Talk:2013–2014 Thai political crisis/Archive 2

Hidden agenda: Royal Succession
I got an undo for this. I am not sure which reliable source the user Fredtham59 think is backing this claim, but I guess it is from Pavin in http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Commentary/2014/Jan-17/244284-what-is-really-behind-the-thai-political-protests.ashx#axzz2xHL24YdY, which I do not see it as really reliable based on WP:SOURCE. It is very opinionated, from an activist against lese majeste law in Thailand published in an online article describing events in Thailand from a local newspaper in Lebanon. As the burden of proof is an obligation of the writer, I would like to discuss whether you could find a concrete reliable source for this claim in respect of WP:EXCEPTIONAL on all of the basis listed there. --Biglobster (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

 Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 17:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor responsible for this edit and that you should contact is Alfasxp07.
 * Cited news not only limited to the dailystar but Reuters completed and confirmed by asian times online, The diplomat ... and much more by other non cited reliable sources but easily found by any editors of good faith.
 * Cited news do respect sufficiently WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:SOURCE to have your edit undo.


 * Highly reputable french news confirm Alfasxp07 edit:

[] "The crisis of royal succession in the heart of the conflict / La crise de succession royale, au coeur du conflit "

[] "the leader of the protest, Suthep Thaugsuban, actually aims at restoring a strong monarchy where elites would keep the keys of power, after several electoral defeats of their old Democratic Party. / le leader de la contestation, Suthep Thaugsuban, vise en réalité à rétablir une monarchie forte où les élites garderaient les clés du pouvoir, après plusieurs défaites électorales de leur vieux Parti démocrate.62.4.8.228 (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I find the material irrelevant and has little to do with a crisis involving the PDRC and the Yingluvk government. I strongly believe that it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.55.43.56 (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is really any concrete evidence to support that there is such 'hidden agenda', it would be very notably appropriate to put it there. However, it is impossible to convert opinion to a fact. The hidden agenda claiming is quite controversial and contradiction to the fact in many way. For example, red shirt also show supports the crown prince http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26904622. The claim that he is unpopular has also been since a long time back then even before Thailand knows Thaksin. I'll come back with more issues of the claim but Happy Songkran Day for now and for all. --Biglobster (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Because of the strict Lèse majesté in Thailand it might be controversial in Thailand but not in western country where freedom of speech is respected.The edit I made is widely discussed and analised which is not the case in Thailand.

Request for strong evidence is just insane because of that law that oblige even journalist and news agency to act with extreme caution. Even some wikipedia editors who plan to visit thailand one day must restrain themselves on such topics, fortunately I am not concern. Thai national as biglobster that show strong opinion by systematically opening dispute for any topics related to the royal family here and on the thai version, know well about it. Other related than those already cited from reputable journalist, academics, analyst, specialist .....including primary and secondary sources that show that is more than a widespread opinion but fact: " While public attention focuses on Yingluck, the real battle behind the scenes involves ..."
 * http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/22/the-real-crisis-in-thailand-is-the-coming-royal-succession.html

The Daily Beast enjoy a high reputation and won a Webby Award for "Best News Site" in 2012 and 2013. "The leaders of the 100,000-odd protesters who blocked some of Bangkok’s key intersections Sunday are said by knowledgeable political analysts to be deeply involved in not just a battle for political primacy but for control of the looming succession of the country’s monarchy."
 * http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/thailand-land-snarls/

http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/bangkok-uneasy-calm-masks-succession-struggle/ "The public power struggle is nominally an attempt to use protests and possible court rulings to oust Thaksin’s sister, Yingluck, from her job as Prime Minister. And while that is certainly true, the top elites – royals, bankers, property magnates and others are said to have a much deeper agenda. They are believed to be aligned with the popular Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn; those backing Thaksin have aligned with the crown prince, Vajiralongkorn, who is regarded as both pliable and widely unpopular. Control of the monarchy means control not only of presumed moral authority but also the Crown Property Bureau, which is worth billions and holds vast amounts of Bangkok real estate"

Asia Sentinel is an other reputable news publisher "Part of the urgency Suthep is showing is due to this fear that a Thaksinite government will be in power when the king passes away and that will allow the Thaksinite government to play some leading role in managing the transition.”
 * http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-04/thai-crisis-splits-families-as-bunker-mentality-deters-stability.html

by Dr Michael J. Montesano a specialist on economic and political change in Southeast Asia. He has undertaken research on Thailand for more than twenty years and written widely about developments there.


 * http://www.dw.de/thai-monarchy-a-hindrance-to-democracy/a-16555274

"The protests of the past few days are just a struggle for dominance of the country's political system after the succession to the throne," says an expert who declined to be identified in the media citing lèse-majesté law"

By Deutsche Welle a highly reputable news.

