Talk:2006 Thai coup d'état/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Please read this first

The first talk page has been archived on Sunday 12PM (5:00 UTC). Several aspects of the article have been discussed. In particular censorship, significance and nature of the protest, role of the King. If you would like to comment further on these issues, please read what has been discussed already and consider the consensus achieved before posting. Roger jg 05:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Army units involved

Does anyone know specfically what units of the army were involved in the coup? All that's on the page are 'Royal Thai Army Special Forces units' and 'military and police units'. I haven't been able to get any info but just to help, the tanks stationed in Bangkok now and seen on news were M-60 and M-48 medium tanks and HMMWVs were observed moving around. Is that info even out in the first place?

Protests and Censorship

Look, photos have been posted online. Videos will also be uploaded soon. A guy who was there and will be uploading videos soon says some people HAVE been arrested, and at least one person was dragged away. The pictures clearly show a lot more than 200 observers. You guys delete claims by non-junta controlled people such as me because we're not from a professional news service, but you accept claims made by thai media who are severely controlled and censored by the junta. You should be doing the opposite. I'm getting fed up of fighting edit wars on the wikipedia article with you guys who don't believe me when I say thai media is SEVERELY being censored. I tried hard at getting information out there to fight the censorship within thai media, but you guys are just deleting my stuff over and over again. I don't think I'll be contributing to wikipedia much more. I'll try to find an anonymous blog and post my findings there instead. Censorship is bad. If you don't like a claim somebody makes, you should leave it there and say that the claim is disputed instead of completely deleting it from the page. Humanoid 12:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, Wiki policies are clear, when information is not verifiable put all the information. The printed figures are between 20 and 100. . Why the CNN claims would be better than The Bangkok Post, If I remember well, the way they reported the Karr business recently does not really speak in their favour does it? And you have no proofs that The Bangkok Post is controlled by the junta. If it is the case then we have to ditch all the references using the BP. Beside the Nation "said" 100. So I don't see what is your problem here. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth. From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability, not truth It is always the same when there is a protest, people argue about the figures. But you are right censure is bad that is why Thailand is rank 107 out of 167 countries when it comes to freedom of the media. So please, don't mislead people to believe that we have suddenly fallen into Big Brother's state. Roger jg 12:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: That Thai media is severely being censored is your opinion and does not explain why it is censored (in particular self-censorship, in my day people who had convictions were ready to fight for them). Don't forget that Wiki is neither a news service or a soapbox or a white knight in shining armour. I understand perfectly that you can be upset, but there have been thousands of people out there who went to give food, drinks and flowers to the soldier during the last 3 days. This support get the same amount of space if not less than a 100 person protest (437 vs. 756 characters). So please. Roger jg 13:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, wikipedia is neither a news service, nor a place for people to fight information censorship. I made a mistake in thinking that we could post information about that coup that has been censored inside of thailand. Humanoid 14:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

About The Nation... The Nation said 100 protesters on the 23rd of sept. But the VERY NEXT DAY, The Nation published a new report claiming only 10 protesters. The new report, offers absolutely no new information from the previous post, changes the number of 100 to 10, and deleted all the useful information that was critical of the coup. The only thing critical left is a quote that includes the two words "no coup". That's it! Compare that to the previous article that had a lot more quotes. We also know, but I can't prove it to you, that the building of the company that owns The Nation has still, after 3 days, been surrounded by at least 40 armed soldiers. But that doesn't concern you... You don't think that having soldiers surrounding a news building means that the workers inside are forced to obey strict commands. What else do you think the soldiers are there for? To protect the company? Why would people be attacking a news company building? They're clearly there to maintain control and fear of the workers inside. Humanoid 14:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

About CNN. I saw no problem with what CNN reported about Karr. CNN has always been a much more trustworthy source of information than Bangkok Post and The Nation. Add to that, that Bangkok Post and The Nation have been given strict orders not to report anything that is critical of the coup. I don't understand why after all that, you still trust Bangkok Post and The Nation as trustworthy sources of information. By the way, The Nation has a tv channel, you should turn into the channel and listen to what they say... you will see it's very different from what they report on their internet website. Humanoid 14:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're wondering which two The Nation articles I'm referring to, the links are http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/09/23/headlines/headlines_30014455.php and http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30014408 . And by the way, the second one says "Last updated 06:58 pm (Thai local time)" on september the 24th. But that is completely false, I was reading that exact article with that line there at around 4 am thai local time on september the 24th. Humanoid 14:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This is pointless. Your or my POV as well as your or my concerns are irrelevant. Read the Wiki policy, once more. You can post as much information as long as it is ve-ri-fia-ble. For mow this article contains a full section with three subsections about freedom of speech and several mentions about their restriction in other sections. I don't know what more you want to say? If you want to complain about censure after the coup, this article is not the place. If you disagree we can ask for mediation and arbitrage Roger jg 15:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm reading the wiki policy, it says that you can only post facts "that have already been published by reputable publishers". The Nation first published "nearly 100" protesters, then the next day claims: "10 protesters". This doesn't give The Nation a good reputation. Same problem with Bangkok Post, which claims no police or military were present during the first big protest, which is proven wrong by pictures. This also doesn't give Bangkok Post a good reputation. Humanoid 15:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be using as independent sources any that are under physical threat. For this article, that means sources physically located within Thailand need to be identified as not independent of bias. WAS 4.250 15:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is made clear in several places that the media are under the control of the junta. The policy also state that blogs are not acceptable. If we agree that both the BP and TN are not reliable then we are introuble with the whole article. Shall we put a big banner saying that this article might be true but might also be conmpletely false due to the pressure put on the media in Thailand? I am trying very hard here to be conciliant, but WHAT do you want? Roger jg 16:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should be more clear that all the information is from biased sources; as to be expected in a life or death, trillions of dollars at stake, politically motivated, power struggle that is taking place now (ie current event). Pretending we can do more than report both sides' lies so close to the event does the reader a disservice. Well, ok. We can do more. But not much more. The current article is biased on the side of power, as in whoever has the guns aimed at existing newspapers is granted credibility. WAS 4.250 17:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Humanoid, I sympathize with you, but agree with Roger jg that we need media references for our contributions. An article I read said that there were a hundred journalists covering the protests. Even if the Post and the Nation were self-censoring themselves by under-reporting the number of protestors, surely 98 of the other outlets would have reported more correct figures. We just gotta find them...

It would be more appropriate to note (in a purely factual, non-judgemental, and non-speculative way) the Nation's backtracking of its estimate for the number of protestors in the Censorship section rather than the Protests section. Same for the Post's false report that there was no police presense during the protest. Patiwat 20:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures protest/support

I went to Royal Plazza today and will add one more picture showing people coming to see the military. In order to maintain balance can soneone found a picture of the protest on friday? With so many people there that should not been diffcicult (pardon the sarcasm). Roger jg 13:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some pictures of the protest http://gnarlykitty.blogspot.com/2006/09/mob-at-paragon.html http://jotman.blogspot.com/2006/09/we-love-democracy.html As PROVEN by the pictures, soldiers were present at the protest. This is contradictory to what the Bangkok Post claims. Bangkok Post claims no police or soldiers were present except for security guards that work for Siam Center. You still think Bangkok Post is a trustworthy source of information??? Humanoid 14:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I only had a chance to look at the pictures now.. Did you look at the picture with the comments "See the crowd? Only the middle guy is involved in the whole thing. The rest is people with cam phones and press." 3 Soldiers are standing there, looking as curious as the rest of the people and someone even bring them food and drinks! The introduction to the Pix: We were opposite the thing. Please do not mistaken the massive number of people as the mob. It wasn't even big enough to be called a mob. Those are just onlookers and press and the conclusion of the Blogger? "Man that was fun. Again no bloodshed or gunfires. Not that I was hoping for that huge but man it could have been a little bit more exciting." It says it all. But again, I am not disputing the figure or that taher was a protest, I am disputing the reporting and the importance you want to give to sonmething for which there is litlle verifiability Roger jg 16:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If you would read teh Wiki policy... "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false.

Read my post above about why The Nation and Bangkok Post are not reliable. Humanoid 15:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That is your POV. Read the Wiki policy. Roger jg 15:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to update the wikipedia article with those pictures. I've given up updating that page. This talk page, thankfully, doesn't delete my posts. So I guess this is still a nice place that avoids censorship. Humanoid 14:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me, as an impartial observer, that what that blog shows is that (a) people in Bkk can protest against the coup if they want to without getting shot at or arrested (unusual in most countries where there are coups - and I bet this didn't happen in Bkk in 1976), (b) not many people in fact want to protest against the coup, since most people in Bkk either support it or are prepared to wait and see what happens, and (c) that swarms of media are there to cover even the smallest demo and give it publicity all over the world. All this suggests that this is a very "soft" coup. No doubt the Bkk papers are self-consoring, as would seem prudent after a coup, but on the other hand there isn't really much to censor - it's not as if people are being shot down in the streets or lynched by mobs as in 1976. My best guess from outside is that we are getting a fairly accurate picture of what is going on. Adam 14:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

well that's the whole story. What some see as censure other could see as people not wanting to protest. As I said in the previous talk page (archive) the King has not only endorsed the coup, but also the Junta and its motives, and ask people to cooperate with the army. Why would Thai people go against the wish of the King? But that's beside the point. Wiki is not a reporting media. It is an encyclopedia. It must report the censure, it must report the protest against the coup as well as the support and I believe that it is exactely what we have been doing. When verifiable information will be available then it should be added and the Wiki policy is clear about the source of information, end of the story. Roger jg 15:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

People WERE arrested. 7 according to one of the protesters. Also, today, 2 days after the protest, the junta interrupted all television stations to send another message to the thai people. The message includes: "Protests are banned, and if you protest there will be severe consequences no matter where those protests occur". (rough translation from thai). Humanoid 14:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

