User talk:Patiwat/October 2006 - April 2009

Transliteration of Thai names
As a farang in Thailand I find the pronunciation additions extremely helpful (e.g. King Bhumibol Adulyadej/pʰu:mipʰon adunjadeːt; & Suvarnabhumi (pronounced su-wan-na-poom)). Please don't stop doing this, otherwise I will never know how to pronounce Nitya Pibulsongkram. Perhaps, pronunciation could be extended to all Wik articles, as in the Oxford dictionary?? Regardless, keep up the good work of making the current political situation comprehensible for foreigners. Rive 02:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I prefer to show the names in Thai, because pronunciation in written Thai is much less ambiguous. The Foreign Minister's name is pronounced "Nit Pi-boon-song-kram".  I'm not proficient enough in the IPA.  And I'll leave it to someone else to make audio recordings of name pronunciations.  Patiwat 20:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For Thai writers
Hi there! I speak and can read Thai, but my keyboard doesn't have Thai characters. If you want, you can post Thai language messeges, but I'll have to respond in English. Patiwat 06:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


 * Here's a slightly differing analogy of an issue equally controversial: "Views among the public about the invasion of Iraq varied considerably. Miss X, whos husband died in the WTC attacks and was an avid supporter of Bush, noted 'Osama had help from Saddam, and we gotta get them both."  If that is all that the article said, the reader might assume that all pro-Bush people hurt by terrorism supported the invasion.  That is not true, so we'd have to round it out by saying "But Mr Y, whos son died in the Bali bombings and is a life-long conservative, disagreed with the invasion, 'I want to trust Bush, but I can't.'  Dr Z, a New England liberal, noted 'Invading Iraq will make terrorists hate America even more.'  However, Mrs A, a California Democrat housewife, noted 'I don't like Bush, but I like Saddam even less.  He's mean, and we should take him down...."
 * I was planning on searching through some interviews to illustrate (a) or (b), but was busy today. I'll have another look at the issue tomorrow morning (that'll be evening, Bangkok time).
 * -- Patiwat 06:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm suprised that you believe that 84% claim from that dusit poll. That poll is crude and unscientific.  No self-respecting peer-reviewed journal would've ever published those results.  Here are some of the problems, 1- They don't mention how many people refused to answer the poll.  2- They don't give us the method of data collection.  3- They don't explain how they believe they managed to get a random sample of the population.  4- Bangkok population represents about 10% of thailand's population, but the dusit poll calculates the combined result for the country with the assumption that Bangkok contains 50% of the country's population.  5- Other small discrepencies like for example a rounding error in one of the numbers they printed.  Can you see why these points are important?  For example, the first point is that they need to mention how many people refused to answer, we already know that many thaksin supporters are afraid of speaking out because they are afraid of getting arrested or "killed".  If only 50% of the people asked, accepted to answer the poll's questions, then it is still possible that only 43% of people in thailand support the coup.  61% of voters chose thaksin in the last (april 2006) election.  If we are to believe the 84% claim, then it means that a minimum of 74% of pro-thaksin people supported the coup.  Even after taking all the preceding points into account, common sense would suggest that most pro-thaksin people would be against the coup, yet according to the poll, a minimum of 74% of thaksin supporters switched sides, and preferred thaksin ousted by a military coup!  And that poll was taken even before the junta claimed endorsement by the king.  Plus, shortly after that poll, the junta imposed a ban on publishing results of polls.  This means that until the junta is gone and gives people the freedom to conduct scientifically acceptable polls, and gives people the freedom to answer polls without fear or intimidation, we are never going to know exactly how many people really supported the coup.  After all this, and reading comments from thaksin supporters, are you still surprised that all you can find are those who oppose the coup?  Have you found a thaksin supporter who switched sides just after the coup, supporting the claims of the poll?  Do you still believe the poll properly represents the views of the 60+ million people living in thailand? Humanoid 12:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Now to reply to your example from iraq. You said: "If that is all that the article said, the reader might assume that all pro-Bush people hurt by terrorism supported the invasion."  Only a stupid reader would assume that.  And besides, the wiki policy makes it clear to let the readers make their own conclusions.  If a dumb reader makes a stupid conclusion, then, for goodness sake, let him.  Do you have any idea how many stupid conclusions readers can make from the current article on the coup?  Do you have any idea how many additional notes you have to make in order to reduce the amount of dumb conclusions made by readers?  You might as well delete every quote you have in the article, because dumb readers might interpret every quote as being the truth.  Or maybe delete every statement from the article cause dumb readers might interpret every statement as being the truth.  Maybe we should put a disclaimer at the top of the article: "not everything in this article is absolutely true".  Humanoid 12:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What is a wat?
Patiwat, I think it would do you good to think about something other than Thai politics for a while. The article wat says that a wat is a Buddhist or Hindu temple, but in the next line it says that a wat must have resident Buddhist monks. One of these statements must be wrong. Is a Hindu temple a wat? I don't think so, but I'm sure you will know. Also, if you don't archive this page I will. Adam 04:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Done! It looks ugly without a TOC though.  Any idea how to force a TOC?


 * I'm sure there is a formal definition for what a 'wat' is, but informally, it just means any place of worship. Thus 'wat cheen' is a chinese temple (whether it is a buddhist or taoist temple is not relevant), a 'wat khaek' is a hindu temple, 'wat kris'/'wat krit' is a church.  Even the ruins of a wat that doesn't have any monks in it any more is still informally called a wat.  The exceptions to this rule are 'misyit'/'masayit' (masjid/mosque) which are never called 'wat'.  Most churches outside of Thailand are not referred to as 'wat' but as 'bot' (โบสถ์) which is a term for an ordination hall within the confines of a 'wat'. Thus St. Peter's Cathedral is called Bot Saint Peter.  Patiwat 06:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will amend the article to say that strictly speaking a wat is a Buddhist temple and school with resident monks, but in everyday language it is any place of worship except a mosque.