"Whoever is Prime Minister as the moment of transition approaches will have the power to determine the rules governing the succession...Fear of this development drives the persistence of those who want the current government removed...If the current government is replaced by one supported by opposition leader Suthep Thaugsuban and his “yellow shirts”, the new government can rewrite the rules of monarchical succession to allow another candidate to ascend the throne"
 * http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/03/18/thailand-lifts-state-of-emergency-but-crisis-goes-on/

From an other reputable editors The American Interest and contributor Walter Russell Mead.Contributors to the journal are predominantly already established (rather than up-and-coming) commentators known for their expertise in international affairs, global strategy, and military matters. "the reins of the Thai monarchy depends on the outcome of the current power struggle"
 * http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/12/the-antidemocraticrootsofthethaiprotesters.html
 * This might be true, but it doesn't imply hidden agenda. Thongchai is also another one who is actively against lese majeste law. --Biglobster (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

By Thongchai Winichakula Professor of Southeast Asian History at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Winichakul was named to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2003. "This is all about the succession to the throne," said one source with close connections to the army high command who wished to remain anonymous. "Factions inside the palace, the army and the Democrat Party are concerned about what will happen after the succession. They think that Thaksin will be in control of all of Thailand because of his links to the crown prince. The generals are frightened by that. It would mean the end of the traditional elite."
 * http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1407957/thai-military-caught-between-rock-and-hard-place-unrest-continues

South China Morning Post. The author is the The Daily Telegraph Asia Correspondent "Thailand’s traditional ruling elite, who closely associate themselves with the monarchy, oppose Thaksin because they resent losing influence to a popularly elected leader.They are uneasy about what will happen when the king dies, and whether Thaksin could influence the succession"
 * http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/01/12/asia-pacific/thai-protesters-plan-to-paralyze-bangkok-could-lead-to-political-dead-end/#.U0qgDldFv54
 * You forgot the prefix "Others claim that...". I wonder who? They might mean Pavin. --Biglobster (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"What's going on behind the scenes? ...The royal succession is absolutely central to the ongoing conflict"
 * http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/14/world/asia/thailand-unrest-analysis-marshall/

Andrew MacGregor Marshall Reuteurs journalist for 17 years.


 * http://viewsweek.com/world/thailand-on-the-brink/

"The unspoken backdrop to all this is the coming royal succession."


 * http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-04/thai-crisis-splits-families-as-bunker-mentality-deters-stability.html
 * http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/01/31/whispers_from_the_throne_thailand_protests_royals

Alfasxp07 (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your sources. I wish I could see something beyond analysis and conjecture, which is WP:PRIMARY, because they seems to know very well what's going on behind the scenes without providing any evidence. To tell one's purpose or agenda, we need at least some actions, Suthep's in this case, to identify his agenda no matter hidden or not, which is not nothing near the lese majesty law violation and those analysts failed to provide one. If we are going to put all 'hidden agenda' here, it would be a mess. Consider putting Phue Thai's hidden agenda for helping Thaksin, Suthep's hidden agenda to help Democrats winning the election after reform, and the list goes on. It is very impossible to dispute one's claim like those where there's no data to dispute, as the analysis based on pure credibility of the analyst. Please do not invoke WP:PERSONAL here, you might say I like disputing claim and not limited to royal-related issues, I just always run into problem when I fix ones. You might put 'some analyst' said, and provides the reliable sources or some analysts who are free of conflict of interest, but I will dispute factual claim of that as long as no evidence or any data provided. --Biglobster (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There is enough relevant materials for a full paragraph. Dispute few lines is totally unjustified. Wiki rules are entirely respected. Khunthaibkk (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Biglobster, there is a difference between fact and a comment from an academic. 27.55.39.86 (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Following an obvious WP:PUPPET by 27.55.39.86 and 27.55.43.56 and the possible involvement of a third user sharing the same view, I will request investigation of possible sockpuppetry, including requests for CheckUser intervention for those 3 accounts.

http://www.domaintools.com/research/traceroute/?query=27.55.43.56 http://www.domaintools.com/research/traceroute/?query=27.55.39.86

 Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 02:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you do not waste your time, but I am afraid my suggestion is also waste of time. Those IPs are not identifying themselves as two different person, and they do not response to the same content so they might be very same person without violating anything. When the investigation completed, DO tell the result here that no persons in this discussion, especially me, are related to those IPs. --Biglobster (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

An excellent primary sources is a video interview part of a documentary by Vice News, entitled “Bangkok Rising - Is Thailand on the Brink of Civil War?” The documentary is still available on YouTube.

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3917

"Suthep is only the figurehead. I'm fighting the one who is really behind the mob. You know the meaning, right?" After a pause, he asks the reporter if she understands the implication of his gesture. He then says the name of the alleged de facto leader of the anti-government protest."

Police warn that those who share Red Shirt leader’s video will be charged with lese majeste so you will have to find the link to the video by yourself. http://2bangkok.com/pm-yingluck-orders-police-to-investigate-red-shirt-leader-for-lese-majeste-remarks.html