TV interruption? Yes and they are doing it again as I type. This is something that is already in the article and was announced during Sonthi's conference on the second day. Would you like to mention it again? Roger jg 16:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My guess as to why the protests went more smoothly than expected was because they took place far away from where the tanks and military were positioned. They only managed to arrest 7 people, but if the protests took place near the tanks, I'm sure they would've arrested everybody, just as they have so far arrested _everybody_ that was caught protesting near the tanks. The message on thai tv today includes the phrase "no matter where those protests occur", which suggests to me that the junta were slightly unprepared to stop the protest occuring in from of siam center. It's very heavy in traffic there, and lots and lots of people. Humanoid 14:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote you: "My guess", "but if", "I am sure they WOULD", "Which Suggest" ... POV & speculations Roger jg 15:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with that? I'm not allowed to post my opinions on the discussion page? Humanoid 15:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong. It's wrong when you add them as facts in the article. It is called POV.Roger jg 15:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please look at my history of contributions carefully before falsely implying that I'm putting my personal opinions into the article. My personal opinions are strictly limited to the discussion page. Humanoid 20:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Disaproval regarding the woman crying in Klong Toei was a POV. Roger jg 02:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have asked gnarlykitty to provide us with one of the pix to add to the article. Can't say I am not doing my best to be impartial !Roger jg 16:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Humanoid, actually talk pages are supposed to be for discussion about how to improve the article. As such, you're not supposed to be posting opinions and commentary which have nothing to do with improving the article. A talk page is not a forum or a blog or usenet (which are the kind of places you should go if you do want to discuss your opinions). Of course, this occurs in most talk pages and we tend to let it slide provided it doesn't get our of hand but I thought I'd point it out. Nil Einne 19:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, point taken. Humanoid 20:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I've never been to Thailand & I'm not Thai. However personally I'm not so sure if your suggestions are correct. The protests were not organised in secret in any way and the website which originally included mention of the plans was even taken down by the ICT on the day of the protest. This, together with the fact there were so many observers and journalists suggests the junta must be incredibly stupid if they couldn't have prepared for the protest. No, I'm quite sure the military could have arrested the protestors if they had wanted to. But their numbers were so small and there was no violence and the presence of so many observers meant it simply made no sense to make an arrest scence. Instead, it made far better sense to just record and arrest them later. Spontaneous protestors near the military on the other hand are a different issue. If the protestors start to get violent and/or do something which will frighten the military leading to the military over-reacting and some extremely ugly scenes. Furthermore, the people making the decisions on whether or not to arrest the protestors would be the low level types. They wouldn't want to risk getting in trouble with their bosses so would likely automatically arrest (if that's their order and it probably is). On the other hand with the Siam Paragon protest the higher ups, perhaps even the Sonthi himself would have been directly involved in the decision. Oh and if the Siam Paragon protestors did number about 100 or so, this would be a less manageable crowd then 7 people so it would be harder to carry out the arrests. Of course, if Siam Paragon motives others then the junta will likely reconsider they way they act but from their POV, I would say their actions make a lot of sense. Anyway as I've stated we shouldn't be discussing this here so I'll leave it at that and not re-visit it. Nil Einne 19:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to look so far. I was there between 5 and 6, just before the prostest started and I saw only 2 soldiers that where there on guard at the exit of the BTS skytrain. There is always some police arround if only to regulate the traffic. This is why the junta say that there was no army or no police. Tehy did not send specific troops. Regarding the Nation changing its version of the event I have argue from the begining that the TEXT of the article DID NOt mention the number of protestors, only that the demonstration attracted 100 Thais and foreign journalists. The figure of 100 is in the lead of the article. I have asked a direct witness to provide a picture and will ask her view on the number of protesters (for information only) thought it is clear from her testimonial on her blog that there was small number of protestors. But that's beside the point. Roger jg 02:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I was there the very next day at 7pm, checking to see if any protesters came back. There were none, and there was no military at all. I have yet to cross paths with a military officer. Yes, there is always police and private guards in the area, but not military. There was no military in the area after 7 pm the next day. The military you saw were probably there for the protests. Also, you need to remember that the protesters have tried to spread themselves out into groups of less than 5 to avoid breaking the 5+ ban by the junta. Humanoid 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Nation reporting 100 protestors in the sub-title, but not mentioning it in the article body. That's just poor editing. Nevertheless, it still counts as "The Nation reported 100 protestors in the event." Patiwat 06:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The next day in the articles about the second protest the number was back to 100. Roger jg 02:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I have now sourced a picture from the blog referenced by Humanoid. It is not a geat picture because it is a bit blurred but I think it is a great picture from an esthetical POV. Beside ID of the protester is protected. For information and only for information, The blogger who took the picture wrote to me "There were two big groups of press, one are surrounding the guy with the mask and the other around the people with signs. My best guess would be no more than 10. I didn't stay long though it was so crowded." I keep looking for more pix but there are so many and so many of them are about he support that it is hard jobRoger jg 07:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should close this matter because it is really beside the point of the talk page. The Wiki Policy is clear and we have all agreed about the (un)reliability of some sources. Measure have been taken to make that clear to the general reader. We should move on trying not to repeat this Roger jg 02:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

People arrested during the first protest

According to a guy who has talked directly with one of the protesters. 7 people were arrested during the protest. http://jotman.blogspot.com/2006/09/saturday.html Since this information is probably not going to be reported by the thai media until the end of the junta, and wikipedia rules mean that we cannot provide this information on the main page, I'm posting it here until somebody finds a source that is accepted by wikipedia rules. Humanoid 14:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a video where one of the protesters is telling a foreign reporter that 7 people were arrested so far. http://jotman.blogspot.com/2006/09/exclusive-interview-footage.html Humanoid 15:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Humanoid, thanks for your input on this talk page. It is useful in helping to evaluate other sources. As this is an encyclopedia, we want the best sources possible. Blogs and newspapers surrounded by armed soldiers are not the best sources. Wikinews is a blog-quality source on the one hand, but an excellent place for you to "get the word out" on the other hand. WAS 4.250 16:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have created articles on wikinews using the same alias as I use here. My first 2 articles sucked and weren't published. But my last 3 articles were published there. Humanoid 20:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no indication who this prostester is, who are the person arrested ("not from his group" he says) or who the reporter is. In another video http://jotman.blogspot.com/2006/09/this-way-is-even-worse-than-thaksin-way.html the protester wearing black does not report any arrest and even wonder why they have not been arrested ! The problem with this kind of info is that you can make what you want of it. My taxi driver today was convinced that Thaksin did not make a benefice by selling Shin Corp to Temasek. Should I report it as info? if there are arrests we will know it from amnesty or other NGO. Encyclopedia are writen after history happend that's what make them different from a media source, sorry to repeat myself. Roger jg 15:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Though this is not the place to discuss it, there is an interesting comment made by Ungpakorn in the Independent "I think the rural poor voted for him because he provided policies for them. That's democracy and if you don't like it you have to set up a political party and offer something better. In this country it's the rural poor who respect democracy - and it's the educated elite who don't.". That's not called democracy but populism, judgement notwithstanding and vote buying aside, this provides an insight into Thai democracy and the context of the coup and protest. Roger jg 07:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I think I interpret Acharn Giles differently from you (I prefer populism to elitism or feudalism any day), I agree that it was an extremely significant and insightful quote. I was going to include it in full in the article, but wasn't sure where. The section on protests against the coup is already quite large. Patiwat 08:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Elitism and Populism are the two face of the same coin. Then it has to be out into context. The respect of the rural poor for democracy is largely dependent on the handout they receive from political parties. It is bold to now praise the poor as the most respectful of democracy whilst they have been blamed for their political ignorance and unconditional support for Mr Thaksin until its fall. If you insert Ungpakorn's comment, it should be put in perspective. Roger jg 08:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Korbsak Sabhavasu, 3 days before the coup, the Democrat Party treasurer: "How is it possible for us to take part in democracy when the people don't even know who we are?" said Korbsak Sabhavasu, the Democrat Party treasurer. "The poor and the farmers, they do not read Bangkok newspapers. They watch television, and all they see is Thaksin. That is not democracy. That is manipulation." Roger jg 08:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ending the dipute on Protest/Censure

I really would like us all to move forward from this dispute. As things stands now;

• Several occurences of public protest are included in the article
• The bracket of protesters for the Siam Paragon protest is included as recommended by the Wikki policy.
• Information regarding arrest is contradictory and yet unsuported but should be included where verified.
• Information regarding the presence and interventio of the army/police is unclear and again should be added when known
• Several sources in and out of Thailand are used as reference
• The strict control over the press is widely covered by the article in one special section and with a reminder in the introduction of the national reaction itself.

I will add one more sentence to make it clear that we have to use national media as reference that may not be reporting events with accuracy hoping this will satisfy everebody (editors can play with it). But I would like to make it clear that I still believe that this article might mislead reader unfamiliar with Thai society. Again, I do not contest that there is protest and that some people are very unhappy about the coup, but it is difficult to truthfully represent the amount of discontent people vs contented people, why they are discontent and the complexity of the social reaction to the coup. I refer here to the impact of the king's endorsement, daily preoccupations of the peole, traditional response to coup in Thailand, perenial censorship and self censorship, approach to authority, nature and function of the Thai democratic system and more factors that makes the specificity of the Thai society (or of any othe rsociety). Curious readers should read an History of Thailand to understand the situation. I would also insist that this is an encyclopedic article supposed to give a comprehensive view of what is happening, not a timeline, not an history of thailand, not a newsfeed and not a soapbox. My very best regards. Roger jg 02:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to tell you that I admire your effort to make this article as fair as can be. I totally agree what you said and have the same doubts about the interpretation of those unfamiliar with Thai society.

--SmellyCat 09:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Translation needed

How to translate this for the best : กองบัญชาการกองทัพภาคที่ ๑ Roger jg 03:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the Headquarters of the 1st Army. Also referred to as Command of the 1st Army. I've seen the press use both. Patiwat 06:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

On the Web site of the 2nd (top banner), they use the word "2nd Army Area Royal Thai Army." Kind of weird word though :) --Manop - TH 07:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing is sure: ๑ is 1. Roger jg 07:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't get what I meant, do you? --Manop - TH 19:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"2nd Army Area Royal Thai Army." refers to "กองทัพภาคที่ ๑", not "กองบัญชาการกองทัพภาคที่ ๑". That first term ""กองบัญชาการ" means command or headquarters, and I have seen the English language press in Thailand translate it as both. Patiwat 20:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't follow the web, did you??? IF you go to the web, you would see the word that I saw showing:

"กองบัญชาการ กองทัพภาคที่ ๒"

"2nd Army Area Royal Thai Army"

Whatever. Kind of sad. --Manop - TH 05:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Official website of the CDRCM, and implications

What appears to be the official website of the junta has been set up at www.vrcu.com It appears to be legitimate and is managed by the ICT Ministry. Some interesting observations are listed below:

• The official translation of the junta's name is the "Council for the Democratic Reform under the Constitutional Monarchy". Although this isn't really accurate: the Thai name literally is the "Council for Administrative Reform of Democracy with a Monarch as Head of State". The Thai name does not make any pretense as to "Democratic Reform," merely to "Reform". The Thai name also makes no mention of the Constitution, which makes sense given that the first thing the junta did was to abrogate the Constitution.
• Somebody should go through the article and replace most of the previous translations (ADR, CAR, etc.) with CDRCM.