 * I'm not exactly sure what the strict definition of a wat is, and off the top of my head, I don't know any references, either. There are some 'wat pa' (forest temples) that don't have schools, although I'm not sure whether they are formal 'wat' or not. Patiwat 07:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A TOC appears automatically once a minimum number of entries are made, unless you suppress it. Personally I find them very ugly and I don't have them at my talk page. Adam 06:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO, a TOC looks good as long as there aren't too many items in it, i.e., it isn't more than screen long. Otherwise, its harder to use. Patiwat 07:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Bloody May
I see you've started a new article called Bloody May. Are you aware that there was already an article called Black May? Google searches suggest that the most popular name for the event is Black May, not Bloody May, but the original article has very little info compared to the new one you wrote. I suggest that you move over all the info to the Black May page, and redirect users from Bloody May to Black May, and mention both names. Humanoid 12:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't realized that Black May was more popular.  I'll merge contents and redirect. Patiwat 16:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sirikitiya → Sirikitiya Jensen vote
Hello Patiwat. Please come and vote about the page move at Talk:Sirikitiya. An official move resquest has begun. -- Lerdsuwa 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nitya Pibulsongkram
Is the new Foreign Minister a descendant of Marshal Phibun? Adam 22:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nit (นิตย์ พิบูลสงคราม) is Marshal Plaek's son. Patiwat 05:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

He must be a fine old age, since Plaek would be 110 by now. Does he share his father's political views? Adam 07:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Plaek died in the 1960's, I believe, not long after he was banished by Sarit and the palace. Plaek's political views were very complex.  When I was at Thammasat, I followed the standard "progressive" line that Plaek, Sarit, and Thanom were the bad guys, and that Pridi, Puay, and Sanya were the good guys.  I thought of him as a collaborationist fascist military dictator, a twisted hybrid of Franco, Salazar, and Tojo.


 * But as my understanding of the role of the palace in political history increased, I came to think that his nationalist policies combined the best and worst aspects of the concept. Despite the many conflicts he had with Pridi, he was more of a friend of Pridi than the palace was.  In hindsight, I believe his policy of limiting the power of the palace was a wise one.  Especially since 50 years of unchecked power has basically crippled Thailand's political development, to the extend that we see today.  Patiwat 08:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I agree with you about the last bit, but I think I will stick with the progressive line that Plaek was a fascist, or at least saw fascism as model of westernisation most appropriate to Siam at the time (particularly since it legitimised his strong-man rule), while Pridi favoured the british liberal or social-democratic model. in the long run i think Pridi was right and Plaek was wrong. And as i understand it was the military regimes of the 1950s that built up the current cult of the King which now has such a grip on Thai politics. Which reminds me that i must get back to my Cult of Thai monarchy article. Adam 08:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's true, but there were two military regimes during the 1950's. First was the Plaek regime, which seized power in 1952, which was as much an anti-palace coup as it was an anti-Pridi coup.  The junta replaced the pro-palace 1949 constitution with the anti-palace 1932 constitution.  Plaek severely reduced the power of the King and delegated him to playing a ceremonial role.  When Thais see images of the King playing in a jazz band, on a sail boat, or doing other playboy pursuits, those pictures nearly all came from the Plaek regime.  The second military regime of the 1950's started in 1957, when Sarit - with the support of the palace - overthrew Plaek.  Sarit used the King to build the cult of the "development king," which fit well with his agenda for the nation. When you see pictures of the King touring the provinces in a military uniform, you're seeing pictures from the Sarit era.  So each regime played a role in developing differing aspects of the cult.


 * Sanya Thammasak during the period from 1973-1976 built up the image of the democracy-promoting King. And Prem during the 1980's built the image of the dam-building farmer-helping genius-of-environmental-engineering King.  See an interesting discusson on the New Mandala blog for some details that might be insightful on what happens when the King's environmental abatement schemes don't turn out as planned. Patiwat 09:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Economist says that TRT will crumble away without Thaksin, and describes Abhisit as "well-liked but ineffectual" and the Democrats' performance as "lamentable." It predicts a return to weak parties and crony politics after the next election. Adam 09:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I see two potential scenarios:
 * 1) The military drafts a constitution that, relative to the 1997 Constitution, establishes a weaker executive and legislature. Less than 2/5's of the Parliament is needed for a vote of no confidence.  MPs will be allowed to shift parties whenever they like.  The Senate becomes directly appointed by the junta.  The judiciary alone appoints members to the Constitutional Court, NCCC, Office of the Auditor General, and the Electoral Commission.  Active military officials will be allowed to be members of the Senate.  The draft constitution passes a referendum without any controversy.  Elections occur and a shaky coalition government results.  The military junta stays discretely in the background.  The government is in a perpetual state of imbalance, as MPs are bought and sold like whores.  Some time later, maybe 5-10-15 years, Thailand sees a major transition that it hasn't seen for the past 60 years, and a few years after that, a belated process of constitutional reform occurs.
 * 2) Similar to above, but the process leading to the referendum is controversial. The junta intervenes one time too many.  The Surayud government annoys the PAD, and they come out protesting, this time against the junta.  Weird shit happens, and violence erupts.  The military looses a lot of legitimacy.  The King steps in to calm people down and smack people on the wrist.  He is hailed as the supreme enforcer of harmony.  But what happens after that, I have no idea.
 * Based on the bloody record of every coup for the past 30 years, I believe that 2) will occur. But I have no idea what the final outcome will be.
 * - Patiwat 10:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that this will be the last coup-reform-coup cycle in which R9 will be around to be the accepted umpire. I can't imagine R10 playing nearly the same role. Adam 10:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for restoring good edit in Thaksin Shinawatra
No problem. It was worth it to get rid of the rest of the stuff, which wasn't simple vandalism, but definitely extreme POV. I'm a bit chagrined I didn't catch that essay etc. for 5 days.

Thank you for your generous "meat" contributions to the article too. Your user page indicates many of your edits belong to Thaksin's article. TransUtopian 10:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thai culture poster.PNG
Couldn't you have asked for my permission first before uploading the picture onto Wikipedia? I know, I know, the picture doesn't belong to me but to the public, blah blah blah, but I was the dude who did the book-searching (scrounging about in badly-lit second hand bookstores is not what I'd call fun) and the scanning. P. Klykoom


 * Sorry if I didn't ask for your permission. Your work in finding such an old image is much appreciated.  If you give me some details (your name, bookstore you got the image from, scanning details) I will definately include it in the image description.