Although it seems to me that Wikipedia regulations are well respected, under the current circumstance, lese majeste law that treat with up to 15 years jail direct comment on the issue, WP:COMMON and WP:IGNORE  should apply.Jeanlepetit (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the source. That one was quite a big stir in Thai social media so I have watched it already. I really respect him to say what he believes to be true, but he is obviously on the opposite side of Suthep and involves directly in the conflict so it is WP:NOTRELIABLE on the ground of conflict of interest. Anyway, even he went that far and is taking his toll by violating lese majeste law, he provided no evidence, no witness and no explanation where he did get this information from, which would be very useful and really get us to somewhere. I do not think we can apply WP:IGNORE lightly for WP:EXCEPTIONAL conspiracy theory like this, the burden of proof still belong to the writer and if one cannot provide related stuff so it is impossible to prove, or disprove, that there is such thing no matter what the limitation one may claim there is. Lese majeste law does not automatically imply that there is really something left unsaid or undiscovered that can support the claim. --Biglobster (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Fredtham59 The user 27.55.43.56/27.55.39.86 is me, just through a different device while I was on vacation. Me and Biglobster are not related to each other. Therefore stop wasting time coming up with theories regarding puppetry since I can also suspect that you, Jeanlepetit, Khunthaibkk and Alfasxp07 are the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.173.0 (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am thank you for your support. I suggest we do not object him and let him do what he wants as long as it is not disrupting the discussion. The worst thing that will happen is that he just wastes his precious time, and I wonder if his action really complies to WP:AGF as he did not even give you a chance to identify yourself. Anyway, please consider registering for a login so we can recognise who you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biglobster (talk • contribs) 03:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I was not thinking about Biglobster but an other single edit signed twice at PDRC gunfight at Lak Si  by 171.99.175.120  and LilertoadKhonthai and bingo who show up :

http://www.domaintools.com/research/traceroute/?query=171.99.173.0 http://www.domaintools.com/research/traceroute/?query=171.99.175.120


 * According to Sock_puppetry, as long as he does not tell you he is a different person, it is not a sock puppetry. Wiki sessions expires are common and sometimes people forgot to check on that. That's why you should ask him to identify himself first but maybe it is too late already. --Biglobster (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:MEAT A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 12:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Do identify who is your suspect for WP:MEAT here. I am sure nobody here is protected by lese majeste law.

Discussion closed for me. A majority obviously agree with the edit.  Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 03:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do care WP:VOTE. Majority is not the reason to end the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biglobster (talk • contribs) 04:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If you do not listen and do not try to find consensus, you are wasting everyone's time WP:LAME.


 * First you pretended that the edit was based on http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Commentary/2014/Jan-17/244284-what-is-really-behind-the-thai-political-protests.ashx#axzz2xHL24YdY and did not respect WP:SOURCE.

With all links provided on the article and talk page : You have been proven wrong.

- "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources":
 * Then you mentioned WP:EXCEPTIONAL, so let see at all it's aspect :

With all links provided by reputable and different news the claim is covered by multiple mainstream sources: You have been proven wrong.


 * I accept your counterargument. --Biglobster (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

-"challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources (WP:PRIMARY are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved and that may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care,) or those with an apparent conflict of interest":

The claim is supported by one or two primary sources. There is no self-published sources and on all links summited, very few might be considered as an apparent conflict of interest. Most link provided are WP:3PARTY or secondary sources( WP:SECONDARY provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them ).

- "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended".

There is not such things within the materials provided.


 * I accept my mistake. I read the guideline wrong. --Biglobster (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

- "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them".

Which community are we speaking about:

- Thai community, there is no conspiracy to silence them but a very harsh Lèse majesté.The law is considered draconian, used to clamp down on any critical perspective about Thai institutions. There is hundreds articles that said it !

- The foreign community: With all links provided by reputable and different news the claim is covered by multiple mainstream sources. The claim did not contradict the prevailing view within.

If now your point is to say that Alfasxp07 did not choose the best link for his edit, I totally agree, and I will push to suggest him for new links to better illustrate his edit; If Your point is to have it simply removed my conclusion is as follow :

Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. There are editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on even when there are proven wrong, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process. You wanna play that game, so do it alone Biglobster.  Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 12:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * PS: I replied to your claim above for the one I accepted. --Biglobster (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your lengthy post, I will try to go one by one. First, you argue that the source is WP:SECONDARY, and you might be superior than me to identify the source. So please tell, for example, in this link http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/thailand-on-the-brink/2/ that which part is secondary for the "hidden agenda" claim, and which part is primary? I assume there must be primary source in there because, to my humble knowledge, secondary source always based on primary source. Correct me if I got anything wrong. --Biglobster (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I confirm that you get it wrong. "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter" WP:THIRDPARTY. Third party are considered by Wikipedia as the highest level of all sources and primary the lowest.

Mark Fenn is a British journalist based in Bangkok. He has written for publications including the Times of London, The Independent, South China Morning Post and the Far East Economic Review. Except in his reporter capacity he is not involved in the conflict. This is not a press release and there is no WP:COI. As he is the sole author of the "hidden agenda" part, it is a Third party sources, highly valuable according to Wikipedia.  Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 17:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like your explicit confirmation here that you are asserting that Mark Fenn's publication is a reliable source that qualified enough to be one, or one among other sources, to support "hidden agenda: royal succession" statement as a fact. --Biglobster (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * For the relevant community, I am not sure I get your point. This is about Thai politics so by WP:COMMON the relevant community is obviously Thai community and the contradiction stands. We are all people, and we all do have thought. --Biglobster (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."


 * The claim of an hidden agenda is the mainstream from news so in no way it do alter the mainstream assumption.