done Roger jg 11:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• The site lists each Announcement of the junta. The article sometimes mentions a executive order without stating the announcement number, which can make research a hassle. Someone should go through and state the announcement number of each executive order.
• The site has plenty of publicity pictures of people smiling next to tanks and soliders. Since article 7 of the Copyright Act of 1994 states that state publications (specifically ระเบียบ ข้อบังคับ ประกาศ คำสั่ง คำชี้แจง และหนังสือโต้ตอบ) can not be copyrighted, they are in the public domain and can freely be used on Wikipedia.
• The site is a .com, which means the coup is officially a commercial enterprise. That explains the recently announced 100 billion baht stimulous package, I guess :-)

-- Patiwat 07:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The official site looks like it is here http://www.mict.go.th/cdrc it is very similar to the vrcu.com. Maybe the vrcu.com is an unofficial badly done mirror? The go.th version has a lot more info, and posts a lot of the official announcements in the english version. Humanoid 21:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The .go.th version of the site is linked from other go.th sites. I have yet to see a link to vrcu.com from any go.th sites. Humanoid 21:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Patiwat Are you in Bangkok? If yes did you notice that many motorcycle drivers have a brand new orange jacket? Coincidence? I will ask my local one ... Roger jg 07:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope I'm not. Maybe the junta is trying to buy the loyalty of the motocycle taxies? They had been extremely strong supporters of Thaksin, since a couple of years ago he busted some mafia groups which had been extorting money from the drivers. Patiwat 08:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

DNS lookup yield a result IP as 203.78.110.25. The domain reversed back to Netway Communication, a private web hosting provider in Thailand. Without furthur information, I suspect that the legitimacy of the website, or at least it is not managed by Thai ICT. --underexpose 10:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

New introduction

Adam, I think your new introduction is too long and delves too much on the CRDM and its motives, The introduction should only sum up the content of the article. Roger jg 09:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Roger jg. We should still mention the junta's self-justification as their promised timeline, but we should try to paraphrase and shorten rather quote them word for word. We should also include 2-3 sentences summarizing local support and resistance to the coup. I got into an inconclusive debate on the issue of what to include in the introduction; the archive is located here. Patiwat 11:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought the most important information about such an event is "why did they do it" and "what will they do next." Unlike most coupmakers, the Council has given an explanation and a clear statement of intent. I think they should be allowed to state this in their own words. This text is much more important than most of the trivia, speculation and rumour further on in the article. I don't think the text is of excessive length given the overall length of the article. Paraphrasing it is almost inevitably partisan, as is shown by someone's sarcastic "eventually," which is clearly editorialising. Adam 11:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the text to the CDRCM article. Adam 12:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

National reactions

I would like to propose something very bold but in line with Wiki policy of being bold. I would like to sum up the National Reaction and link to a new page with the details. Why? because we can expect more reactions and this section will become longer and bigger. It is already a rather boring catalogue of X said this but Y said that and my uncle who talked to the butcher heard from the milkman that someone might have been witnessing something. Roger jg 11:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that the way the people in Bangkok react to the coup has been one of the most interesting parts. It would be a shame if none of it would be left.

--SmellyCat 12:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I would make it a comprehensive description of the support and protest, details would be in the subpage. I just added two more but imagine if the article on the Iraq war had to recense all the demo againts it? I don't think it is the goal of Wiki. Roger jg 13:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger jg, I agree in principle, but am concerned how balanced and informative the summarization will be. For many friends not familiar with the situation, the National reaction" section is the thing that most interests them, and we should not rush to shorten it down too much. Why not draft something up in the Discussion page and then after a reasonable consensus, copy it over to the Article page? Patiwat 20:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Patiwat I am not sure I agree with that or that it is the purpose of Wiki. What I want to know if I were to read a similar article is if there has been protest or support, their importance and where the protesters came from and why they came and the reaction of those in power. I'd leave the details for the tabloids. But there is a middle way, alwaysRoger jg 02:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's draft something here first before copying it over to the main article. Humanoid 21:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is an outline National reactions

1. 1. Context: EXPLAIN: Censure (before after), Bangkok vs country side, poor vs. rich, Thaksin populism, King's role
   2. General reactions: in GENERAL terms, mixed and subdued. In BKK and elsehwere, among poor and rich, students & acad. split between pro and con, the south
   3. Media: few reactions due to context, ass. of Journ. statement
   4. Public suport: opinion poll, support to army, student and acad. pro, polity
   5. Public protest: student,polity, others
   6. Human right group: as it is but shorter

References all and add wikilink for deatils. Limited details on number. Limited number of quotes, limited number of slogans. keeping them all for the subpages Roger jg 02:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. It might be difficult to show what the BKK vs. elsewhere and poor vs. rich reaction is given lack of hard info. We only have 1 opinion poll, and the press has been ordered not to report any further opinion polls. Anything else that tries to represent what general opinion is like would be speculative. Patiwat 07:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is an [[2]] article that we should all read and which is exemplary in presenting all aspect of the situation and not being judgemental. The BBC correspondant here let HIS/HER reader to decide what to think Roger jg 09:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That "exemplary" article was shoddily written, contains several exaggerations and outright inaccuracies, and should be interpreted with a shovel full of salt:

• "That there was large-scale corruption and cronyism under Mr Thaksin not disputed but that was true of previous administrations." The copyeditor seems to have been asleep at the helm. But more seriously, the claim is also inaccurate. No member of Thaksin's government has ever been found guilty of corruption, unlike previous governments like Chuan 2 (when several Ministers were actually convicted of corruption). There have been allegations of corruption, but no court, House investigation, Senate investigation, police investigation, or OAG investigation has ever found conclusive evidence.
• "He meddled with the simmering conflict in the Muslim south, putting it under the authority of the police, instead of the army." That is just wrong. The police were never in charge - Army Commander Sonthi was. The Thaksin government actually gave Sonthi extraordinary executive authority in a bid to control the violence, which he failed to do.
• "When he managed to sell his family business in January without paying a penny of tax, the middle class in Bangkok rose up. Their stubborn resistance, resulting in a boycotted election in April, gave the old elite their excuse." Where is the reporter getting this, PAD rallies? Thaksin, like all Thais, pays an income tax. Profits from the sale of Shin Corp were taxed just like normal income. What Thaksin was exempt from was paying capital gains tax. But Thai investors haven't ever had to pay capital gains tax for stock market transactions.

For more information, read Thaksin Shinawatra. Patiwat 00:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are some shortcuts in the article. What I meant by exemplary was his ability to put in perpsective both the good and the bad, the pro and cons for the readers. He got some info wrong, make some shortcut and some other info are open to debate, but it still give people a broad idea of the context of the conflict, that's what I meant. Sorry if I misled you and other, it was more about the form than the content.Roger jg 02:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure the New York Times and Economist reactions should be in this Natinal Reactions section. They should be in the Internatinal Reactions Sections. Roger jg 02:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Patiwat 04:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Nation & Bangkok Post

I think there should be an effort to replace references to The Nation and Bangkok Post with other news sources, unless it only deals with information that the coup leaders are giving out. There are over 40 armed soldiers outside of The Nation's offices. And according to The Guardian, "armed soldiers are sitting in every television news studio and control room during broadcasts.". The Guardian . News being sent out by people under military surveillance cannot be trusted to be free from coercion. So far, most good articles from The Nation's english website were actually written by Agence France-Press, an international newswire that has an office in downtown Bangkok. We can read their publications for free with Yahoo News here . Any references to AFP articles from The Nation, should be replaced with ones from Yahoo News. Humanoid 00:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Yahoo News carries all of AFP's reports. I am seeing many reports on AFP's website, which require you to pay to read, but that are not shown on Yahoo's list. Does anybody know where we can read most of AFP's reports online for free? They are the third largest news agency in the world, so assuming no armed soldiers have entered AFP's offices in downtown Bangkok, they are probably one of the best sources for news about the coup. Humanoid 00:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is a massive international media presense in Bangkok right now, and for anything other than purely factual information, we should use international media when possible to eliminate any chances that that the information is censured or self-censured. That being said, I'll still use The Nation as my primary source (feel free to change it or modify my contributions when appropriate) because its very convenient. Patiwat 07:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

While there are soldiers present at the Nation headquarters, they are only outside. They are not present within the editorial offices. The troops now are fewer in number and appear to be younger, less hardened soldiers. The Bangkok Post has no military presence. A colleague says this is because the Post is a "royalist" paper. On Portal:Current events/Southeast Asia I continue to use both the Post and the Nation when applicable and back them up with third or fourth looks, from the Herald Trib, as well as the wire services - AFP, AP and Reuters. AFP's reports are also carried on Channel NewAsia's site. -Wisekwai 16:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! I want to ask you if this information was checked by yourself, (did you go there, and look inside the offices), or was it somebody you knew who checked? Humanoid 18:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not say here. I probably said too much already. -Wisekwai 03:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, on second thought, I can say a friend told me about the situation at the Post, and another friend has seen first-hand the situation at The Nation. Hope this helps. Don't know why I'm so paranoid. -Wisekwai 08:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

keeping it into context AND balanced : The woman's reaction in the National responses section

Please, I know we are all trying to make this article the best as possible, but it is essential to keep in mind that what is happening must be put into context for readers not familliar with Thai politics. Roger jg 02:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a big problem with one of the edits you made. In the nation reactions section, there's already a giant section on "public support" with lots and lots of information. I added a very tiny section on "public disapproval" to make it at least slightly balanced. But you, 1- Rename my section to "public reactions". 2- Add citation needed, when the citation was already there. 3- Add negative some commentator's criticism to the reaction. If you want to add commentators criticism against anti-coup people, but it in the section for "public support". Don't infiltrate the still tiny section on "public disapproval" with it. For somebody who is claiming that he's trying to keep things balanced. Why are you overwhelmingly criticizing anybody who doesn't like the coup? Humanoid 04:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The text I'm referring to in the paragraph above is in the section "public disapproval". I created the section in this edit, and the three problems I mention above were done here, here, and here. NB. it was not renamed to "public reaction" but to "public response". Humanoid 07:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I renamed the section public response, not reaction. I agree that it is not the best and that we coudl find better. I am not sure wher to put this particular response. Have to think but open to suggestions. Roger jg 04:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If there's a section called "public support" it's clear that a section on "public disapproval" deserves to be right beside that section! How can it not belong there? Humanoid 04:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That this woman disaproved of the coup is POV. Please put back th econtextual info and amend teh title Roger jg 04:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Those two quotes in the "public support" section are also POV. Delete the dozen or so pro-coup quotes in the article, and I'll delete that one anti-coup quote I added. Agreed? Humanoid 05:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

They are the POV of those who speak ~ to say that this women disaproved of teh coup is YOUR POV. Don't you see the difference !? And I don't ask you todelete iot, how many time do I have to say it!? Just to leave it into contexct and not to make it say more than it does. Roger jg 05:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting you. Are you saying that the claim that this woman disapproves of the coup is not true? That it is just my POV? My opinion? Humanoid 05:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am. The onus is on you to subtantiate your claim that she is disaproving the coup. Read carefully the Wiki policy in this matter. What you may read is not what someonelse may read and you should not put words or feelings in other's mouth. Roger jg 05:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The writer of the article from which the quote comes from makes it clear what her point of view is, and the others living in Khlong Toei. I think you need to re-read the article very carefully, if you think that this woman is not disapproving the coup. Humanoid 05:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In the article, the same woman also says: "[Thaksin] gave me a chance to keep my daughter alive.", and "Now that he's been chased out, the poor have lost their closest friend.". Is that not clear that she disapproves the coup? Does the reporter have to spell it out "oh by the way, for any readers who don't get it, this woman does not like the coup" before you'll accept that this woman disapproves of the coup?