New airport
The article says: "The name Suvarnabhumi (pronounced su-wan-na-poom) was chosen by HM King Bhumibol Adulyadej which means "the golden land", specifically referring to the continental Indochina." I asked: Why on earth would the King name the airport after Indochina? Thailand is not part of Indochina. Can someone produce a source for this assertion? No-one has responded. Perhaps you can fix this if you agree with me that it doesn't make much sense.

Also, is the thai name Suvarnabhumi cognate with the Lao name Suvanna Phuma, the former Prime Minister? Adam 06:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See the Suwannaphum article. Not sure about the Laos prince, but probably so.  The ancient/quasi-legendary kingdom was located somewhere in Southeast Asia.  It has nothing to do with the French colonial entity of Indochina.  Like the kingdom of Srivijaya, people dispute where exactly it was located, and some say that it is located within the borders of the former Indochina.  The modern Thais, of course, claim that it was somewhere in Thailand.  Patiwat 06:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I will be ariving at the new airport on December 27 and will see how golden it really is. What reports have you had so far? Adam 07:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Haven't been there yet, but the Finance Minister is really angry that it doesn't have enough toilets. Ordered some duty-free space to be converted to toilet space.  Patiwat 07:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Creator of banknotes and stamps?
Patiwat, You are correct. I have improperly tagged the stamps and paper money scans I made. I've only recently begun making image contributions, and am not as versed on the correct tagging as I should be. I've endeavored to improve that, but haven't gone back to some of the images I uploaded a couple/few months ago. Thanks for the reminder. Maybe I can knock that out tonight.

Unrelated, I truly like the South Thailand insurgency work you've done. - Thaimoss 18:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You did good work on the Phutthaloetla Naphalai as well.  I saw that ship close up many times at Satthahip harbor. Patiwat 22:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Anand Panyarchum
The reference was to a newspaper article that just happened to be reprinted on a Tripod page. The complete citation details (name of newspaper, title of article, date of publication) are included. Patiwat 06:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

CNS
Hi Pat, I added a section on people's reaction to the CNS in the Council for National Security article. Not fully happy with it but I though we needed to catch up with the latest (and I have been very busy these days...) Regards


 * Here's my thoughts:
 * We have to distinguish Surayud Chulanont and his government with the CNS. Public opinion to Surayud is captured in the Surayud Chulanont section.  That poll that you noted in the CNS article didn't really ask anything about the CNS - it was all about the Surayud government.
 * There has been much more criticism against the CNS that just the 10 December protests. Many many academics have criticized the CNS for their Interim Constitution and the powers it grants them over the next constitution.  There has also been much criticism over censorship and the appointment of junta leaders to state enterprise directorships.  It might be a good idea to 1) mention specific criticisms in specific sections, e.g., note criticisms about the junta constitution in the constitution article, 2) note general reactions in a section called "General popularity and public opinion", and 3) shortly summarize specific criticisms in both the intro to the CNS article as well as the "General popularity and public opinion" section.
 * Which is almost what you've done already. Just need to do some more editing.  Your thoughts? Patiwat 06:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Did You Vandalize The C++ Page?
Ok, if you did what has happened to the C++ page, I'm reporting you so better make things clear (Yes, that sounded hostile because it is hostile) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.176.2.143 (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Who the hell are you, an anonymous user, to be making accusations? Does that sound hostile? because it was.  Check the article history page - it's obvious I never did any vandalism. Chill out and get a damn account before you go off being hostile. Patiwat 16:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Khun Chang Khun Phaen
Thanks for the editing and advice. I've taken the two images off the page. I can't find out how to delete them.

I've recast the "Origins" section to make it clear that KCKP creates sepha as a genre.

I've converted those two sections into sub-sections, but called them "Characteristics" rather than "Criticism", which seems more accurate

All the works in the References section are mentioned in the text or footnotes. All the citations in the References section are in a standard and academically recognized style. I've cleaned up the mentions in the text so they seem less like citations. Chrispasuk 20:45 Tokyo time, 14 Dec 2006

Hi
Are you intending to be in Bkk during January? Adam 01:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably not. Patiwat 02:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

?Sepha? Khun Chang Khun Phaen
Agree utterly. I put it up under this title because the (blank) page was already there with an invitation to fill it. I would much prefer it to be just KCKP. If you can move it, I'll redo the 'Origins and Sepha' section to suit the new title. Thanks again. Chrispasuk 11:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
from beautiful Silom. I am in Bkk for the next week or so. Let me know if there is anything you would like photographed for Thai articles. The new airport appears to be a wonder of efficiency. The only problem is when you get outside - someone has sold the taxi franchise to a limo company, so you can't get into town for under B850. Adam 08:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No thanks. Happy holidays, by the way.  Drive carefully.  Patiwat 20:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You all right? Patiwat 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
The reversion was my mistake. I was on a 56k internet connection at the time (due to travels), and with the amount it had loaded, it looked like you were blanking. My apologies, and I'll try to be more patient next time. Tlim7882 21:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Khom Chad Luek front page, 31 December 2006.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Khom Chad Luek front page, 31 December 2006.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 01:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I survived the Bangkok bombings
Fortunately Silom wasn't on their list. It's amazing how thoroughly networked everyone now is. Within ten minutes of the bombs, mobiles were beeping and ringing all over the place and everyone knew what had happened. Within half an hour I had four calls from Australia checking that I was OK. At midnight the second set of bombs triggered another wave of mobile calls. On the dancefloor at DJ Station people were texting each other news and passing phones around.

I just checked over the article on the bombs. It seems to accept the view that the culprits were either Southern insurgents or disgruntled Thaksinistas. In fact it seems the most likely explanation is that rival elements in the army or police are trying to destablise Sondhi, and apparently succeeding. Did you know that the first thing the police did at the bomb scenes was order street-cleaners to sweep the area, thus destroying most of the forensic evidence? Are Bkk police really that stupid? Or were they covering their tracks? There is apparently long-standing rivalry between the army and police hierarchies (to do with money, mostly). There is a good commentary on all this in today's Nation (Thanong Khanthong, "Stakes at a deadly high in struggle between 'old' and 'new' powers.")