Now about the relevant community I am sure that there is nothing to do about the nationality of those directly involved as Wikipedia do care only about the sources reliability and cited example are scientist community, medical community....


 * The political community should be the most appropriate but it is just a local conflict with no great interest and consequence for the rest of the world so at this stage the journalist community from reputable institutions with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, seems the most appropriate when it come to a such topics. Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 17:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To make a milestone, I would like your explicit confirmation here that your assertion is that the relevant community specified in WP:EXCEPTIONAL in this context is, at this point, not Thai community, political community, or Thai political community at all, but the relevant party is journalist community from reputable institutions with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. My interpretation might be a bit inaccurate so please fix it to make it match your POV. --Biglobster (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * To quote a famous saying: "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." Biglobster above is a perfect example of pounding the table.
 * Biglobster do master Wikipedia policy but ignore talk page discussions and yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material and by doing so be guilty of WP:DISRUPT.Here is the proof: []

It confirm what I said previously: There are editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on even when there are proven wrong, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process. You wanna play that game, so do it alone Biglobster.

I invite other editors to not argue with the crustacean, he is the one who open the dispute,he is the one who deliberately ignore the rules, so if he want to go further he can use legal channel offered by Wikipedia to have it resolved. From now on, I consider the topic "argumentum ad nauseam"  Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 21:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Congratulation Fred Tham, you have finally reached the bottom of the Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. I removed the citation because I thought we reached the consensus on the smaller part that Pavin is in the conflict of interest and his opinion should not be taken as a reliable source, or did anyone object me on that ground? Again I feel WP:AGF and WP:PERSONAL are not respected here extensively and my action has been judged without discussing what I did and why I did that. The last edit was my attention to make it clear for your POV so we can continue on that milestone instead of editing this big discussion, but I guess my attempt was a failure.


 * My last negotiation is, remove the content or make the statement as an opinion instead of fact. If this is not acceptable, so I guess it would leave me no choice. Kindly note that editors who refuse to discuss might be perceived as WP:DISRUPT instead the one who are trying to do so with WP:CIVILITY. Thank you for your compliment about me mastering the rules anyway, but actually I am not and I did accept my mistake above already. --Biglobster (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

AsFar as I know, I do not give any mandate to anyone to act as my representative. I followed the conversation with great interest and did not notice any mention of --Biglobster (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)the edit you made or any consensus on the cited mater. Also on which ground and authority do you consider fredtham as your sole detractor. From now on, keep in mind that both of you are not the only party involvedl. I will have a look at your proposal and inform all editors on the outcome. Take it as a personal attack if you wish, but biglobster, you are totally direspectful and deeply lack of honesty and forwardness.Jeanlepetit (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry If I jumped to a wrong conclusion and wrong action, and I didn't mean to. If you are going to review, please take your time review status of Pavin as well. I hope it is clear that the discussion is to find out and discuss whether content and citation belongs there and how should it be stated, not to prove that I am right or wrong. I am not sure which part of the discussion show my disrespectful, dishonesty and lack of forwardness? If you reply me here, I won't take it as WP:PERSONAL but it's up to you. --Biglobster (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Respect my vote !Khunthaibkk (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry but at this point only your opinion counts, not your vote. You can open a vote if you like, but do give some more opinion if you would have any. --Biglobster (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion if it would continue, I got few points to assert after all if it was not clear:
 * Pavin is a reliable source or not? I assert he got conflict of interest, so his opinion is too bias to take it as a neutral one.
 * This is WP:EXCEPTIONAL or not? I assert that it is, due to current prevailing view in Thai community. Though Fred Tham asserted that the "relevant view" in this context is not Thai community, but the relevant party is "journalist community from reputable institutions with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Again, correct me if my conclusion of your comment is wrong.
 * This is an opinionated piece, or a fact? I have been asserting since the beginning that it is opinionated and conjecture, and should comply to WP:YESPOV "Avoid stating opinion as fact."
 * Can we take those author's publication e.g. Mark Fenn, regarding "hidden agenda" as a statement of fact? I did say no, but I do not have any replies on this matter yet.
 * If this is all has been fixed, is it still belong to the top of the page? Because we have not reached the consensus of all issues, so this is to be discussed later.

If I forgot to mention anyone's point regarding to the issues above, feel free to put it in. --Biglobster (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I have seen enough of these arguments (including Lak Si gunfight, Phan Fah Bridge, Royal status) to conclude that you, Fred Tham (especially), Jeanlepetit and Khunthaibkk are using Wikipedia rules (quoting them like lawyers in a court) to hinder and take advantage of other editors. 171.99.173.0 (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Pavin is a reliable source or not? I assert he got conflict of interest, so his opinion is too bias to take it as a neutral one."


 * COI and BIAS because he has led a campaign from outside the country to modify Thailand’s draconian lèse-majesté law ? WOW, there is no much left in the western world as that law is widely considered as insane. But let's say that I agree, do my edit is about the law 112: NO !
 * His position can be advanced easily if he can assert and make people believe that there is more and more things left unsaid because of lese majesty law, don't you think so? --Biglobster (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"This is WP:EXCEPTIONAL or not? I assert that it is, due to current prevailing view in Thai community."
 * Wiki do give examples, all are professionals field community so between a professional community and an ethnic one I confirm that the professional one is appropriate. The journalist community from reputable institutions with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is a good one.
 * The Thai community is directly concerned by the conflict and according to thai and foreign news deeply divided, there is serious issues with BIAS, NPOV, COI within the community.
 * I have one counterargument question. Pavin is Thai. Does he also subject to bias, NPOV and COI? --Biglobster (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The WP:EXCEPTIONAL also did not say that prevailing view or the community must be neutral and non-biased.


