Talk:New Politics Party

Untitled
Dear editor(s) 72.8.58.2 / 24.62.170.147,

please STOP this edit war and try to improve this article objectively. It is the rules of Wikipedia that you cannot add any information that is not VERIFIABLE, especially when the claims are not part of common knowledge or mainstream media. I am not an expert or insider in the matter of NPP, not to speak of being a supporter of this party. I am not even a Thai citizen, I just follow and observe Thai politics (so, you will understand that it is ridiculous to claim I would work for the Thai Foreign Ministry or was an NPP partisan). Maybe your classification is RIGHT. But Wikipedia is not about right or wrong, it is about verifiability. So just give us serious and neutral sources that prove your claims. As long as you don't, Wikipedia community will remove your edits. And that is, of course, not Vandalism, nor is it about anyone's Point Of View, but cleaning up what is not to be included in the Wikipedia.

As I come from a country that has made a terrible experience with fascism in the past, I will always be very cautious and suspicious when it comes to labelling any present-day grouping with 'fascism' or 'neo-fascism'. So you have to find really good proof to convince me. On the other hand, no one will argue about the NPP being royalist or populist because you find it all over the mainstream media.

It is not me who made these rules, but I know them for quite some time as I am a rather experienced Wikipedian in my native project. And the rules are everywhere the same, all over the world and in all languages, so you have to please accept them, too.

Regards -- 125.25.195.158 (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the sources for the "neo-fascism" claim:


 * 1. Mithran did not mention NPP in his Guardian commentary in 2008 because it had not been founded yet. This article does not treat NPP at all, so it cannot prove the "neo-fascism" claim.
 * 2. Dr. Nelson does not tag the NPP in his contribution to the "New Mandala" portal with any ideology label at all, a single user does - but that is no reliable source.
 * 3. The "Socialist Worker" is a communist magazine. They may use the terms "fascism" or "far right" in a way that differs from the "Neutral point of view" significantly! Mr. Ungpakorn's statement is immensely influenced by his own ideology. No reliable source.

For the given reasons I will delete these inappropriate sources and the still unsourced claims.

Regards -- 128.176.99.4 (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Concerning 128.176.99.4

1. Mithran's commentary shows the ideological foundations of the PAD that led to the founding of the NPP. Thus your argument is invalid.

3. Your assertion that a communist cannot use the terms "fascism" or "far right" in a NPOV way is ridiculous and as biased as you falsely claim Prof. Ungpakorn's statements to be.

In short, "reliable source" doesn't mean just the sources you agree with. Thus I have undone your politically motivated vandalism.

24.62.160.33 (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My dear "guardian of this article",

not every change in this article is "politically motivated vandalism". It can also be a positive edit, trying to improve the article and to comply with the principles of Wikipedia. Still, I hope you are happy with my latest adaption. Unfortunately, I could not find any references linking NPP or PAD with Third Position. Maybe you mixed something up here: Third position means a mix of far-right and revolucionary socialism!, which I absolutely could not find in NPP/PAD's ideas. Again: I am absolutely not politically close to PAD or NPP, I do not approve with their ideas or means. Let us try to get this article right and objective!

Kind regards RJFF (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * พรรคสังคมประชาธิปไตยไทย.png

Requested move 31 July 2019

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Wug·a·po·des​ 00:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Wug·a·po·des​ 00:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thai Social Democratic Party → New Politics Party – Thai Social Democratic Party and New Politics Party may be formally the same party that only changed its name. But politically they are two very different animals. TSDP is practically a one-man show of Somsak Kosaisuuk (and a small group of his supporters), who broke away from the People's Alliance for Democracy ("Yellow Shirts" movement) in 2011. So, unlike the former NPP, the TSDP cannot be described as "the political party of the PAD, with which it shares the same principles and ideas". However, only the 2009–11 NPP that was the party branch of the "Yellow Shirts" was notable and received attention from media and academics. After the split from the PAD movement in 2011, Somsak's tiny splinter party quickly sank into insignificance. TSDP only got 0.02% of votes in the latest election. There are very few news reports and barely any (if at all) academic mentions of the post-split TSDP. Google Books or Scholar have zero results for the present TSDP, while there are quite a few results for the NPP. More than 90% of the article deals with the NPP when it was still linked with the Yellow Shirt movement, until the split. All references but one date from 2008 to 2011. Today's TSDP is only mentioned as a side note. RJFF (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Haven't looked into the details, but I don't see why not. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2019 (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.