

Lets look at what I disagree:

"By one sided I mean it is mainly from the police point of view, referring to one police losing his leg from attempting to kick a grenade and one shot at the head." It is not a police point of view, but a pure fact, no more no less. "Later, the officers instructed us to leave the area. The protesters resisted the police’s order by sitting down on the road and praying, Mr Samdin said."
 * I searched Google https://www.google.co.th/#q=Later%2C+the+officers+instructed+us+to+leave+the+area.+The+protesters+resisted+the+police%E2%80%99s+order+by+sitting+down+on+the+road+and+praying%2C+Mr+Samdin+said
 * All news refer to Bangkok Post's Wednesday morning summary. Why other reputable newspapers did not report it ?
 * A citation by one persons without notoriety appears more as a subjective accounts rather than a reputable citation.
 * Furthermore it is more anecdotal than news as the article mentioned the main fact: Protester obstructed and defy police order.
 * I also disagree on the form as you never mentioned it as a quotation in your edit. Also as it is anecdotal it might remove attention from more important information.

I also invite both of you LilertoadKhonthai, 171.99.173.0 to carefully read the following WP:CIVIL as it will certainly help to find an acceptable solution.

For the following reason : I will revert your last editing and keep User:Soulparadox version as we apparently all agree, to a certain extend, with it.Fredtham59 (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of WP:DISRUPT
 * A lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.WP:CONS


 * It is highly likely that I am not the most experienced copyeditor in this discussion—and I am still working through Wikipedia's policies, etc.—so I am more than happy to follow the lead of someone with greater expertise.--Soulparadox (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

A neutral article or section must not cling to a general idea or message ("Violent PDRC protesters defy and attack police" in this case). You, User:Fredtham59 are clinging to this point and denying all facts that contradict to this. A fact does not need to be claimed by many reputable sources to be a fact as long as it has a strong supporting evidence. In this case I have photographic evidence and I can show you more if you want. I can also add the fact as a quote if you want but it is unnecessary since there is strong proof that the protesters were really praying. You also claimed the fact that how the police lost a leg and got shot by the head is legitimate: I respect that. But you are making the PDRC looking like villain in this section by hiding a counterweight fact from the readers. I therefore find this article one sided (not biased). If you still don't get my point, please let me know and I will explain it with more detail. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Fredtham one more thing, you said
 * I couldn't care less as Soulparadox (talk) wrote entirely the edit you mention. Go to ask him, สลิ่ม.Fredtham59 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You implied that you have little to do with this and I should talk to Soulparadox instead of you, yet you intervened when we have almost reached a consensus. Why did you intervene if you "couldn't care less"? LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * " You implied..."

Agree with you if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential like the context. To clarify, it was my answer to "Argumentum ad hominem" comments made previously.

From now on, I consider the topic "argumentum ad nauseam". The edit will stay as it is according to wikipedia rules (Cf. my edit 07:51, 28 February 2014). Feel free to open procedures to have the issue sorted out.

Thanks to all for your time and patience. Best Regards, Fredtham59 (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You claimed that there is no consensus because not everyone agrees, then there is no consensus in the PDRC gunfight at Lak Si either. I do not agree with that, and I dont think the anonymous contributor 171.99.173/175 agrees either since he started the issue. Please also explain what those French words mean and why cling to the idea of "Violent PDRC protesters defy police order and attack police". Let us argue with reason. Thank you. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not French but Latin. Most users with sufficient English skill will understand. Do your homework using Google.

Khunthaibkk (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Fredtham 59 follow rules, you ignore or adapt them to suit your own agenda.Khunthaibkk (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Fredtham59 You still did not explain why cling to the idea of PDRC protesters defy police order, and if you do cling to this idea, why disagree about putting in the fact? LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

We have reached concensus on my talk page. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

your edit suggest that police attacked praying protester by firing at them. The news you mentioned said " The police operation at Phan Fah began with officers moving slowly forward. There was pushing but little violence. PATTARACHAI PREECHAPANICH " "The incident started near noon as a typical police operation with officers behind shields slowly moving towards and through protesters, many of whom were praying."