 * You assert that " the idea of a hidden agenda" is against a prevailing view in Thai community, on which ground ?
 * Before I explain my assert, I have one request. As you propose "hidden agenda" word, please explain why the agenda is called "hidden agenda." Who is hiding it and hiding it from whom? --Biglobster (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"This is an opinionated piece, or a fact? I have been asserting since the beginning that it is opinionated and conjecture, and should comply to WP:YESPOV "Avoid stating opinion as fact."
 * The answer is there WP:THIRDPARTY: Fact!
 * Sorry but I failed to see which part of that essay tells that WP:THIRDPARTY = fact, especially third-party opinion and/or analysis. Could you probably point it out for me? --Biglobster (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Can we take those author's publication e.g. Mark Fenn, regarding "hidden agenda" as a statement of fact? I did say no, but I do not have any replies on this matter yet."
 * On the diplomat article that you dispute there are paragraphs (paragraph is a self-contained unit of a discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea) the first one is about the "hidden agenda" by Mark Fenn a reputable journalist working for a reputable agency with editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. So yes it is a fact.
 * Sorry to repeat your word, but do you mean any text publish by a reputable journalist working for a reputable agency with editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking can be cited as a fact? or do you mean any text about "hidden agenda" publish by a reputable journalist working for a reputable agency with editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking can be cited as a fact? --Biglobster (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Alfasxp07 (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

For clarity, please follow the time line and do not make edit between other previous edits. Here are the new questions you added after I responded to those you previously made.

The WP:EXCEPTIONAL also did not say that prevailing view or the community must be neutral and non-biased.
 * His position can be advanced easily if he can assert and make people believe that there is more and more things left unsaid because of lese majesty law, don't you think so? --Biglobster (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have one counterargument question. Pavin is Thai. Does he also subject to bias, NPOV and COI? --Biglobster (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I failed to see which part of that essay tells that WP:THIRDPARTY = fact, especially third-party opinion and/or analysis. Could you probably point it out for me? --Biglobster (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC
 * Sorry to repeat your word, but do you mean any text publish by a reputable journalist working for a reputable agency with editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking can be cited as a fact? or do you mean any text about "hidden agenda" publish by a reputable journalist working for a reputable agency with editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking can be cited as a fact? --Biglobster (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Before I explain my assert, I have one request. As you propose "hidden agenda" word, please explain why the agenda is called "hidden agenda." Who is hiding it and hiding it from whom? --Biglobster (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

And here a previous question that I choose to not answer:
 * If this is all has been fixed, is it still belong to the top of the page? Because we have not reached the consensus of all issues, so this is to be discussed later.

Also since the start there was only one question ( put it into balance with the numerous one you made)and you set condition to give an answer.Enough is enough, you are going to far !!! From now on, I agree with fredtham edit:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013%E2%80%9314_Thai_political_crisis&diff=604505968&oldid=604488009 and admit that I should have follow his wise advice ! Alfasxp07 (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is for "hidden agenda" definition, I did not set the condition. I just want to make sure what your "hidden agenda" means so we don't waste our time arguing on different ground. Can I take it that you refuse to make your point and refuse to clarify the content you added to the article? --Biglobster (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thaksin's intention and intervention
It is reasonable to inform article readers about Thaksin intervention and intention behind the amnesty bill, so they understand better what is going on behind-the-scene and why the bill has been changed drastically that way. For my regular reverters, Please give your reason why we should not mention him, because right now I feel I have touched the untouchable. If no reason is given, I will assume I should go on. --Biglobster (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * What is the point to talk with a such contributor:Biglobster (talk)


 * His edit has been reverted by many users but he is still pushing to have his very own point of view accepted.
 * He opened this discussion for this edit :
 * Then went ahead four hours later without waiting for user comment. He not only disrespect users who are trying their best to improve the article, but also show no respect for Wikipedia rules with a lot of warning on his talk page.

Conclusion: I have much to say about this edit bus because of this editor behavior will not engage myself with endless and pointless discussion. Not a surprise there seems to be no willingness on the part of the other editor for any discussion Ladypalm999 (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And then you felt you need to register an account just to criticise me? Biglobster (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I also created an account recently and I agree with Ladypalm999 (talk). I am not yet familiar with all wikipedia details but as a experienced reader the way you are inserting things on this article makes me believe that you are biased and lack of neutrality. Deluxpizzatopping (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality and major change to the lead without concertation
WP:TMC Avoid "drive-by" tagging: tags should be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it. I did not see any discussion attempt, major change to the lead section has been made without any discussion with other editors. Not a surprise there is an ongoing edit war : []

WP:NPOV Most undo was made by Thai editors who might have a conflict of interest as they are directly concerned with the subject. In this edit for example [] without any improvement to the length, wiki citation 2006 military coup was changed to new military coup.