It appears that the English-language press here is not being censored - it is full of criticism of the regime and well-informed speculation about who is trying to bomb whom out of power and why. Do you know anything about this? Is the Thai-language press equally bold in its commentary? Cheers Adam 11:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good to hear you're all right. I couldn't imagine a more inviting place to be on New Year's eve than the clubs on Silom, although Speed (on Soi 4) is more to my taste.  70's Bar on Sarasin is also very very fun.
 * I haven't seen the alternative theories for who is behind the bombings (the CNS, anti-Surayud factions in the CNS, anti-CNS factions in the police) move out of the blogosphere into the mainstream english-language press yet.
 * Strike that - FT just had an article mentioning some alt theories, and saying outright that lots of people thought the junta was behind it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.105.76 (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC).


 * No indications that the vernacular press are holding back. Patiwat 18:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that "the junta" in a corporate sense was behind the bombs. It seems the most common theories are: anti-Sondhi elements in the army, anti-CNS elements in the police, or maybe the police leadership corporately. I am currently reading Duncan McCargo's book on South Thailand, which has lots I didn't know on the history of police/army rivalry. When I have finished it I will rewrite the South Thailand insurgency article, which I now understand much better. On Monday I am off to the South - Nakhon Si Thammarat, maybe as far as Songkhla. I will see if I can get bombed again. Adam 06:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nakhon is actually my home town - I was born in the Ampher Muang and spent several years growing up and going to school in Khlong Chang (one station after Chan Dee, one station before Nabon and two stations before Thung Song junction). Nothing much to see or do.  But the food is great!  I always stuff myself with Khanom Cheen.  Make sure you try the sweet Nam Prik sauce as well as the spicy Nam Yaa curry.  Have it with a soft-soft-boiled egg and lots of veggies for breakfast.  Actually, everything tastes better in the South.  All the roadside curry shops taste better than 90% of what you find in Bangkok.  The Ampher Muang is quite boring.  The Phra That temple is old and historic, but I found it a bit underwhelming.  Lots of things to see in Surat.  Songkhla (or Haad Yai, where I often went) is fun.  When you're there, make sure you try Kai Kor-Lae, Malaysian BBQ chicken covered in sweet/spicy curry sauce.  It's impossible to find in Bangkok, and really really good.  Another Songkhla (or rather, Haad Yai) specialty is Haad Yai fried chicken, with lots of fried onions/garlic.  Yum!  The night-market in Haad Yai has lots of yummy stuff. Patiwat 07:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard another theory tonight, which is that the government did the bombings to drive down the baht and stop the economy overheating. Economic-management-by-terrorism is a new one for me, and although I am prepared to believe almost anything about Thailand, I don't think I believe this. Thanks for tips on southern cuisine. Adam 16:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings from Nakhon Si Thammarat, where I arrived this afternoon. Very different to Bkk! No taxis, no tuk-tuks, no signs in Ingris, no-one trying to sell the falang this and that. I might have been in Ouagadougou. And no maps to be had anywhere. I had to get a motorbike from the bus terminal to the hotel, very scary. Plus it was raining - I have come 800km south and I am in a different climatic zone. An early night tonight - now I have left the fleshpots of Bkk I can get some sleep. Tomorrow I go to look at Wat Phra Mahathat and museums etc. Let me know anything else you recommend. Adam 13:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing much to see in the city besides the museum, the phra that, and the old city walls. Outside the city, there are some national parks.  Nai Plao beach in Khanom isn't bad, and Khao Luang National Park has some very nice waterfalls.  IMHO, you should eat a lot of local food, and exercise a lot so you can eat even more :-)  Oh yeah, if you're into Muay Thai, Nakhon people are famed for their fierce fighting spirit.  Patiwat 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thaksin, the South and Prem
I am now in Penang, after a long day's bus ride (several buse in fact) from Songkhla. I hate to cast aspersions on your hometown, but I liked Songkhla much more than NST. I realise it is a beach resort and thus more "touristy" than NST, but I did find the food better and the general aspect of the town more attractive. Also the NST museum was closed on Tuesday when I was there: annoying. Wat Phra Mahathat, however, is most impressive, and I will write an article about it when I get time.


 * Food in Penang is supposed to be the best in penninsular Malaysia, South Thailand and Singapore included.

The most interesting thing I discovered about Songkhla is that it is Gen Prem's hometown - his face is on nearly as many billboards as the King's and you enter the town over the Tinsulanond Bridge. This explains a lot, I think. It fits into Duncan McCargo's theory in his new book (which I recommend), that the upsurge in the southern insurgency after 2004 and the events leading up to the 2006 coup all form part of a pattern. Thaksin, a former police general and a northerner, becomes PM. Since he is both a megalomaniac and a crook, he seeks to establish his personal control over everything. This entails challenging the power of the army and of the palace. One of his measures is to take personal control of the south, an area about which he knows nothing, breaking the tacit accommodation that had been established between the army and the Muslim leadership under the patronage of Prem, who regards the area as his backyard. In practice, power in the south is transferred from the army to the police, who are more violent, more highhanded and more corrupt. The result is an upsurge of resentment in the south, and for the first time in years the insurgency gathers popular support, particularly after Kru-Ze Mosque and Tak Bai. It also becomes more radical as foreign-trained jihadis move in. Accommodationist Muslim politicians like Wan Nor are discredited, allowing the radicals to move into the leadership of the Muslim community. Meanwhile, Prem waits his chance to strike back at Thaksin, which he gets after the Shin Corp deal makes Thaksin's corruption obvious to all. The protest movement in Bangkok is helpful, but not decisive, in destabilising Thaksin. Sondhi, as a Muslim, is the perfect instrument to strike at Thaksin. Once the King's jubilee is over, Prem tells Sondhi that the palace will support a "soft" coup.