You can not interpret what peole think! it is simple as that READ THE WIKI POLICY! You can report what she say and it is then for the reader to make their mind. What don't you undertsand here? Roger jg 05:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any wiki policy that says that if some people don't understand what an article says, that we cannot post information that can be verified by anybody who reads that article and understands it. Show me which wiki policy I'm breaking by posting verifiable information that _you_ simply don't understand. Humanoid 06:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Go to the policy page Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and read Let the facts speak for themselves and Attributing and substantiating biased statements Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position. and read the excerpt at the end of this section and the reminder I added at the bottom of the page. The bottom line is Let the facts and people speak for themselves Don't lecture people and don't think they don't undertsand. You don't need to help them understand. Imagine if I say, The msulim leader of the CRDM, or The evil learder of the Junta, or that Sonthi rescued teh nation form Thaskin. In all case I could argue like you that it is justified. But that's a "qualification". Not acceptable in Wiki. I am off for lunch, don't trash the place ;-) maybe we shoudl have lunch sometimes that would help sorting our differences! Roger jg 06:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I read those two sections very carefully. They don't apply to my posts. I'm properly substantiating the claim with a reference to the article where the claim comes from. There is no problem with my post and the wiki policy. The problem is that you don't understand that the article is clearly saying that the woman is against the coup. Humanoid 06:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If we can't use references that you don't understand when you read them, we might as well delete all articles on advanced topics such as quantum physics from wikipedia. The thing is, the information is verifiable by those with the mental capacity to understand the information. Don't diss the information that you simply don't understand. The woman is clearly against the coup. And this fact is "verifiable", as defined by the wiki policy. Humanoid 06:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think being patronising with help. So let me tell you what you don't undertsand. It is simply that not EVERYBODY would understand the same thing as you from what the woman say. Your approach is dogmatic. My undertsanding of what she say is that she is dispirited, unhappy, scared about the future, probably in a very stressful situation but I do not see her as DISAPROVING the coup (an active attitude needing to be expressed). She might or she might not but if you know about Thai culture and the "mai bpen rai" attitude you should know how to read her feelings with a borader mind. Disaproval is your word and your interpretation. Both our views are valid and it is because they are, that one can not prevail on the other. I rest my case until further notice Roger jg 08:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how she can possibly not disapprove of the coup. She disapproves the removal of Thaksin from power—this is obvious because of the positive things she says about Thaksin while she is crying. If you believe that "the coup" and "the removal of Thaksin from power" are two different things, then maybe that's where you're confused. That's what this coup is all about. If someone disapproves of Thaksin being removed from power, then they also disapprove of the coup. Yessopie 00:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you write "I don't understand how she can possibly approve of the coup" You are making the same editorial mistake as Humanoid. It is not about what you or I understand, it's about NOT putting OUR understanding in the article. Puting her reaction in a section called disaproval give a different perspective to her witness than in a section public response. And at this time I don't undertsand why wedo not have a public reponse section since we hav a media and humand right group response?Roger jg 01:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Again POV and politicisation are being inserted in this article. I am here refering to the reaction of the women in Klong Toei. It is presuming from her reaction that she is disaproving the coup. She may be feeling sad, or sorry or in despair. Who is to know? Then it is also misleading because the gesture could be undertood as if she now has nothing anymore, this only would fuel rumours that the poor will be ignored by the new regime.

The reference for the support of the North and of Issan is not appropriate. The article present a POV of the journalist in one short paragraph. I am sure it is possible to provide a better reference from somone in a better position.

I would like this to be clear that such practice are not acceptable. I would really like not to have to enter a NPOV on this article. Roger jg 04:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You think it is fair and balanced when there is a huge section on "public support", but you delete the tiny section on "public disapproval" Humanoid 04:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

actually the section on public protest is bigger than the one on public support. Roger jg 04:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So create a section on pro-coup protesters if you want. Humanoid 04:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That is beside the point. There is already a section for those who support the coup. The point is taht as it is currenty, your section is POV and misleadingRoger jg 04:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The protests section is for protests and other large gatherings. This is very different than the actual reactions of individuals who are too far from bangkok to come to a protest, or simply do not wish to participate in a protest. Humanoid 05:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why and I repeat what i said earlierm, I think it should be thereRoger jg 05:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention to delete it. I think it shpuld be there. I simply disagree with the emotional charge carried by the title Roger jg 04:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you have a problem about posting what the woman from Khlong Toei said, when the section on "public support" have lots of quotes of other individuals? Are the voices of the poor not as good as the voices of those who support the coup? Humanoid 04:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. I did not delete it, did I?Roger jg 04:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You did not delete it, but you're criticizing it here in the discussion page. You dedicated a whole paragraph to it. Humanoid 04:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

you are not getting it.... What I disaprove is your use of the woman reaction. Not only you are assuming what she is feeling but by taking it out of context you give it an emotional charge that is not appropriate for an encyclopdic article. I wish you woudl undertsand that this Wiki is supposed to be a reference sources not a political pamphlet. Roger jg 04:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making any assumptions of what she is feeling. I'm simply stating what happened. Humanoid 05:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

for pity's sake, you called your section disaproval if that is not puting a name on the reaction what is it? Roger jg 05:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

and I noticed you deleted the contextual infomration I added. I would like to have it back and I wish you would stop using this page as a soapbox. The questions is not about the value of X or Y, but about making information clear and in context Roger jg 04:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You can add it somewhere else. It does not belong in the section on "public disapproval". That opinion does nothing but insult the thaksin supporters who have many more reasons for liking him than just seeing him on tv. Humanoid 04:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. It put back into context, sorry to have to repeat myself so many time, the reaction of the woman. It does not insult Thaksin supporter but provide those unfamilliar with Thai politics with information about the pre-coup era taht is not provide in the article and could make it biaised. Roger jg 05:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It does not give truthful information about the pre-coup situation. It is nothing but a claim made by a single individual. A POV. Like I said, if you want to put it into the article, you can do it, as long as it's in the proper section. Humanoid 05:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

if you want to re-write history before the coup feel free but not here. Thaksin 's control over the media is largely document. If you need only one source that contains many verifable references, read "The Thaksinisation of thailand" and that's beside the point , read again the NPOV wiki policy

The reasons for the public's support of thaksin is also largely documented. I'm not rewriting history. Humanoid 05:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about public suport I am talking about putting views in perspective and about thaksin controls of the media. READ please Roger jg 05:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions Roger jg 05:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger_jg, You talk about a need to put the woman's reaction in context. But the "context" you want to add is some guy claiming that the poor are being manipulated by thaksin, and that all they don't read newspapers, but just watch tv. That is not the proper context for that reaction. The proper context, which explains exactly why the woman supports thaksin, is the fact that he created the health care system which permitted her to afford cancer treatment for her daughter, as well as other things thaksin did. That is the proper context for the quote, not some claim that the woman doesn't read newspapers, and is being manipulated by Thaksin. Humanoid 07:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Again I disagree. You are moving the goalpost from disaproval of the coup to support to Thaksin. The comment by the PAD treasurer clearly indicates that the poor have limited knowledge of other's opinions and policies. This explain teh woman's reaction. Let's go back to Plato's Allegory of the Cave if you were one of the people living in the cave where you will have been fed and taken care for year, what would be your reaction if one day someone comes and shatter your world? Roger jg 08:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Everybody has limited knowledge. It doesn't mean that if they have 100% knowledge of everything in the world, that they wouldn't vote for thaksin. That comment from the PAD guy doesn't "explain the woman's reaction". Her reaction is explained by her comments about how Thaksin made it possible for her to afford chemotherapy for her daughter. Thaksin's policy saved her daughter's life! You don't think that the fact that thaksin's policy's saved her daughter's life has anything to do with her support of thaksin? You think it's only about ignorance. The truth is, you're the only one being ignorant. You're completely ignoring what the woman said straight out of her mouth, clearly explaning why she supports thaksin, and instead prefer an alternate explanation about why the woman supports thaksin, made by a guy who never even met the woman. Humanoid 08:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Again you are beside the point... Nobody is questioning what the Thaskin policies have done for her or her familly. Nobody is questionning that she support or not Thaksin. What and other have been saying is that YOUR interpretation of what she says as being disaproval is nothing more than YOUR interpretation. Read back this sentence 3 times loudly ! As such it is a Point Of View, yours ! My POV is that she is distressed. Call that "Distressed reactions following the coup" if you like! But until you show me where she say straight out of her mouth "I disapprove of the coup" I am proved right. Roger jg 08:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Before you embark on another reply, try to understand what this is about that I have tried many times to explain: It is about interpretation of someone else opinion. Not that we have different interpretation, not about the value of these opinion or their rational. Simply that different interpretation exists. We have here two different interpretations. Do you understand that? Yours is not better or more right than mine. Someone else may have a third interpretation. It is because there are different interpretations that Wiki has a NPOV policy which require to present fact neutraly, i.e. without interpreation or bias. Presenting the woman fact as being a reaction of disaproval is not neutral. Roger jg 08:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger_jg, you are arguing more than one thing at the same time. Don't suddenly claim that you're only arguing about the fact that the woman disapproves of the coup. Your quote that I replied to above is: "The comment by the PAD treasurer clearly indicates that the poor have limited knowledge of other's opinions and policies." <--- THAT is what I replied to earlier. A false claim, which you are subsequently using as a premise to an argument leading to a false conclusion. Humanoid 19:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For pity's sake ! What makes you the judge of the PAD claim being false or right. Would you please stop being judgemental and pervade this article with your opinions? What I have been asking you all along is not to use your interpretation of the fact as THE interpretation of the fact. What I asked you is to tell the fact as they are, not adding to them and to let people judge! I give up... there is no more deaf than the one who don't want to listen. Roger jg 01:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