Also the news you cited did not said anything about the reasons that prompted the police to fire rubber bullet, fortunately an other article from the bangkok post do http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/395788/4-killed-64-hurt-in-city-clean-up-clash. It said :"But the situation deteriorated when a large number of protesters attempted to obstruct the police operation, prompting officers to fire tear gas and rubber bullets at them. As the police advanced from Ratchadamnoen Klang to Ratchadamnoen Nok Avenue, they were targeted by bomb blasts and gunshots, prompting the officers to retreat and call off the dispersal operation. Back to the news you mentioned it said :"Then, once again, there was a sudden attack by unknown gunmen. Speculation is high that one of the attackers was the so called 'popcorn' gunman seen firing a gun through a corn sack at Laksi intersection on Feb 1, 2014." We agree to add that protester are praying, but some change are needed, I will modified your edit in a wikipedia way: neutral using cited news.Fredtham59 (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with that, as long as the facts of the protesters were praying remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.173.0 (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Royal family member's status of Juljerm
I would like to dispute the claim that Mom Jao Juljerm is a part of Thai Royal Family's member. His great-grandfather is Chulalongkorn, who is the grandfather of the current King of Thailand Bhumibol, which makes him a far relative of the King rather than a family. --Biglobster (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"Members of the royal family" in this article, is preceded by a wikipedia link Royal family that said: In some cases, royal family membership may extend to great grandchildren and more distant descendants of a monarch.
 * Mom chao is translated as "His Serene Highness Prince/Princess"
 * If not a member of the royal family the title will not be "Mon chao" but "Mom Rajawongse". "Mom Rajawongse" are commoners.
 * On the thai version, https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%A4%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%93%E0%B9%8C%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A3%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B7%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%87%E0%B9%84%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%A2_%E0%B8%9E.%E0%B8%A8._2556%E2%80%932557 there is a full section " สมาชิกพระราชวงศ์บางส่วน" that also mention the participation of " some members of the royal family" Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 14:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I am disputing the claim in Thai version too. The word in Thai cannot map directly to English. For example, the word "พระราชวงศ์" mentioned there can be translated as "royal family", but it actually means close family of the King in Thai, which obviously excludes Mom Jao. The point is that there is no clear boundary for the English word "royal family", and I suggest using the common definition of the word "family" here, which typically does not include far relatives. --Biglobster (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * My edit that you undid was about "Mom Rajawongse Prediyathorn", which is not what I am disputing here and you seems to agree that he is a commoner so please edit back. --Biglobster (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Lets wait few days and see what others editors have to say about both issues  Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 15:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the phrase "some members of the royal family" is misleading. It is extremely so the way it is currently included in the infobox. Readers might come away with the impression that some of the King's immediate family are implicitly supporting the protest, which is grossly inaccurate. This is worsened by the fact that this isn't even discussed in the article body. I'd strongly suggest that it be removed from the infobox altogether, since these are only certain individuals whose status as royalty is not significant in the wider scheme of things. If the individuals are mentioned in the article body, they should probably be described as minor royals. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I will not comment on the content but technically: Help:Introduction to referencing/1
 * a reliable source must be able to support the material. that is the case.[]
 * Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources.Pavin Chachavalpongpun, associate professor at Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, Japan []
 * "Widely interpreted" means there is a large consensus.  Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 16:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That said, in regard with Paul_012 (talk) greater experience, I agree to lets him make change as he seems necessary once the topic is considered closed.  Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 16:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Princess Chulaporn's photo interpretation
It's quite an enormous claim to say that she supports PDRC, so should there be enough concrete evidence more than speculation and interpretation to make this claim stand? The current reference is at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thai-princess-uses-social-media-to-declare-war-photos-posted-by-princess-chulabhorn-mahidol-widely-interpreted-as-a-sign-of-her-support-for-antigovernment-protesters-9122267.html, which does not sound very firm for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biglobster (talk • contribs) 13:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I will not comment on the content but technically: Help:Introduction to referencing/1
 * a reliable source must be able to support the material. that is the case.[]
 * Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources.Pavin Chachavalpongpun, associate professor at Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, Japan []
 * "Widely interpreted" means there is a large consensus.  Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 16:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Wikipedia's policy, but the word "interpreted" itself already implies that the fact might not be the same as it seems to be. I feel like the first source does not directly support the claim, as it shows no evidence rather than "experts" comments and conjectures. The latter one was self-published by an associate professor, it is far from an academic publication. --Biglobster (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I personally get bored to have to argue with Thai idiots. Content already deleted why do you still need to argue about it ???? Kwai  Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 21:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Thank you for Wikipedia's author spirit.--Biglobster (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Fredtham59, please remember to assume good faith WP:FAITH and have some respect for Thais, that this is a Thai political crisis. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Relocation of content
(Also concerns User:Fredtham59) I strongly suggest that we try our best to keep the content of the section "Timeline of events" as chronological as possible. Some content in the section continued violence, the most recent section, regards events dating back to Janurary. The event of the protesters hitting someone with a brick on the head is the same as an event that was already mentioned earlier in the article. The content can be found in the occupation of Bangkok section but is about a protester shot in the abdomen. The protesters attacked the alleged gunman, leading to hitting the head with a brick incident (some may say that the protesters attacked first I think it's best too add both claims). I think it is best to add details there rather than writing about it separately. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead. Between a version from a general article and a version related exclusively to the shooting with a lot of details of what happened, the last one is obviously more accurate with police version and 2 independent witness. I will not discuss any further on the issue. For the time line concern it has not and cannot be always respected: "Assault case puts spotlight on PDRC" is a recent news, although some mentioned fact are older that the main article itself. I only mentioned a very few. More generally, I think that to add a section " continued violence" and it's insignificant content in regards with what is at stake was a stupid idea and that the whole section should be deleted.  Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 14:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I must say that I do not agree. It is not fair to say which part is more reliable than another. I do agree with including both claims though. I also would like to say that you always provide one sided claims that make the PDRC look bad. If you look at my monk assulting section, I included both claims by the monk and the PRDG protester. I am planning on changing the section name to "post election invalidation/events leading up to 29 march rally" (we can agree on a good name) and include the events after the election invalidation and have all violence prior to election invalidation moved to their respective points in the timeline of events. LilertoadKhonthai (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That you disagree is not a news, you never..., so unless there is a consensus later on the matter, I will revert the edit to it's original state in accordance with wiki rules :

A lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.WP:CONS. Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 15:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)