I think this explains just about everything. What do you think? Adam 12:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "In practice, power in the south is transferred from the army to the police, who are more violent, more highhanded and more corrupt --> The result is an upsurge of resentment in the south, and for the first time in years the insurgency gathers popular support, particularly after Kru-Ze Mosque and Tak Bai."
 * There's where I don't see the link. During 2001-2002, where were the newspaper articles about villagers protesting police abuses?  Where were the large-scale transfers and reorganizations?  Where were the small sparks that preceeded the raging fire?  I just don't see any causal link between Thaksin's alleged transfer of power from the police to the army and the rise of the insurgency.  Don't forget that it was the Army (in fact, the ISOC) that was behind Krue Sea and Tak Bai, not the police, so if anything, the Army has just as much blame for making things worse. But what is the true cause?  Beats me....  Patiwat 20:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Pattani
Hi. There have been concerns in Thai Wikipedia relating to Pattani articles in English wikipedia. If you don't mind, I would like you to help take a look at these articles: Pattani (region) and Pattani Kingdom. Thanks --Jutiphan 18:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly are these concerns in the Thai Wikipedia stated? The อภิปราย page for the จังหวัดปัตตานี article is empty. Patiwat 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It actually not so much of what was stated, but I am just asking for a small help if you could just look at it and see what you think about it. Of course, there is no discussion is that article since it is not related to the province. The talk was started in here: th:วิกิพีเดีย:สภากาแฟ (หน้าที่ต้องตรวจสอบ) ~>< --Jutiphan | Talk  - 07:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed template
Hello. This is kind of rough at the moment, but please go here and let me know what you think of the basic idea. Feel free to work inside my sandbox if you'd like to make improvements. Biruitorul 07:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a simple question, really. If you don't like it, perhaps you could refer me to another Wikipedian interested in Thai issues who might be more disposed to answer me. Biruitorul 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What's your source? Patiwat 22:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Biruitorul 05:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK by me. But instead of using 1933 (1) and 1933 (2), I'd use June 1933 and October 1933. Patiwat 05:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All right, thanks for your input; I will make the change. Biruitorul 16:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

a further reading
Someone added the link to The King Never Smiles article here. I've removed it since it is clearly unnecessary for English Wikipedia. But earlier an anonymous editor tried to add it to th wikipedia too, and got reverted and locked after continuous attempts. He also wrote in the article here that it got censorship in th wikipedia. I am not an experienced wikipedian, but I think that the page just doesn't deserve to be the "further reading" in any wikipedias. I'd like to hear your opinion as an experienced contributor about this. Regards, kinkku ● ananas  21:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The deleted text isn't very well written, but I do believe that the link is worthwhile. It's in the external readings section, which implies that although it wasn't used as a source for the article itself, it could be useful for some, but not all, readers.  After all, the War and Peace article contains a link to the original Russian version, and nobody is deleting that link claiming that links to Russian pages don't belong in the English wikipedia. Patiwat 07:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's okay then. I just thought that the original book (and text being translated) is already in English, and it is in English Wikipedia, so it's a bit irrevelant. I think it's worth to be in th wikipedia, though. By the way, it is the text from the inside cover, not the introduction. kinkku ● ananas  22:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it, there are many valid reasons to put it in th wikipedia article, but putting it here still sounds ridiculous for me. As in War and Peace, the original work, though not in English, is undoubtedly a good further reading. But in The King Never Smiles case, the book and the text in question are both originally in English. Adding a link to an unrelated language translation makes no sense. If the blurb is important, I think this link is better. I do not deny that it might be helpful to some readers, but every page might be. I still don't see the point of adding link to a Thai translation of original English text in an English Wikipedia article. Regards, kinkku ● ananas  23:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my edit in th wikipedia. I assumed it was the same page. It was entirely my fault for not checking it. kinkku ● ananas  17:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Don't believe what Manop says.  He doesn't know what he's talking about.  I am not the author of that website. Patiwat 07:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry krub. I misunderstood that you are 12.xxx.xxx.xxx :) --Manop - TH 06:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You made a lot of valuable changes to the Article (though most are centered on Gille's opinion). I wish I had more time to contribute but I am busy with my own wiki that I started recently and for which I may call upon your help later as I want a Thai version! Roger jg 04:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image use
Yesterday, I removed a fair use image (meaning, they are copyrighted and not available under a free license) from your userpage. This was the MIT seal, which can be found at Image:MIT-seal.gif. Today, you added two more fair use tagged images to your userpage, those being Image:Tu(big).jpg and Image:MIT logo.svg. The policy on fair use image use here as described at Fair use criteria item #9 forbids the use of fair use images on anything other than main namespace articles. This precludes their use on userpages. I am removing the latest two images. Please do not re-add these images, or any other fair use images to your userpage or any other non-main namespace article. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. --Durin 13:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realized that fair use images weren't allowed on the user space. Thanks for the cleanup. Patiwat 19:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Goshu 3.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Goshu 3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Policies of the Surayud government
As this piece appears to attack a living individual, and has no sources, I have requested its speedy deletion as an unsourced attack page. Please remember that any negative information about a living person is absolutely required to be reliably sourced. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've withdrawn the speedy request, but left an NPOV tag-the article seems to be a POV fork, or at the very least only to cover one side's position, which would violate WP:NPOV. However, please note that any negative information posted about a living person or existing organization must be sourced when it's posted, not later on. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It was all sourced - all controversial facts had reference tags. I just didn't have time to put up a to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Player 03 (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * After looking at the page history, I found that the page was originally a redirect. I have removed the RSD and reverted the page to your version. Player 03 (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thaksin Shinawatra
Your edit to Thaksin Shinawatra was fine except the section about Corruption. To me, the interpretation of reference you put is one-sided. I update the link to reference to the World Bank report at http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/c213.pdf

Since I know statistics very well and understand how it may be interpreted to one's advantage. Here is a small quote


 * In five categories, the scores in 2005 were worse than those in 1996, with only control of corruption getting better.

from the Bangkok Post article Thailand slipping on World Bank score table.

The original article was not biased but you decide to pick the only improvement yet ignoring the other 5 graphs.

Again, the Bangkok Post article talked about 2005 compared to 1996. However Chuan's government during 1998 is when the Control of Corruption reached its peak. So the article actually meant Thaksin's government in 2005 was better than Chavalit's in 1996 (but actually, degrades from Chuan's which is sandwiched between Thaksin's and Chavalit's).