19sep.org back up

As anybody who knows how to use traceroute can verify. sep19.org is now hosted in the usa. At www.registerfly.com specifically. I'm not politicizing something. It's the truth. Humanoid 05:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

then keep the factual info which is useful and reference this website as a note ! you should consider a "tought pause" before hiting the save button Roger jg 05:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. How are you disapproving of my mentioning that the site is now hosted in the usa? Why did you delete that claim, forcing me to revert, and claiming that I was politicizing something? Humanoid 05:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I really suggest you calm down and actually read what I write. First you have replaced a factual information (the content of the website) by a non reference information. Do you know for sure that the owner is the same for instance? Second you "characterise" the information by adding "where the junta can not ...". NOW. What I am asking you is (1) to leave the factual information (the content of the site) (2) to add in reference the traceroute method and (3) not to give undue weight to the inforamtion by characterising it. Is this clearer? Roger jg 05:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that the owner is the same. I'm simply stating what the owners of the domain did. I'll add the information about traceroute, and the content of the site if you wish. It is very relevent to note that the junta cannot shut it down anymore. People reading it would think that the junta changed their minds and decided to let the site go back up, which did not happen. So I'm making it clear that the junta has no control over the site anymore so we cannot say whether or not the junta changed their mind about getting the site shut down. Humanoid 05:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

you can say where the junta has no jurisdiction. Roger jg 06:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "jurisdiction" would be a good word to use in that paragraph. According to the 1997 constitution, the junta didn't have jurisdiction to close down the original site inside thailand either. But jurisdiction didn't stop them from shutting it down. It's ability / power that is key here, not jurisdiction. The junta had the power to shut the original site down, but they don't have the power to shut it down in the USA. Humanoid 07:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference betwen having a power an using it. If you want to make clear that the junta did not re-allow the site to be online, which is a fair point, you also need to make clear to the reader that the Junta may not exerce his power to take it down, should the site be online again. (please no speculation on this!) To say that "where the junta can not put it down" (quote from memory) suggests that if the site was online they would put it off. This is unsubstanciated. After all, demo have taken place, if only yesterday, and nobody had been arrested despite the junta having the power to do so. That's why jurisdiction, in law, the territory within which power can be exercised is more appropriate. You see, this is this kind of insiduous partisanship that pervades your contributions that really gets at me. I am really againt none of your posting, most of which are highly relevant, but the way you wrap it is often not in line with the NPOV policies Roger jg 08:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

We have these facts: 1) The website was censored. 2) The web host was moved to the USA. 3) The junta cannot censor a USA site. Now, supposing these facts are all true, a person may suppose that: a) The owners moved it to the USA so that it wouldn't get censored. b) The junta would have probably censored it again if it had moved to another Thailand host. The only reason that those facts 1, 2 and 3 suggest a and b is because it is reasonable for someone to suppose a and b if they know the facts 1, 2 and 3. If a person does not think that it is reasonable to suppose that a and b are true, knowing facts 1, 2 and 3, they will not consider the facts 1, 2 and 3 to "suggest" a and b at all. Therefore, what the article "suggests" (which is not the same thing as "implies") is relative to the reader's POV, not the article's POV, so this is not a NPOV issue. Yessopie 01:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I stopped reading at "a person may suppose". The point here was about the use of the word "jurisdiction" rather than of "where the junta could bring it down" (again from memory) and I explain why it ws not apropriate for the reporting. But the last version of the article I read was clear enough for me. Roger jg 01:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What's important for somebody to do something are two things 1- Desire, and 2- Power, NOT jurisdiction The junta didn't arrest the protesters because they didn't have the desire, not because they didn't have jurisdiction. In fact, according to them, they have jurisdiction. They repeated many times on tv that protests are illegal and anybody caught will face severe consequences. They have already arrested many protesters, and they recorded the protest in from of siam center, so that they could watch the tapes to see if they are breaking the law. Humanoid 02:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

your are agreeing with my point. They have jurisdiction (legal power) but they are not using it. Which is different than making the assumption that they would use it. Therfore Jurisdiction is appropriate because in this case (the host being in the US), it is not a question of desire but of power. That the junata want or not to bring the site down is irrelevant if they don't have the power to do so first! Roger jg 02:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger_jg, I should mention to you that traceroute is blocked from inside thailand to outside when it reaches thailand's internet information gateway. So either you need to find a way to use traceroute from outside the country, or figure out which ISP owns the IP range that includes the site for sep19.org. Humanoid 05:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would traceroute for you, but sep19.org cannot be resolved from my location in the Netherlands.

--SmellyCat 09:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

sep19.org is not the same as 19sep.org. Humanoid 17:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops. No idea how I got to that domain name. Sorry.

--SmellyCat 08:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, from my tests, it's clear that before the end of the day, the junta already blocked access to the site from inside thailand. I have servers outside thailand that let's me verify that the site is still online in the usa and can be pinged. But everytime I try to load the site from inside thailand, or try to ping the site, I get no response. Can anybody inside thailand check if they are still able to load the page without the use of a proxy? Humanoid 17:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, everytime I load the page, the text is "Freedom", not "FREEDOM". I don't know why Roger_jg keeps insisting that it's "FREEDOM". Can anybody load the page and confirm that it is "Freedom", or that it sometimes displays it in caps? Humanoid 17:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the page always shows up everytime I try to load it. I've loaded it dozens of times with no problems whatsoever. Roger_jg claims that the page does not always show up. That is clearly just due to him not having a good internet connection from inside thailand. Humanoid 17:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've uploaded an image downloaded directly from the site, to prove to those who can't read that it's "Freedom", not "FREEDOM". Are there still any people who will claim that the image says "FREEDOM" and not "Freedom"? Humanoid 18:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That might be my mistake from the first day. The site is not accessible from Bangkok as I am writing I only get a white page. Roger jg 02:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In the future, please check your claims carefully before changing a true statement I write to a false one. Especially if you're doing it several times a row on the exact same thing. I was prudent enough to load the site dozens of times to make sure I was right before I fixed your false claim over and over again. Humanoid 02:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

don't overblow it would you? I changed it once, you didn't mind deleting my factual edits several time to replace them by your personal interpretation, let's not be childishRoger jg 02:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to put this back into context there are offcially more than 1200 sites being blocked by the ICT. Considering the space given to this only web site in the article I consider this Undue Weight. It should be there but heavily trimmed down. And I am not sure moving the bit about the constitution here is a good idea. The consitution has been annuled, therefore removing it is not censorship. Roger jg 02:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is called "2006 Thailand coup d'etat", therefore the section on censorship, only talks about censorship related to the coup. I will add a link to the main page on censorship in thailand, so people can learn about other censorship unrelated to the coup. But there is no need to say: "there are already more than 1000 sites blocked, and the junta only blocked one extra site, so they didn't really do much". Humanoid 02:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. I added a link on general censorship unrelated to thailand (again). I already did that before, several days ago, but it was deleted by somebody. Humanoid 02:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I checked again, the 19sep.org is still blocked from inside thailand, and it still working perfectly from outside thailand. Here are the wget logs:

From inside thailand:

wget -v http://19sep.org
--xx:xx:xx--  http://19sep.org/
           => `index.html.1'
Resolving 19sep.org... 69.50.214.163
Connecting to 19sep.org|69.50.214.163|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Object Not Found
xx:xx:xx ERROR 404: Object Not Found.

From outside thailand:

wget -v http://19sep.org
--xx:xx:xx--  http://19sep.org/
           => `index.html.1'
Resolving 19sep.org... 69.50.214.163
Connecting to 19sep.org|69.50.214.163|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 614 [text/html]

xx:xx:xx (xx.xx MB/s) - `index.html.1' saved [614/614]

Anybody with a computer can verify, that it is indeed blocked from inside thailand. So I hope nobody will challenge my claim on the wikipedia page. Humanoid 02:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

so far nobody is. Roger jg 02:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A traceroute to 19sep.org leads to nfly15.registerfly.com [69.50.214.163]

The website currently states: "Website is under construcktion" (not my spelling mistake).

--SmellyCat 08:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the contents of the website just changed. It no longer shows the yellow on black "Freedom". Humanoid 08:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger_jg, I am not agreeing with your point at all. Nowhere in the article am I making the "assumption that they would use" the power to shut it down if they had it. I am simply stating that they don't have the power. Let me try to explain more carefully: It takes two things to do something, 1- desire, 2- power. You're claiming that I'm making the assumption that if they had the power that they would use it. This is a claim about desire, not about power. In the actual article I say "...hosted in the USA where the junta has no power to shut it down.". And this is a statement about power, not about desire. Do you understand the difference between power and desire? Humanoid 08:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

what you write is suggesting just that, otherwise why do you feel necessessary to write it? But as I said, I wil not make a fuss about that Roger jg 09:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop telling me what you think I'm "suggesting". If I say "the junta has no power", I mean "the junta has no power", not "the junta has the desire". And let the readers make their own conclusions as to what the fact that they don't have the power and their past and present actions suggests about their desires. Just because 99% of readers will make the conclusion that the junta has the desire (because of how obvious it is), it doesn't mean that I'm the one suggesting it. I am simply stating the facts, and letting the readers make their own conclusions. What you are trying to do is trying to manipulate the information so as to prevent the readers from making certain kinds of conclusions. Humanoid 19:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

you ar are AGAIN beside the point... Read my postings, please.... The point here is not about the word power, it is about adding "to shut it down", which is unecessary. By adding these 4 words you are "leading the reader" hence you are manipulating the reader towards one kind of conclusion. I think you have a real problem understanding the concept of NPOV. Roger jg 01:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger_jg, also you say "They have jurisdiction (legal power) but they are not using it.". When I'm talking about desire and power, I'm talking about "physical power" not "legal jurisdiction". You seem to not understand the meaning of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is not about physical power at all. It's about what the law says you can or cannot do. Jurisdiction is about what rights are given to you by the law. Not about what physical power you have. What I'm talking about in the article is that the junta don't have physical power to shut down a site in the USA, not about jurisdictional rights to shut the site down. Humanoid 08:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I quote "Jurisdiction is about what rights are given to you by the law." Thailand has no jurisdiction, hence no power to shut down the site in the US. It is there unecessary to add more to it. But whatever... Roger jg 09:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

An absence of jurisdiction does not imply an absence of physical power. Ever hear about the coup d'etat in thailand 2006? The junta had no jurisdiction, but they still did it. Humanoid 19:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fairness of tone & Undue Weight

As a reminder from teh Wiki:NPOV Roger jg 05:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fairness of tone

If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.