Although the article title is "2013–14 Thai political crisis" which involved different party,not only the protest which is the visible part of the iceberg, there is no mention of the red shirt counter protest, government point of view and any mention about the protest many controversy since the very little attempt to have it rectified is systematically undo. There is not only a WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUEissue as MOS:LEAD recommend including any prominent controversies. Look like those editors do not want to have anything that might contradict or explain why the situation is not as simple as a street protest and do not want any interference in the lead that might tarnish a "clean protest".

The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is WP:LEADSENTENCE As I already said the subject is not only the protest but the political crisis which involve different party and relation with event before the protest erupted which the actual lead do not reflect.

The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. WP:MOSBEGIN It was the case prior to the contested edit but not anymore.  Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 02:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to add certain facts about the red shirt movement. However, the movements should be an event major enough that it deserves to be on the lead - if not, it can still be in the article's main section, I don't see any anti-government points of view in the lead. And when there is a point of view there should be one from both sides. (E.g. If you want to include why the government wishes to amend the constitution you must also include a reason (not an excuse) of why the constitution turned it down. The lead section should not have any (or very little) opinions and points of view regardless of side. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is always very difficult to write a Wikipedia article about ongoing, strongly contentious processes. With this short-term perspective it is hard to decide which aspects, actions, events will appear important in the future. Now, the article is predominantly based on reports in news media - not the best source to assess political, social, economic backgrounds and nexus. In the months and years to come, political scientists, sociologists and even historians will publish articles, chapters and books about this conflict, which will make it much easier to write a well-sourced, balanced article about this topic. Today some points still appear important to us that will appear secondary in 1, 2, 5 or 10 years time. On the other hand, background factors will become obvious that may still be unrecognizable at present. --RJFF (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:YESPOV is very important. If we stick to that then the article would be fine. I think if any red shirt protest or counter protest did affect the crisis at all, it should be mentioned in the lead. Anyway, as RJFF said that it might be hard to determine whether it would be notable in the future or not, so I think we should stick to the present fact and not the conjecture. --Biglobster (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines appreciates the length of the lead from the number of paragraph, it is a fail. All read carefully the lead recommendation and also read some featured article. I do not know what the motivation behind those changes but obviously none of the lead recommendation are applied. If it is too long which is disputable, as recommended by Wikipedia prior to any change we should debate on talk page, right ? So for all those who like to cite wiki rules, maybe you should accept that the process must restart before the added tag and all edits reverted. Anyway if we fail to reach a consensus, WP:CONS should apply. Personally when I look at a previous edit and undo it seems that change made to the lead are more an attempt to have some very own POV respected than to achieve Wikipedia lead recommendation or neutrality. Also some editors do have the same crustacean smell.... look at those 2 edits [] [] with the same wrong arguments as the cited article do mention "from petrol bombs that landed by police" and previously corrected []

It is only one example from many others that confirm what I said about the lead : it seems that change made to the lead are more an attempt to have some very own POV respected than to achieve Wikipedia lead recommendation or neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deluxpizzatopping (talk • contribs) 06:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You said that "it seems that change made to the lead are more an attempt to have some very own POV respected than to achieve Wikipedia lead recommendation or neutrality". Would you mind listing those POVs that you say we are trying to "have respected"? Because I don't see any apart from a few pro-government ones that have been removed, making the lead quite neutral to me. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not see any POV of whomever at all in lead section, except of those "analysts" for "hidden agenda." The rest are fact and no pro-government or anti-government opinions at all. --Biglobster (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Fredtham59, I see that you have mentioned quite a lot about our (me, Biglobster, RJFF) lack of neutrality in the lead section. The original version of the lead contains unnecessary pro-government POVs making it very biased. Removal of those POVs are an attempt to achieve neutrality in the lead section. A lead should contain very little or no POVs regardless of side. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Please read my commemt at :Changes to the lead section. Lack of neutrality is obvious from Biglobster,Hethokrilliondata and a bit less from RJFF. I feel like I am facing ASTV - pro pdrc tv chanel- analyst when I read your comment here125.25.205.103 (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I am a new editor and as a novice I also would like that important change be discussed so every one who want to contribute should have a say. Wikipedia is a based on users participation and concencus over edits isn'it? I will not go as far as the previous edit but the neutrality of the lead is questionable by omission of some fact now gone.Zizoulalalouzi (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the lead section
I understand that a consensus has already been achieved regarding the adjective "criticized" describing the 2007 constitution, but WP:CCC clearly states that editors can change consensus-achieved content. An introduction, as I mentioned earlier, should be concise, and convey the key facts directly to the reader. The adjective criticized, apart from it's unnecessariness in the intro, is also very biased. The term criticized suggests that the amendment is a good thing. Not everyone criticizes it. I am fine if you detail the criticism of the constitution later in the article. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. Public opinion about the constitution may be included in the main part of the article (or, even better, in the article Constitution of Thailand), but not in the lead section of this article, which is already too long and should be condensed to only summarize the key points. --RJFF (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:CCC clearly states that editors can change consensus-achieved content. Yes, but also:


 * 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
 * Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of WP:DISRUPT. Actually concerned editor is RJFF (talk)for this edit []
 * If there are two editors who have a dispute over the presence of content, either can be guilty of a three-revert rule violation if they engage in an edit war. If a second editor steps in on one side, and two editors outnumber one, the reverts count collectively in the three-revert rule. You are already both engaged into edit war.