I finded the way reference was used highly one-sided so I corrected it. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I left the following comment on the na liam discussion page:

'I must admit I've occasionally meddled on this page, but I now feel that as an encyclopedic entry on a deposed tin-pot dictator this is far too long. It can't be Wikipedia's job to give more than a starting point for people who want to research the nitty-gritty of his undistinguished career. I'd suggest: Early Career, Rise to Power, Time in Office, After the Fall (or something, and this should be very brief), Criticism. And Criticism divided into a few broad areas: Corruption and conflicts of interest, Human rights abuses, Divisiveness, each meriting no more than two or three sentences simply summing up the broad charges. Properly referenced, that could guide the reader where he needs to go if she wants to know more. We don't need the war on drugs in seven different instances, eternally editing and re-editing over what the king really said, or detail each entanglement of Shin Corp.'

I don't mean to be flippant, but he is very much yesterday's man, and I think shortening it along the lines I suggest would help all of us not to have to nit-pick over the edits any more: it must take up most of your day, and it constantly keeps a minor irritant in (apparently) a lot of people's mind, leading to gastric irregularities, while anyone coming new to the subject will quail at the horrendous length of the thing.

I'm inclined to post you a brutal rough edit here at some point so you don't feel someone is vandalising all your hard work (obviously we can't retire to a private chat room over this), but I think a lot of it really needs to go.

Now, on an issue that has generated a lot of talk regarding the War on Drugs entry:

'Every inch of the country' was missing the word 'square'. Here's the reference: 'Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday set April 30 as a deadline to rid "every square inch" of the country of illicit drug production, warning that provincial governors and police chiefs who performed poorly in this effort would lose their jobs. "I want to see every square inch getting X-rayed and authorities making a clean sweep of drugs in every area within three months," he said.' (Yuwadee/Anucha, Bangkok Post, Jan. 15, 2003). The 'warning' bit is also clearly interesting. Again, it's not something to get worked up about, but it adds a bit of interest and life to the entry, and I'd like to edit it in again. Sartoresartus (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Does it make a difference if he's yesterday's man? Last time I checked the newspapers Wikipedia had many extensive articles about "yesterday's men."  Besides, he's NOT yesterday's man.  Every time Abhisit get's criticized, he either responds by saying he's still better than Thaksin, or he borrows a Thaksin policy.  Witness his recent Oxford speech or his own "war on drugs."  For that reason alone, the main Thaksin article has to explain what exactly Thaksin did and why he still exerts such policy influence on the current government. Patiwat (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It does as far as the tempers are concerned, I'd have thought. As witness the relative calm that has returned to the discussion page. Why should we provide an answer to every speech Abhisit makes? Let's take a long view of the little fellow and give a nice outline of his rise and fall instead of this book-length study.


 * Look, the article is too long. So why make it even longer?  I'm editing down some sections. Patiwat (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah, we could niftily replace 'Thaksin launched a multi-pronged suppression campaign that aimed to eradicate methamphetamine use in 3 months.' With 'Thaksin launched a campaign to rid "every square inch of the country [ref]" of drugs in three months.' Or 'methamphetamine' if you must, let's not quibble about the exact nature of the 'drugs' politicians twaddle on about; we'll be here till doomsday. That's one word more, but they're shorter words and omit the flabby 'that aimed' and the redundancy 'suppression-eradicate.' What say you?

The larger point is that there are way too many sections as it is, so it's perhaps best not to be too attached to the current structure. At a glance, things like 'Fall of the PDP' surely don't need a heading for themselves but could be a short sentence in 'rise to power' or whatever. I realise it's painful to envisage having your hard work butchered, but at least it did its sterling job at the time.


 * The sections on his policies as a Prime Minister do NOT need shortening - the details about his post-coup activities DO. A lot of that post-coup stuff is just not relevant given political/legal  happenings over the past couple years.  Does it really make sense to devote more space to his short-lived ownership of Manchester City than his ownership of Shin Corp/AIS?  His policies as Prime Minister do NOT need to be shortened down.  The distinctions between his policies, and the policies of governments prior to him and after him are still very important.  Especially since governments after him seem to use Thaksin's policies as a starting point.  For example, the Surayud government was all about reversing Thaksin's energy privatization policy and the Abhisit government is all about a nicer sounding version of Thaksin's war on drugs.  The article does NOT need an entire section on the cancellation of his UK visa.  The articles DOES need to explain the distinctiveness of what was, for better or for worse, one of the most monumental policy regime in Thai history.  Patiwat (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree entirely, and I take your point about the afterlife of his policies. But the way the overview at the top stands, for instance, it devotes more space to a long list of criticisms than to policies that persuaded a lot of people that he was the best thing since sliced bread. So I think there, for instance, some of the more trivial criticisms (like insulting religion or whatever) can go, while we need to highlight that he was the first PM to serve a full term, introduced universal healthcare and popular (as well as populist) poverty eradication schemes, and had these draconian social order and drug campaigns that appealed to many fearful mothers around the nation. So I'm taking the liberty as we speak... Sartoresartus (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Gone ahead and done my worst, have a look. Chopped until 'police career.' That corruption index thing is gone, because it's a bit he-said-she-said and we don't want to get into this whole business of monumental corruption concentrated in one person versus lots of little corruptions everywhere. There's a case for melding 'early life' and 'police career' just to save on headings, but I can't be bothered.Sartoresartus (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Arguably yon loan to Burma is the single most barefaced piece of skulduggery ever committed, so might be worth giving more prominence, but how I know not.