Undue Weight

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority).

NPOV dispute

Humanoid you have now reverted 3 times my edit. This is the maximun suggested per day by the wiki policy. The next stage is for you to take a break and for me too. I will await comments from other contributors to this page before engaging into an official NPOV dispute. Roger jg 05:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this about the "The urban poor, as well as the rural farmers in the north and Isan still respect Thaksin" line? Sorry, Humanoid, I gotta agree with Roger jg here: we should try to find a recent public opinion poll or something to back a statement like that up, and I don't think we'll be getting that too soon. Alternatively, we could restate that as "There is some indication that the urban and rural poor still respect Thaksin.", and back it up with the referenced information that follows. Other than that, the only available reference seems to be the results of opinion polls prior to the coup. But then you'd have to restate it as "In the weeks leading to the coup, the urban and rural poor still respected Thaksin, despite growing unpopularity among the Bangkok middle-class." Patiwat 08:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed "still respect" to "still widely respect". There was a typo in the original. That claim can be verified by the source. Remember, the wiki policy for Wikipedia:Verifiability, which says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.". Humanoid 17:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you guys are not able to find where in the source the claim the be verified, search for the quote that says: "Chalaem's lingering respect for Thaksin -- still widely shared among the urban poor and rural farmers across the country's north and northeast -- underscores the core problems..." Humanoid 17:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is partially about that. Read carefully Humanoid, like you I believe that "The urban poor, as well as the rural farmers in the north and Isan still respect Thaksin" but this is not good enough. We need to reference this for the reader and with a comment from an authoritative source, Thai preferably. I think I remember seeing something but will need to dig it out. Again it is a question of method. Roger jg 08:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Also note that even though those people "respect" Thaksin, it does not mean that they oppose the coup after the king voiced his support. This is not contradictory.

--SmellyCat 09:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

and there are reports that they do not oppose the coup because they believe it will help unlocking the situation. But does this come out of the article currently? Roger jg 10:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The section "Public disapproval" talks about a crying woman who seems to disapprove of the coup. She is used as an example of the "urban poor and rural farmers" who respect Thaksin. Thus suggesting that urban poor and rural farmers respect Thaksin and oppose the coup. My problem is that these two unrelated pieces of information are linked together into one piece of information.

--SmellyCat 10:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

well, my point. Glad someone else can see the problem with the way this information is being twisted.Roger jg 10:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree as well. If someone has claimed that they believe the urban poor and rural farmers still respect Thaksin, we may be able to include that as someone's view. But we cannot state as a fact that the urban poor and rural farmers still support Thaksin as we cannot prove such a fact. Even if we conduct several reliable scientificly based polls we still couldn't make that claim we could only mention the polls. Of course it is nearly impossible to conduct such polls in rural areas and is also not possible given the current situation in Thailand so this is irrelevant anyway. I personally question the merits of mentioning the woman at all. She was just one woman of no notability airing her opinions and I don't personally see any reason to include here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying her opinions don't matter but that they don't currently merit inclusion in wikipedia an encyclopedia. If they somehow become notable, then obviously things will change but at the current time, I don't really see any merit. Can someone show me one other example where the opinion of one person with no noteablity was included in an wikipedia article? Nil Einne 20:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Giles Ungphakorn, in an editorial in The Nation, said something like that. Patiwat 10:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Key sites

I think I will make a map of central Bkk showing the places mentioned in the article. Please suggest any relevant sites. Is the building refered to here as "Government House" the big blue building like a cathedral at the north end of Royal Plaza? I think I have a photo of it somewhere which I will add. What is its correct name? Adam 06:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The large building at the North end of the Royal Plaza (behind the Equestrian Statue) would be the Ananta Samakhom Hall, the former Parliament. Patiwat 07:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So what and where is Government House? Adam 07:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're at Yommarat Intersection (at the expressway exit), there are two roads that go into the old part of town. One road is Larn Luang which is an extension of Petburi Road, which keeps on going straight until it hits the Golden Mount. The other road (I forgot the name of) has the horse racetrack on the right hand side and eventually hits Ratchadamnern Road just south of the Equestrian Statue. As you go down that other road, you'll cross a small bridge that goes over a small canal. Immediately after that canal is Government House (Thamniab Rathaban), I believe. It stands right across from the Civil Service Commission (Kor Phor). Sorry I don't have Google Earth installed on this computer. Patiwat 07:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I must have walked right past it in July, but I don't recall seeing it (it was raining). Adam 07:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The building is clearly visible from the street - it is yellow with white trim, done is an ornate Neo Venetain Gothic style. Incredibly ugly building... You can see a photo at http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%B3%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%B5%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%90%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A5 or some photos from the street at http://www.cabinet.thaigov.go.th/house02.htm Address is 1 Phitsanulok Rod. Patiwat 08:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK I have found it now. No, I didn't walk past it, I walked down Ratchdamnoen Nok, one street to the west, on my way from the Rama V statue to Wat Bowonniwet. Adam 10:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I created an article on Wat Bovornives recently. You might be interested or have a photo to contribute. The temple is of massive significance to the Chakri dyanasty as a whole and to King Bhumibol in particular. Patiwat 11:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a photo. I have also created redirects from Wat Bowonniwet (how my guidebook spells it) and Wat Bowonivet (how Ka F Wong's book spells it). Adam 11:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Added Thai spelling, interwiki, and a website of the temple. Also, the most standard romanization should be Wat Bowonniwet. Also referred to it in the article on Phra Nakhon district. andy 12:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Truly, Thai spelling passeth all understanding. I remember it as Wat Bowonni-wet because I got extremely wet walking to see it. Adam 12:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Public disapproval vs. Public protests

I'm moving some stuff out of the "Public protests" section that can't really be called a protest and putting it into the "Public disapproval section." I think that will tone down and increase the focus of the "Public protests" section. Patiwat 07:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, since most of it are mainly things that are disapproved by the people, but didn't protest in public. So that's kind of incorrect. Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 08:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this edit was a very good one. Those paragraphs definitely belong in the "public disapproval" section, rather than the "protests" section. Hmm... shouldn't "public protests" be renamed to simply "protests"? Are there any other kinds of protests other than public ones? Humanoid 08:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaving Acharn Thongchai's on-line petition in the "Protests" section, since - even though it isn't a physical protest - it is still a discrete organized activity with the primary goal of influencing others.

But I'm not sure what to do if tomorrow, the newspaper reports that thousands of people in Bangkok are wearing black... Is that a protest or a display of disapproval? Let's cross that bridge when we meet it. Patiwat 08:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well this is the problem with this whole section. An encyclopedic article on World War II would not recount all the protests and supports during the months leading to the war. An encyclopedic article would recount that there was protest and support that different sections of the society were split amongst protesters and suporters, it would specify the importance of the protest and the support and their context as well as public reactions not falling into these categories and move on. We are misleading and confusing the people and definitively not helping portraying the situation as it is. IMHO we are heading the wrong way and not doing a good job with this part of the article which should be much shorter, give the broad lines, some represenattive punchy slogans and quotes from both side and then move on.Roger jg 08:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that "to protest" does not necessarily mean that you take part in a demonstration. When you are voicing your opinion that you disapprove the coup, then you are protesting too.

I think it complicates the article too much to have to see it split into "Public protests" and "Public disapproval". If the headers "Public support" and "Public protests" are not clear enough, then what about "Public approval" and "Public disapproval".

Furthermore I would want to comment that the section "Public approval comes first". Why? Because the most curious thing about this coup is the active support that the people in Bangkok seem to give. And that the majority, at least in Bangkok, support the coup.

--SmellyCat 09:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your first comment and I would extend it to support. This is particulalrly important in a society where respect of the elder, the authority and the king subdue (to say the least) personal opinions and reactions. If this part of the article was dealing comprehensively not with the pro and the con but with the split betwen different strata of the society taht prexisted Thaksin but was reinforced by his policies (context again), I believe it would work better. I have some work to do but I will try to present something here later. But I am affraid we will still disagree and argue on the relative importance of the prostest and not only because of the censure but mostly because it is a social matter. Roger jg 10:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As you yourself noted Roger jg, this article is about the coup and its immmediate results. It is not the place for a detailed description of the rifts in Thai society immediately prior to the coup. Why not, when that information would be useful for the reader in interpretting the situation? Because there are other articles for that. When you think about what information you want for Coup 2006 with Thaksin/Sonthi, think of what you want in an article on Coup 1991 with Chatichai/Suchinda, 1985 with Prem/Young Turks, 1981 with Prem/Young Turks, and 1976 with Tanin/Kriangsak. As a person interested in Thai history and politics, I want to know: 1) how did the coup occur, e.g., the mechanics of it, its leadership, what it did to the deposed government 2) very briefly, what was the immediate cause of the coup, 3) how did the public reacted, and 4) how did the world react, 5) historical implications.

What I do not want is detailed contextual information, e.g., a description of the social tension that caused the 6 October 1976 Massacre (that preceeded the 1976 coup) or the split in the army between CRMA Class 5 and Class 7 (that caused the 1991 coup). The social tensions that preceeded the 2006 coup are covered in massive detail in the Thailand political crisis 2005-2006 article. At most, we should give a short paragraph of contextual material and a link. Patiwat 11:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, I believe you still need to provide a minimum of contextual information to the reader unfamilliar with the country. For intance, there are different levels of censure and censure will not be felt the same in a country that has full freedom of speech than in a country that is ranked 107 out 167 for its freedom of the press. A european reader would be mistaken by the censure we are talking about. People's reactions also are depending on the context. We have information here about why people protest against the coup, but very little about why poeple do not oppose and their are the large majority. This coup compares in nothing to the 1976 coup. I believe this should be indicated. I believe that there is undue weight given to the protests. Again I don't deny that there have been some protests and that there might be more protests as events unfolds further, but for now, an honnest description of the situation here is that it is pretty much the same as before, and that protest is for now limited to a few group of student and academics. Reasons for other who may want to protest but don't may exist. I don't deny this, they should be stated but not overstated and always put in context. People are concerned but overall, the general feeling is more about uncertainty than protest. Another thing which is ignored is the weight of the king who has endorsed the coup. As a very respected and revered person, this endorsement has has an importance that is only mentionned in passing. That's why I found the article of the BBC good. It was able to put things in perspectives, both the pro-poor policy of Thaskin but also the resentment he created and his abused of power. Of course it is too long for here, but it should inspire us in our way to report event in their context. Someone asked earlier to put the asccusations of the junta into context. We did it so why not doing it here too? Please rest assured that I am not proposing to not report the protest but when doing it, one should let the facts speak for themselves. One way out here is to develop a bit more the introduction to the national reactions. Another is to add a short section (200~250 words)to describe the context in which the coup happened Roger jg 01:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For National Reactions, how about adding this:

"The coup occured after nearly 2 years of escalating anti-Thaksin sentiment, particularly in Bangkok. Even long-standing rural supporters of Thaksin reported increasing frustration at the tensions caused by the Thailand political crisis 2005-2006."

