Talk:2014 Thai general election

Bias
Parts of the section on the boycott reads like it was written by someone with strong political views against the opposition, which is very strongly biased. Language needs a complete re-write to use encyclopaedic language and avoid unverified assertions. Pbrione (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

All assertions of fact are sourced to reputable news media. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Links
>> 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 target government buildings]\> Thai PM vows to push ahead with election date>> Thai army deploys 10,000 troops ahead of vote>> Thailand protesters disrupt general election>> Thai protesters vow larger rallies after poll>> Empty Hotels Drive Thailand to Best Sovereign Gain: Asean Credit\>> Thai opposition challenges polls in court>> Thai opposition challenges polls in court>> Thai court rejects bid to nullify election>> Thailand re-runs polls as protests dwindle>> the thai malainse(Lihaas (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)).

This is not an article about the general political crisis in Thailand. It's about the election only. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Photo
Here's a photo I took today, which could be used in this article: http://www.adam-carr.net/bangkokposter.jpg I no longer know how to upload photos to Wikipedia, but if anyone else wants to, they're welcome. I took it myself and I release it into the public domain. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But the stupid thing got flipped. Requested at Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop(Lihaas (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)).
 * But the stupid thing got flipped. Requested at Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop(Lihaas (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)).

Edits explained
This deceptive edit doesn't explain what was changed (and is also accusatory which is not conducive to congenial editing). There are unverifiable sources here, as explained previously. Please add sources that can be verified, then add it back. Likewise on sources and removal of tag, also again there is an accusation of bad faith theat there is "political editng". No, it is jus t the need for sources. This is legitimate background context, and apparently RJFF and me agree with it vs. one other.(Lihaas (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)).

You accused me of bad faith by faking my sources. I accused you of political editing. So we're square. As I've stated several times, every statement of fact I have made is sourced, mainly to articles in the Thai press. I don't know what other legitimate source there can be for current events. If you can't "verify" them, that's your problem. What business it is of yours to question my sources? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Where did I say you faked your sourceD? I said simply it needs to be verifiable. In fact you wull find it was me WHO took the initiative to go out and ifnd verifiable links to your sourced wheres I could despite the fact that the WP:ONUS is on you. Its not my problem the ONUS is on you so its your problem. My business is in accordance with WP to ensure it is verifiable. If you want to throw a hissy fit, you can post it oin on your web log.
 * Based on this, i dont feel like aiding you and looking for verification. In future if it is not verified it will, in accordanace with WP, not get on here.(Lihaas (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)).
 * And why should the sources presented by Intelligent Mr Toad not be verifiable? Verifiability does not mean that they have to be verifiable by User:Lihaas sitting behind his desktop. It is not a requirement that sources have to be available online and for free, nor that they are in English. English-language sources are preferrable over foreign ones, but the latter are not invalid. Free online sources may be preferrable over paywall or printed sources, but the latter are not invalid. You might want to re-read Verifiability before mis-citing it. --RJFF (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It can't possibly be Wikipedia policy that only sources which can be found as online text are acceptable. Most books are not available online, yet they are acceptable sources - if they're not, most Wikipedia articles will have to be abolished. When writing about current events, newspapers are often the only possible source, but most newspapers don't keep their text online indefinitely, so the links Lihaas has found won't be available for long. If I cite yesterday's Bangkok Post as my source, that should be sufficient, unless you can show that I have falsely cited it. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said that. I asked for verification (which is my right) and came right to talk, then instead you turn out and blurt out venom.
 * Nevertheless, yours is a new source and news sources are available online, hence i found links to many articles you posted. There were a few that i couldnt find,l so i requested nicely for those. Well, then, why were some found and others not? Instead of fighting back against AGF you could respond in a congenial manner to my request for verification
 * Also the current incarnation you just added DID have an online source that a simple search could find. Again it was me that went out and found it even though the onmus on verification is with the editor adding the content. Further, and dit seems you are new here, we dont put the reference three seperate times...ive fixed that too.Lihaas (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been editing at Wikipedia under various names since 2003. I've never previously encountered this stuff about having to "verify" references. My most recent long article was Gerd von Rundstedt. If you look at the references, you'll see that not one them can be "verified," because they are references to history books which are not online. No-one has challenged this, and indeed it would be impossible to write such an article using online sources. As I said previously, whether you can find online sources for the press articles I have cited is not my business. As for "venom", your original deletions were clearly political in intention, using "verification" as a pretext. You deleted the paragraph about how the demonstrators blocked voter registration in Bangkok, for example, because this reflected badly on Suthep's campaign. I see at your User page you are a supporter of Jobbik and Ataka. So I conclude you are a fascist, supporting the Thai forces opposed to democracy. I will resist all political interference in this article. My suggestion is that you go and find something useful to do and stop wasting my time. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are clearly alleging bad faith which is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Ad hominem attacks are always a very bad idea in a discussion (usually makes any steps towards compromise or consensus impossible, because it creates indignation on the other side.) I often disagree with Lihaas, but accusing him of political editing is ridiculous, especially when it comes to Thailand where I have never seen any signs of him prefering one side. You could as well argue that a supporter of Ataka and Jobbik (both populist parties) must be pro-Thaksin (who is populist, too). Would be just as ridiculous as your insinuation. Lihaas just has an odd interpretation of verifiability (which I do not share), but presuming any hidden motives is abstruse and completely detrimental to your point. He may have extreme political views (I do not want to know), but they never influence his editing, which is usually NPOV. (By the way, advice to Lihaas: Get rid of those terrible userboxes, they do nothing but harm your reputation.) --RJFF (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You can conclude and make ll the presumptiuon in the world you want, it really makes not matter. As for getting sources verified as "none of your business", you will find that the 'WP:ONUS is quarely on you to find that. (Lihaas (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)).

Political editing
Once again Lihaas has shown that his edits are politically motivated and based on false assertions. His claim that the section dealing with events at the candidate registration centre in Bangkok is "unsourced" is an outright lie. It is sourced to an article in The Nation, a reputable newspaper. The fact that the text of the article is not available online is irrelevant. There is no Wikipedia rule that says that all references for facts in articles must be available online. If Lihaas want to "verify" it, he can ring The Nation and ask them. Just to make sure, however, I have provided two links to online sources describing the same events. Lihaas's other edits are equally pernicious, removing text which he feels reflects badly on Suthep's campaign to prevent the election, a campaign he obviously supports (not surprisingly since he supports fascist parties in other countries). I have reverted these destructive edits and will go on doing so. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

pre-Feb 2014 seats?
There are 500 seats, and 251 are needed for a majority. So, what does this mean? (Pheu Thai) Last election 	265 seats, 48.41% DOR (HK) (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It means that at the 2011 election, PT won 265 seats, and polled 48.4% of the vote in the national list election. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)