 * Barefaced it might have been, but neither the junta nor the current government have been able to pin any charges on him for it. THAT deserves prominence. Patiwat (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you've already worked wonders with the censorship entry. Are you sure you don't feel like rustling us up an article on corruption along similar lines?Sartoresartus (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I know you like being flippant, but I really have no idea what you're talking about. Patiwat (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Got the impression you were significantly responsible for the censorship in Thailand article, so wondered if something along the same lines might be done for corruption. Or is there one already? I can't find it.Sartoresartus (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * At the peak of the 2006 crisis, some yellow shirts put up the censorship article and focused it almost exclusively on censorship in the Thaksin government. As if Thailand were a mecca of media freedom prior to that.  Given your obvious biases regarding to Thaksin, would I be wrong to think that you'd do the same regarding corruption?
 * Based on the tone of your posts on this discussion page, I suspect you think that I am a paid supporter of Thaksin. Have a look at my User page if you have any doubts about the quality of my contributions to Wikipedia.  Frankly, the Thaksin article was a pile of pure crap before I helped improve it.  And it still sucks, especially regarding the crisis and it's aftermath.  Just don't let your political biases get in the way of improving this encyclopedia.  Patiwat (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough I wasn't attacking you, apologies if it sounded that way (not that you don't enjoy a spat). I certainly didn't mean to cast aspersions on the quality of your contributions, without which there'd be very little for me to vandalise. I do see the scurrilous nonsense that gets put in when people suffer an attack of the spleen, all run-on sentences and links to some blog, so I can imagine what you struggle with. I'm just tidying bits of text really. But yes, I do think T's a miserable little creep: fancy murdering 2,500 people just because they're the least likely to have any lobby anywhere. I don't think you're a paid-up supporter, but is there a bit of 'the enemy of my enemy has been unfairly demonised' going on?
 * On the point at hand: no. But the structures of corruption in Thailand are interesting, at least to me, and I should think distinctive. There is a difference, for example, between how the Lee family in Singapore operate, or the big conglomerates in Korea, and the way things work here. And the Guardian and Economist and such seem quite baffled by it, so it might be of interest. I happen to like a bit of corruption. Then again I don't want to write it, and neither do you, so perhaps one day it'll emerge like the Thaksin article, at first a dump of grievances and then gradually struggling towards some clarity.Sartoresartus (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I presume you're one of those "hand-wringing foreign liberals" mentioned in the Telegraph's latest article? ;) The war on drugs was Thaksin's most popular policy. Not even the military junta had the balls to make too much of a big deal out of it. Patiwat (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup that's me, on my little raft in a sea of people who just don't care. Thanks for the link. I rather like this notion that the newspapers 'abandoned' factual reporting.Sartoresartus (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any way to separate policies from the big criticisms altogether? I don't like the way 'allegations of policy corruption' sits between economic and healthcare policies. Could it go 'economy-healthcare-education-foreign policies-social order-drug war-airport...corruption-policy corruption, etc', maybe under separate heads? The list surrenders narrative chronology anyway, so no need to worry on that score. (Future generations will marvel at this mighty palimpsest.)Sartoresartus (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * After all that it's still 89 kb long, but at least some of the dead wood is gone. The coup section remains to be chopped down, there's some stuff that would have been riveting at the time, like the bombings, but is less so now.Sartoresartus (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't use file size as a measure of whether the article is too long. Number of words (not including footnotes) is better.  See Wikipedia style guidelines. Patiwat (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

องค์กรผู้ตรวสอบการใช้อำนาจรัฐ
Have you heard of this organization? What is it called in English? Does องค์กร mean member? And, who is this? ตร. อนันต์ บูรณวนิช ประธานองค์กรผู้ตรวสอบการใช้อำนาจรัฐ อดีต-สมาชิสภาร่างรัฐธรรมนูญ (สสร.) ที่ปรึกษานายกรัฐมนตรี สส.อยุธยา - สส. สระบุรี Pawyilee (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was scratching my head thinking of what อวค์กร meant. Anyway, องค์กร means "organization."  องค์กรผู้ตรวสอบการใช้อำนาจรัฐ could literally be translated as "Organization of the Checkers of the use of State  Power".  I don't believe that's the official Thai name though, and I'm not sure what the official name in english is.  I believe this was one of the new state organizations set up by Prem's Constitution.  I'm not sure if it replaced the Ombudsman of the 1997 Constitution. Patiwat (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry 'bout "อวค์กร". I do touch-type Thai, but not very well. Google turned up this for "อนันต์ บูรณวนิช". Darksingha. It seems pertinent, but my Thai reading skills don't even measure up to my typing. I'm interested because it seems to fit into a pattern of grassroots afire for democracy. Our village กรรมการ is a member, with both credentials, which I photographed, and a T-shirt, which I didn't. I can't quote the Thai, but it struck me as meaning something along the lines of: don't wait for government; we can do it ourselves. It was after I admired the T-shirt that he brought out his credentials. Pawyilee (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We're getting awfully close to having a political discussion here (which I do not want to have). Lets just say that the if you key in "องค์กรตรวสอบการใช้อำนาจรัฐ," (take out the "ผู้", which changes the meaning substantially) you won't unnecessarily get the best impression of the organization.  76 years ago the royalists insisted that the Siamese people were too uneducated to vote.  Today, the Thai people are still being disenfranchised.  Patiwat (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't want a political discussion, either, beyond what's proper for an encyclopedia. I can't find the อวค์กร with or without ผู้  I must be doing something wrong. By using อนันต์ บูรณวนิช instead I found the Darksingha blog with การตรวจสอบการใช้อำนาจรัฐโดยประชาชน at top, which changes องค์การ to การ drops ผู้ and adds โดยประชาชน. You said taking out ผู้ changes the meaning substantially, but these other changes, so far as I know, may even reverse it since it adds "by the people." Decoding it like a secret message, I found it is talking about a draft ร่างรัฐธรรมนูญ so I'm guessing it's outdated.
 * That's because you're making the same typo again. It should be "องค์กร", not "อวค์กร."  "อวค์กร" is not a word.  "การตรวจสอบการใช้อำนาจรัฐโดยประชาชน" means the checking of state power by the people, which is what the organization was charged with, but is not the name of the organization.  "องค์กรผู้ตรวสอบการใช้อำนาจรัฐ" means organization of checkers of state power.  ผู้ตรวสอบ means checker or more commonly, auditor.  Which to me, means that the responsibility lies with individual people in the organization.  Sort of like how only auditors (and not auditing companies) alone have the skills and ethics needed to check corporate accounts.  "องค์กรตรวสอบการใช้อำนาจรัฐ" means organization for checking state power.  So the responsibility lies with the organization as a whole.  I say that it changes the meaning substantially because its silly to think that only "checkers" can oversee state power.  Then who watches the watchmen?  Patiwat (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Change of subject: I got a photo of the T-shirt today and the slogan reads ทำเลวเห็นกันชาตินี้ / ทำดีไม่ต้องรอชาติหน้า which I've already misunderstood once, and now misunderstand as "[if] evil-do[ing] [is] see[n] [to] block [this] life/nation / [then] do good don't wait [for the] next life.
 * The correct translation is Do evil, see it (i.e., the results) in this life / Do good, don't have to wait (for the results until the) next life. Cynics among us might saw that those who do evil seem to reap the benefits in the here and now, while those that do good seem to suffer the most.  The slogan on the t-shirt tries to flip it.  Whether this organization is capable of flipping it is another matter. Patiwat (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As for your remark about royalists, I just found this interesting quote at Niccolo Machiavelli: "Let not princes complain of the faults committed by the people subjected to their authority, for they result entirely from their own negligence or bad example." Discourse on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy, Book III, Chapter XXIX. Sounds like Lèse majesté, doesn't it? But he said it, not me. Pawyilee (talk)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Art.factions.clash.ap.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Art.factions.clash.ap.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Princevasuvadhnaayudhaya
Who could this be? He does good work: Special:Contributions/Princevasuvadhnaayudhaya. Pawyilee (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