And for role of the King, how about this:

"Royal endorsement is critical to establishing legitimacy for military rebellions - every successful coup over the past 60 years has been endorsed by King Bhumibol. Previous unendorsed coups in 1981 and 1985 failed after at most a few days. For background, see King Bhumibol's role in Thai politics." -- Patiwat 05:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with that. Thanks! Roger jg 05:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Patiwat 05:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Anand Panyarachun on the coup

Respected former Premier Anand Panyarachun had an interview with the Far Eastern Economic Review less than 24 hours after the coup. Given the extremely high respect and influence that Anand has among the Bangkok elite (he headed the Drafting Committee for the 1997 Constitution) as well as Thaksin (Thaksin appointed him to head the National Reconciliation Commission), and given his role as a former figurehead post-coup premier, I'd like to quote some sections of it here, and discuss what should be quoted in the article. Anand is quite reluctant to make a firm statement on his personal views on the coup. He uses lots of weasel words to say what he thinks others think. Italics are my own. Material I think should be quoted in the article is in bold:

"What happened last night, I think in a way it’s a democratic setback, but in another way – as in many countries like Taiwan, Hungary and several other places, when people felt that there was no democratic way of changing the government – what happened last night was, in the views of many, a last resort.

...

Things could have been resolved peacefully several months ago but as time went on and on, his persistence in rushing to another election did not solve the problem at all. Those who adhere to democracy and to democratic principles and to democratic procedures felt that they had no other option left.

...

You have to remember that since 1992, we have had four general elections; we had peaceful transfers of power; we had governments who served full four-year terms. The military in 1992 had gone back to the barracks, and up to a few months ago there were no speculations and rumors about a possible coup. The armed forces, particularly the army, had gone back to the barracks and had become real professional soldiers. So to me what happened must be considered to be an extremely unfortunate dead-end street. So let’s hope that there will be a new civilian government, fully engaged in some of the reform measures, including the revision of the present Constitution.

...

If you ask the purists and the theorists, they will say this is a setback of democracy, but I think you make two forward steps, and retreat one step, and then you catch up with the step that you loose, and then the future steps will become even faster. When you talk about democracy, it’s not that every country has to emulate American democracy or Western-style democracy or presidential democracy. I’m sure that many countries in Europe would be appalled if they were to have an American model of democracy imposed on them. So it has to be homegrown. So you respect the democratic values, you respect and practice democratic principles, but you don’t put too much emphasis just on elections or elected bodies or executive or judiciary. But you also have to make sure that in that process the society needs to be opened up, to permit full use of transparency, and accountability, and independent judiciary, and above all, freedom of the media, let alone the accountability mechanisms."

With a careful reading, he's condemning the coup, even though he's mouthing the same arguments as the coup apologists. But that last paragraph, with its clear disdain for elections and elected bodies and his preference for benign and transparent autocracy, is quite damning. The full interview is at: http://www.feer.com/articles1/2006/0609/free/anand.html Patiwat 20:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I largely agree with you. He appears to be condeming the coup. However it also sounds to me like he's saying he lays the blame for the coup primarily at Thaksin. Anyway I'll stop there Nil Einne 21:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That is the position of many who do not obejct the coup (that does not mean they suport it), and I am not sure it is clearly presented in the article. I believe it shoudl be becasue it reflects teh pragmatic approach which characterise the Thai society.Roger jg 01:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

He's restating the argument of those who do not object to the coup, but if you read things carefuly (the text in italics), you can see that he never actually states that those ideas are his own. What he does state as his own perspective are words of unambiguous condemnation for the coup. Anand was one of Thailand's top diplomats and Premier twice. I think he was deliberate in the fine line he drew. Patiwat 04:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV example, humanoid and others please read

Please compare these two examples:

The urban poor, as well as the rural farmers in the north and Isan still widely respect Thaksin. When a woman in Khlong Toei (a Bangkok district) was asked about the coup, "she looked down at her empty hands and quietly cried." . The woman went on to say: "[Thaksin] gave me a chance to keep my daughter alive.", referencing Thaksin's universal health care plan, which allowed her daughter to receive chemotherapy for less than $1 per treatment. She concluded with: "Now that he's been chased out, the poor have lost their closest friend."

compare that to this:

The Washington Post suggested that respect for Thaksin is widely shared amongst the rural farmers and urban poor across the country's north and north-east. Quoting a street vendor in Khlong Toei "I don't care what they say about Thaksin, he was the first one who ever cared about us," concluding with "Now that he's been chased out, the poor have lost their closest friend."

The second example is mine. Hopefully, it may help those still struggling with the concept of NPOV. I'm not saying it's perfect, it's not but it's a lot better IMHO. There are several key problems with the original example..

Firstly, it claims as a fact the urban poor and rural farmers still widely respect Thaksin. This may or may not be true, but it is impossible to verify. We can mention what the Washington Post has suggested but we can't claim what they have suggested is fact. Also note that the first example claimed they still widely respect Thaksin (i.e. there is a large amount of respect for Thaksin by these people). In actual fact, the WP claimed respect for Thaksin is widely shared. While this is only a minor issue and I assume it is only a language mistake rather then failing to understand NPOV, it is important to get these things right.

Secondly it goes in to great detail about the women's story. This is an encylopedia about the coup and there is no need or call for such amount of detail. Personally I'm still not sure if there is any call for quote from the woman at all but if we are going to include it, need not go in to such detail. Finally, please note that it is not our responsibility to correct your POV edits. We are within our rights to remove edits which blantantly violate NPOV or are otherwise just bad even if they have merit and could potentially be improved so they can remain.

If you are still having trouble understanding NPOV and the other wikipedia requirements OR you simply find it impossible to fulfill those requirements, I would suggest you make suggestions in the talk page rather then editing the article. That way, rather then having to spend our time monitoring the page for poor edits (along with getting in to revert wars and arguing with you), we could spend our time adding useful information. Also, considering asking for help on one of the wikipedia pages. There are people willing to teach you provided you are willing to learn and have done the appropriate reading.

22:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You are making the assumption that the author of the Washington Post article only said that there is wide support among the urban poor and rural farmers, because of what that one woman said. I don't believe that is a correct assumption to make, and wiki policy on verifiability means that we cannot make such assumptions unless we have a references from a reliable source. Humanoid 22:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood my point. We don't know how or why the author said what he said and it is wrong for us to speculate on why the author said what he said. I don't see how my example suggests he only said it because of what the woman said. However if you really believe that my example suggests the author is only saying the rural poor etc support Thaksin because of what the woman said then I suggest we just remove the quote completely. As I've said, it seems completely unncessary and over the top to me. One thing that is certain is we CANNOT I repeat, WE CANNOT claim that the rural poor etc support Thaksin. We can only mention that others have said that. Nil Einne 20:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

International media reactions?

Please seem my example above. I didn't include it in the article, because there didn't really seem to be anywhere suitable. However, I'm thinking that there might be merit to include a small subset of international media reactions in the article. We should not include a lot, only enough to get an idea of what's being said as well as to convery anything which has been suggested by the international media but not Thai media or anyone else. Nil Einne 22:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest some influential, widely read publications, or publications with a reputation for incisive opinion: The Economist, the Far Eastern Economic Review, the Financial Times, and the New York Times. Any other suggestions? Patiwat 22:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have included short quotes from The Economist and the New York Times. Patiwat 23:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger jg, you removed both mentions of international media reactions from the article. Do you think it is appropriate to not include anything in the article about how the media reacted? I think that's overdoing it. Patiwat 10:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a summary of the original content. The complete responses are still in the main article. Patiwat 20:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, your edit is good. However this paragraph is a bit contradictory. It starts with several newspapers have condemn the coup, but later says that general lack of critics prevailled. Needs some rephrasing Roger jg 01:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the references before deleting

Nil Einne, I'm specifically referring to this edit. You deleted the claim that Thaksin has wide support amount the urban poor, and the rural farmers in the north and north-east. You deleted it, thinking that I simply made a conclusion based on the reaction of one woman. I did not. I put it there, because that's what it says in the published article, in the Washington Post, that I referenced. Wiki policy clearly stated verifiability. This is verifiable, and it's properly referenced to the reliable news agency, Washington Post. You should read the references completely, and carefully, before assuming that I simply made a claim without support. Humanoid 22:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This also applies to others such as Roger_jg, who think I made the conclusion myself. When in fact, I am simply stating what the author of the Washington Post says. Humanoid 23:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Humanoid, I wrote several times that I was supporting this witness being included in the article. What I asked what to put it in to a proper section that does not mislead the readers, and also to give some indications on how to "read" her feelings. I will put here in a minute another quote that you might find more acceptable. But Like other I still believe that the WP journaliste is not eh best person to use as a reference for the feeling of the poor and other about Thaksin. Roger jg

I put back the part about the support from the urban poor and rural farmers. But not the quotes from the woman. Hopefully, now people will not think that I'm simply making a conclusion based on what one woman said. Humanoid 22:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I will quote the Washington Post article YET AGAIN, since people still don't seem to see it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092300372.html says "Chalaem's lingering respect for Thaksin -- still widely shared among the urban poor and rural farmers across the country's north and northeast -- underscores the core..." For those who don't understand english, it means that the author is claiming that the urban poor and rural farmers in the north and northeast still widely respect Thaksin. I will repeat, he is NOT making a conclusion about the poor and farmers based on what that woman said. He is simply stating a fact about the poor and farmers, and is saying that Chalaem's support is similar to that of the urban poor and farmers. Is it clear now? Humanoid 23:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If anybody wants to delete my paragraph about the rural poor and farmers, you will need to show why the Washington Post is not a reliable source of information, according to the wiki policy on verifiability. Humanoid 23:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times also notes "On Wednesday, the coup leader, Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratglin, said that he had acted “to bring back normality and harmony” and that he intended to “return power to the Thai people as soon as possible.” That, in so many words, was the hope of Thailand’s elite, who had accused Mr. Thaksin of corruption and of destroying democratic institutions. But he was overwhelmingly supported by rural voters, who gave him Thailand’s first outright majority in Parliament." [3] Patiwat 23:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The Independent quotes Acharn Thitinan: "But Thitinan Pongsudhirak, of Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University, says that even in a completely fair election, Mr Thaksin would still sweep the board. “If there’s an election supervised by the UN, Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai would win, and that’s a problem for Thailand,” he said." [4] Doesn't say anything about poor/elite gap, but says a lot about the democracy education that students at Chulalongkorn's Political Science Faculty are getting. Patiwat 01:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally see any problem with mentioning that a number of sources claim he still has wide support among the urban poor and rural farmers. However I will continue to remove any sentence that suggests it's a fact. Nil Einne 20:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The point as of today.