So if you prefer to play the wiki policy and guidelines over common sense, it's fine.

oppose See my explanation on this section[]. The constitution was criticized on the "senate" part. The senate part is part of the ongoing protest. I will not mention the dubious argument:"already too long and should be condensed" in regard with this edit: [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredtham59 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I have read the discussion on "Neutrality". The problem of the article then was that it was biased against the government. I don't see any problem like so now. The term criticized will simply make the reader "agree that it is a good thing to amend the constitution". You also said that many people criticized it, but there are also some who support it. My answer to ''The constitution was criticized on the "senate" part. The senate part is part of the ongoing protest.'' Is that you did not say in the article that the area that the criticism is going on is the "senate part". This makes it extremely misleading. I shall quote RJFF that Public opinion about the constitution may be included in the main part of the article (or, even better, in the article Constitution of Thailand), but not in the lead section of this article, but I am not saying that the lead is too long and should be condensed (something you said is not an excuse for this edit). I am going to say that the lead section should be very neutral and contain very little or no opinion, because it needs to convey the key facts directly to the reader. I hope you are aware that there are many readers who only read the lead section of the article, I sometimes do that too. This is why it should contain very little opinion. In a polite response to your addition to the Wikipedia rules, I would like to remind you that if you are to take advantage of 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 and not agree to the removal without reason, you will be subject to WP:TEDIOUS. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:TEDIOUS? Just give a try and start by enforcing your own statement : I will do this by dealing with biased information and making the information have both points of view. Information with only one point of view could mislead the reader, despite not being biased.

As I said in the new section I opened on the talk page, you and other Thai editors do not accept any mention of the governement POV or explanation on why they made change to the constitution. In the lead there is no mention of the government stance and not to mention of the red shirt counter protest and to make it even more understandable: Not even one word about them. There is a huge media coverage, but nothing in the lead, so do not teach me about WP:TEDIOUS and look at your own edits prior to judge mine.  Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 03:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that the adjective "criticized" is really redundant, it does not add any information. If the MPs of the Pheu Thai Party (elected by the majority of voters!) launch a change to the Constitution, it is obvious that an important part of the public (i.e. those who support the Pheu Thai Party) do not like certain parts of the constitution, else they would not have tried to change it. So the wording "government-proposed amendment to the criticized 2007 constitution" does not add any relevant content vis-a-vis "government-proposed amendment to the 2007 constitution". If no one had criticized certain parts of the current constitution, no one would have wanted to change it. The reasons why they wanted to change it cannot be discussed in the lead section anyway, but should be explained in the article's body. --RJFF (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I am a reader with no time to edit article and no understanding on wikipedia rules so will not comment on it. Recent change to the introdustion are disastrous and will drive pure reader like me away. I had a conversation yesterday with collegues who share the same interest for wikipedia and we all agree. About the content we see the article turning toward a pro suthep article (not tottaly yet) as it was at its' early stage. Editors should take into account readers interest instead to fight about rules especialy when those rules are used to serve other purpose tham readers best interest. Thanks to all for your work !125.25.205.103 (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If no one had criticized certain parts of the current constitution, no one would have wanted to change it : You got the point and that it is why criticized is important, junta drafted, junta propaganda to preomote it while other can't speak against it, referundum under the threat that if not accepted the junta will stay into power. For reader with no knoledge about the crisis in Thailand since 2005 will certainly give more attention to the constitution otherwise will might under estimate it's importance and misunderstand why the governement wanted to change it. 125.25.205.103 (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

How can it be redundant, there is no repetition in expressing the idea previously. It might be obvious for those well informed about Thai politic and what about the other, probably the reader majority ... . Without going into details into the lead, the importance of this fact if prominent to the article understanding. "government-proposed amendment to the 2007 constitution" vs "government-proposed amendment to the criticized 2007 constitution" make a huge difference by a single word on what is one of the most important part of the protest. Then only the reasons why they wanted to change it should be explained in the article's body.Zizoulalalouzi (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is court rule and it is pure fact. Putting "criticized" there is unusual, and make an impression that the court rule or the court itself are against critics or those who criticize the constitution or support junta drafting, which is not the case. The 2007 constitution also got a referendum, but I do not see we should put it in as well. --Biglobster (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"Joke" cited source
I just read it carefully, and found out that the cited source for "joke" calling is for drafting process of 2007 constitution and not for the constitution or even its draft. I am not sure how we should fix this. Any ideas? IMHO, I don't think it is related to the court rule at all, and should be corrected and moved to the appropriate part instead (if any) --Biglobster (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/01/15/headlines/headlines_30024142.php