PAD and crisis articles
This is a poor reason to revert the content move but a very good reason to update and organize the information in the crisis article. This content by rights should at least have more detail in the crisis article, if not less in the PAD article. Let's discuss this on either article's talk page since you seem to disagree.--chaser - t 08:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not that some details might belong in the 2008 crisis article. It's that those detail definitely belong in the PAD article.  Details like the degree of planning that the seizure took, the support that the PAD is retaining from the military and the Democrat Party, the unwillingness of the PAD to let investigators in to see who or what set off the explosions, Chamlong's brazen rejection of the "senior person's" order to stand down, their willingness to attack with weapons and use human shields, etc.  These are all critical details about the PAD.  A reader wanting to know more about the PAD would only understand them when seeing how they talk and act in the airport seizure.
 * Maybe some details belong more in the 2008 article than in the PAD article. If you see those, please move them.  I've tried to keep this article focused on the PAD.
 * This discussion doesn't belong in the Talk page of the 2008 article, it belongs here and in the Talk page of the PAD article. I'm copying the above paragraphs and placing it there. Patiwat (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:RoyalPAD.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:RoyalPAD.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Art.factions.clash.ap.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Art.factions.clash.ap.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jaruvan.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Jaruvan.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussions are taking place on the update to the Manual of Style for Thailand-related articles.
The Manual of Style for Thailand-related articles (the original discussion regarding which you were involved in) has been in limbo as a historic proposal for quite a while. Discussions are taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand in hopes of developing the page into a usable guideline. A major issue being discussed is the naming of articles on Thai royalty, which so far has relied on the status quo, but lacks clear community consensus. You may be interested in contributing to the discussion. Thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new Manual of Style for Thailand-related articles
A drafted new version of the Manual of Style for Thailand-related articles has been started here. Still at issue are specific naming conventions for Thai royals and nobles and settlements. As contributor to previous discussions on the guideline, you are welcome to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:SaritandBhumibol.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, File:SaritandBhumibol.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Paul_012 (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC) --Paul_012 (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Thanom uniform.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Thanom uniform.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 14:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Abhisit Vejjajiva
I moved Songkran 2009 traffic fatalities from public health to end of Songkran unrest. True, both are public health issues, but contrasting unrest fatalities with traffic fatalities for the same period makes sense. I'd also like to make sense of the 126 surviving boat people missing from Thai custody. The three Burmese who killed a British yacht captain claimed that they were in that number and sold into slavery on a Thai trawler. They claimed to have committed the murder during their attempt to escape. Another public health issue? Pawyilee (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What the hell does the death of the British yacht captain have to do with Abhisit? At least for Songkran road fatalities, every year the government makes a big deal out of it and comes out with a policy for reducing it. Patiwat (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, hell was the word I was looking for.


 * I've made a suggestion at the talk page. Tell me what you think... Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I steal some of the Songkran unrest section under Abhisit for the Adolf Shinawatra article, and link it until someone elevates the protests to their own page? Sartoresartus (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It behooves you as a regular Wikipedia editor not to display such blatant and provoking POV.
 * Of course you may. This is Wikipedia, it's not as if you need to ask. Patiwat (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence my suggestion for the protests to have their own article. There's no reason why this should turn into some kind of Wikipedia political tit-for-tat. Can someone more knowledgeable than I please start the article? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure it needs its own article? There isn't a separate article for the Government House/Airport sieges and the violence of last year, and those lasted longer and had an even higher international profile.
 * Even if it is appropriate to give this its own article, I don't want to get into an argument about what to call it. "Revolution", "unrest", "violence", "riots", "protests", and insurrection are all loaded terms.  The media doesn't seem to have come to a consensus on what to call it yet.Patiwat (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You may well be right. I just feel it's best not to have the entire thing under Thaksin, so I'd rather refer readers from there to the more comprehensive account, wherever it lives. Someone got upset because I removed their somewhat yellow-tinted take on the unrest from the Thaksin intro, and pointed out it was the most-searched thing about Thailand at the moment.Sartoresartus (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever you call it, check out these scenes of Thai soldiers shooting citizens, alleged to be from CNN.
 * The full detail does NOT belong in the Thaksin article because it's questionable what can be attributed to Thaksin. The full detail belongs in the 2008-2009 crisis article.  Frankly, the events were more relevant to Abhisit than Thaksin.
 * Check out this superb on-the-ground reporting. Explains who the blue shirts were and how they worked, the anger and frustration of the protesters, the eye-for-an-eye violence between reds and yellows, why the Thai and international media are giving different perspectives, the growing confusion among the UDD leadership at the violence, and why there's reasonable expectation that there's an Army cover-up about the number of deaths.Patiwat (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, didn't know he had a website; he's shouted at me about this before. I like that he restores chaos to what has been portrayed as a clear-cut situation (the tourists milling about among the red shirts are very good), but I feel there's a certain embedded quality to his reporting, and that he's a catastrophist ('Millions will die!'). Whereas he thinks I'm a patsy and 2,500 people was a small price to pay. We both think we're on the side of the little people but betray certain authoritarian tendencies...
 * 2008-9 crisis, yes. Let's maybe get it to redirect from Thaksin 2009 protests/unrest whatever. Sartoresartus (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)