you are right,I made a mistake will undo the edit back to weng statement. Unless we reach a consensus for the lead section, will not comment further as all related edit made will have to be back prior the added tag and I personally will not oppose the removal of this statement.  Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 15:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Weng statement also criticise the drafting process. Note the date 17 Jan 2007, at the time no draft has been created yet. --Biglobster (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we really need this exact quote? There are so many critical statements about certain parts of the 2007 constitution, it might be WP:UNDUE to chose just this quote by an individual (the UDD was not even founded back then), that was made before the constitution was even drafted and stands in no direct connection to the current crisis (please note also WP:Synthesis). I agree that the quote is very vivid, but we do not write this article to create effects, but to inform neutrally. --RJFF (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree and I don't think we need that after all, at least where it is right now. --Biglobster (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I assume that there is a consensus. Biglobster and RJFF agree that a comment is not necessary. Fredtham59 says "he personally will not oppose the removal of the statement." I shall proceed with the edit. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not think the edit is undue as weng statement reflect the majority or at least a widely perception of the constitution by analyst and human right organization.Zizoulalalouzi (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not due or undue, it is inaccurate. Weng could not comment on the constitution that hadn't been even drafted yet at the time, it is common sense. --Biglobster (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

POV lead?
Could you please substantiate which parts of the lead section create the impression of it being biased, in order to solve this problem? Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "Hidden agenda" is only single POV exists in the lead section. This should be moved out of the section to somewhere else, with explain that the theory is not really widely accept apart by those several analysts and commentators. Andrew M. Marshall who is a main advocate of "hidden agenda" theory really hates PDRC, and, according to his Facebook page, he seems to be proud of it. While I am aware that biased sources are not prohibited, it must be used carefully and make sure that the readers would realise that the opinion is not from a neutral source. --Biglobster (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that Pavin Chachavalpongpun and Thongchai Winichakul are serious, knowledgable and respected Thai political analysts. I do not think that they would just echo Mr Marshall's theory. --RJFF (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All can be knowledgable, but being biased really depends on context and not their knowledge. In this case, Pavin is main advocate for anti-royalist and anti-lese majeste law, and Thongchai is also anti-royalist but in my idea he is more respected than Pavin. Anyway, now they sees PDRC as a royalist, or even ultra-royalist, movement and anti-royalists are obviously in the opposite side and subjected to some degree of bias. Their opinions might be useful and again I am not saying this is prohibited, but to achieve due weight the fact about their advocacy and where they align politically must not be omitted and not be hidden under the facade of analyst status. Whether they are echoing each others is not really something we could ever prove or disprove, but I do not think we need to discuss and have consensus on that matter. --Biglobster (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The lead and the background sections suggest that the mentioned political crisis is a single events while in fact it is the continuation of different protest and coup since 2005 and as it is a "yellow" protest this time, a repeat of previous attempt to remove "thaksin or thaksin influence" which are a repeated failure as he win over and over "yellow" protest.
 * The lead do focus on Thaksin or if the bill has been rejected it is not because of thaksin only. The protest might be triggered by the bill but as both side did reject it for 2 very different reason why one side should be mentioned and not the other one. I am not convinced at all by previous comment to do no not have it mentioned .Without the mention of abhisit and suthep the bill would have probably be accepted and the protest be of different nature.
 * The change made to the constitution are primordial to the understanding of the protest. The lead as it is now do suggest that the constitution has been drafted and approved in a "democratic manners" which is not so obvious since all the process from the committee selection, the drafting and the referendum have been heavily criticized, it is a misleading edit that hide an essential fact.   Fred   Tham  59 Do not bite, so talk ! 11:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is that these theses are subjective and depend on POV. As I said: Historians will probably put these current events in a bigger historical context, analysing and reflecting backgrounds and nexus. As of now, it is not our task (or right) as Wikipedia users to do the historians' job. It would contravene WP:No original research (at least in its form of WP:NOR) and perhaps WP:NPOV. As of now, we can only describe the events as they have happened without arrogating judgment or claiming to know the "truth" about the background and meaning of these events. Of course we can write about the opinions of certain players, observers and analsysts. But this is not for the lead section, it belongs in the respective sections of the article's body.
 * By the way, the lead nowhere hints that the 2007 constitution was drafted in a democratic manner. It only says "the 2007 constitution". If you click the link, you will immediately find that it was "drafted by a committee established by the military junta". What else do you want? This article is about the 2013/14 crisis, there is a separate article on the 2007 constitution. This is what wikilinks are for, so we do not have to repeat everything and create huge lead sections, that overwhelm and daunt readers. --RJFF (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I support this. Furthermore, labelling it "criticized" does not make it more understandable for readers. Fredtham, as the original editor for this, might be able to shed some light on the topic that how he wants readers to understand that so other editors can see if it is okay or not. --Biglobster (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And please show me a single source that says that the protests were triggered by a potential amnesty of Abhisit and Suthep. Every oint source says they were triggered by the potential amnesty of Thaksin. --RJFF (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Replying to your 3 points.
 * The PDRC are not yellow shirts. There are some yellow shirt members in there and they share a similar ideology, yes. But they are two separate movements.
 * The main point that causes people to go against the amnesty bill is the pardoning of Thaksin, not Abhisit and Suthep. I understand that some red shirts protest against the bill for the latter reason, but there must be concision in the lead, so we stick to the main point.
 * The 2007 constution was accepted through referendum, it is legitimate. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)