Fighting aside, I still think we are making progress

I consider resolved (from my side):

1. The woman story, the only way out was to have it out. It still is on another Wiki page where the debate I guess will continue.

Remaining issues:

1. The 19sept.org website. I' like to have the word jurisdiction in lieu of 'power to shut it down" but I won't make a fuss about it.
2. Reaction from the NYT and Economist: Should they be in the International reactions wiki page rather than the National reactions?
3. Rural and poor support: still unproperly referenced in my opinion.
4. Use of the word "mass" for protest of less than 100 people. I think it is a bit pushing. What adjective would you used for the King's birthday celebration? Would organised or public be more apropriate? but I won't make a fuss about but it is not self-serving for the protest.
5. Trimming down: The National Reactions section is particularly big and is becoming redundant with the newly created Wiki page. The article is now more than 82 Kb, well beyond the Wiki standard.

New outline for the National Reaction: I think it looks good but overall I still think it comes out as unbalanced, only because those who do not oppose the coup (for whatever reason) are not as vocal as the protesters.

Related Wiki pages:

1. Please add info related to the future new government on its dedicated page. I will add some of the latest development later today but help is welcome.
2. Please add info related to the CRDM to its dedicated page.

My thoughts are below. Patiwat 05:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• 19sep.org: Nothing to say. The site is down.
• NYT & The Economist: I've placed these under International
• References for rural support of Thaksin: The Washington Post and The Economist are both referenced when referring to rural support for Thaksin. I think this is sufficient.
• "Mass" protests: The King's rallies were mass rallies. Mass to me is any protest that has more than 5-10 people involved. The Chalard & Thawee protests were "organized" and "public" but only involved 2 people. You can also call the pro-coup rallies "mass" rallies if that might add balance.
• National reactions: The quotes from Anand, Thailand's most respected public thinker, and Abhisit, the politician with the most to gain from the coup, are significant and should not be removed. I'll have a try at further trimming down the support, disapproval, and protests sections.
• Size: The article body weighs in at 8,400 words, which is near the suggested limit for readability (6,000 to 10,000 words). We shouldn't look at the size in KB because of the massive number of references and the high number of <!-- comments -->. The article is much easier to read than a typical 8,400 word article because its structure relies heavily on sections and sub-sections. I don't think I've ever seen a Wikipedia article with this many sub-sections and sub-sub-sections. The longest (and most difficult to read) sections are Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3, all of which are near 700 words each. There is quite a bit of wordy information in those sections that is redundant to other sections that follow. Some copy editing should be done.

We are on the same hymn sheet. I'll try to edit the first sections but we can also move some materials into the new CRDM pagse and Interim gov Roger jg 05:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading and re-reading it again I think we will never get a clear support without condemnation of the coup by any politicians. Reaction such as that of Chuan Leekpai and Korn Chatikavanij do not fit in any category. We have now identified Media, Public support, Public disaproval, and Human Right group. There are a lot of thai that do not fall into these narrow categories. And what is The urban poor, as well as the rural farmers in the north and Isan still widely respect Thaksin is doing in Public disaproval? Is it to suggest that all Thaksin suporter who respect Thaksin disaprove of the coup? We know this is not the case (poll and published opinions) Roger jg 06:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I had another read-through and came out scratching my head about that as well. The problem is that "respect for Thaksin" doesn't equal "disapprove of the coup", and that "support for the coup" doesn't equal "anti-Thaksin". As such, that sentence about the the "urban poor..." should belong in the article, but I can't really figure out where....

I agree that Korn and Chuan didn't state clear disapproval of the coup, but Abhisit did. Korn and Chuan's views are there more for contrast about subtly differing perspectives among Democrat leadership. Patiwat 06:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My (SmellyCat) thoughts about the points above:

• 19sep.org: website is under construction for me. I don't see the importantance of mentioning this website at all. But I do not have strong feelings about this.

I agree with you and I think That this piece of information would be much more useful and meaningfull than the tribulation of one website owners and an emtpy website.

The Information and Communications Technology Ministry (ICT) has asked webmasters to close political webboards found to contain provocative messages for 12 days. Websites and webboards will face permanent closure if such messages continue to appear, ICT permanent secretary Kraisorn Pornsuthee said after meeting internet service providers and operators of TV stations, radio stations and other ICT businesses. He said messages could be posted on webboards as long as they do not provoke any misunderstandings. It could still be possible to mention that at least one website is known to be shut down by the ICT, reference it and move on. (ref Wiki undue weight) Roger jg 12:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• ural and poor support: I commented out this piece of information, because it really looked very bad where it was now. It had no relevance in that section. Information about this would be beneficial in a section about the reasons for the coup. How the military thought that new elections would not solve the crises due to the ural and poor support due to the various Thaksin measures to gain their support.
• Use of the word "mass": Totally not in agreement with how I interpret mass demonstrations. Not desirable from an esthetic point of view. And also redundant information, because the real numbers are right there in the first sentence. My suggestion is to remove the "first protest", "second mass protest" and such from the section names. So you just have a "Siam Center, 22 September" section for example. Looks much better in my opinion. BTW I though we agreed that there would not be extensive information about the protests, but that they would have their own article.
• Trimming down: agreed. I liked some statements in the article which were more abstract and then backed up by several references.

--SmellyCat 11:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not against a Reactions from The Thaksin supporters where we could say that there are none so far inthailand and explain why. i.e., some leaders are in detention, the Poor and farmers are not politically organised (thanks to thaksin, but that's POV) and despite the uncertainty it is business as usual Roger jg 11:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And what do you do with that??? Thailand's coup leaders have banned go-go dancers from performing for troops on the streets of Bangkok, fearing soldiers may be distracted. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5384544.stm

I think it should go in the "Support" section :D

--SmellyCat 16:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Internet access figures

I am not comfortable with the latest version of the language on Internet access in Thailand. I have tried a couple of times now to revise versions of this in an effort to correct the the impression, which I think is erroneous, that few Thais have Internet access. My latest suggestion was: "Less than 12% of households had access to the Internet in 2004, though the figure was much higer in Bangkok (28%), access had more than doubled since 2001, and many Thais can access the Internet at work, at school, or using Internet cafés." Someone, I think Roger jg, has revised this to the current: "Less than 12% of households had direct access to the Internet in 2004 (28% in Bangkok), though more than 8.4 million users are registered and have access to the Internet at work, school, or in Internet cafés." My problems: (1) No idea what direct access means; do some households have some kind of indirect access? (2) No idea where the 8.4 million figure comes from, as I do not find it in the footnoted report. (3) My point, based on the report, that access is rapidly increasing, and thus now likely much greater than in 2004, has been lost in the revision. (4) 8.4 million out of a population of 65.4 million is under 13%, so this is again reverting to the view that Internet access is restricted to around one in ten nationwide and one in three in Bangkok, which I think is misleading since it does not account for non-household access such as cafes, schools, and workplaces (often not involving being registered, whatever that means in whatever source the 8.4 million comes from). What I wrote, I believe, fairly summarized the report cited while pointing out that other types of Internet use are not reflected in it. The current language includes information not in the report and permits readers to infer, probably erroneously, that nearly 90% of all Thais and more than two-thirds of Bangkok Thais have little or no access to the Internet. David Watson 06:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

David Watson direct access refers to the begining of the sentence, i.e. household. These are people who have internet at home. This is to echo the second part of the sentence that explain that more people have indirect access through work, school and cafes. If you don't specify, one could conlude taht 88$% of teh peole had no access whatsoever to the internet. The 8.4m comes from the Nectec site (i believe I found it there Correction it comes from http://www.internetworldstats.com/asia.htm). The penetration .i.e. number of people who have acess to the internet for 100 people is indeed between 10-20, Penetration is a tricky concept because thes 10-20 people do not have to be the same. It is similar to number of patient/doctor. hence it does not mean that only-10-20% of the people can acces the internet (percentage is different!!!) We had a long discussion previously about this section. My point was that a lot of people had access should they want to access (that's the penetration factor). But it is clear that there are limitations to the access, if only, not everybody know how to use a computer. That's why we agreed to present the figures as they are. Number of people who can access internet at home, number of people who are registered users (with TOT, True etc...), number of people who have a computer at home and means of access to the internet. I believed the view was fairly represented. You can still try to clarify it. Roger jg 06:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

These details are not relevant to the article. The only reason media penetration is mentioned at all is to give the reader some context for understanding the impact of censorship of any particular media. We need 1-2 percentage figures that can easily be understood and for which we have a solid reference. Every other detail should be covered in Media of Thailand. Patiwat 08:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what we had initially. Roger jg 08:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The article still says, "In 2004 less than 12% of households had direct access to the Internet (28% in Bangkok ), though more than 8.4 million users are registered and have access to the Internet at work, school, or in Internet cafés." We should just go with the 12% and 28% figures. The "8.4 million users" figure is not neccesary - it is equivalent to 12.9% of the population, so not significantly different from the 12% figure. The second half of should go. Patiwat 19:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Patiwat's two comments. Also I have to apologize, because I was misreading the report, looking at the figures for computers, which are given by household, instead of the separate section on Internet, which estimates individual users. Patiwat is right that the relevance of these statistics is slight, however Internet access in the context of information about the coup is of particular interest to readers of Wikipedia, among other reasons because it affects how much access Thais and non-Thai residents of Thailand can be expected to have to this article itself. How about the following version: "A government report estimated that in in 2004 Internet users made up less than 12% of of the population nationwide, and 26% in the Bangkok area, and that the average user spent 10-11 hours per week online." David Watson 20:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think hours/week online is that relevant; otherwise we might include hours of tv watched/week as well. How about: "As of 2004 Internet users made up less than 12% of of the population nationwide, and 26% in the Bangkok area." with the government citation located right behind it. Patiwat 23:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the help Roger and Patiwat. David Watson 04:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks David Watson though it should be noted that this figure comes from an online survey. My belief is that there are many more users than that, who did not bother with the survey. It is very hard to count the number of users (contrary to number of registered users). That's for info only. Roger jg 05:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger, I also suspect that the report underestimates Internet access. That is why I have kept harping on this small issue (but maybe not small from a Wikipedian perspective). The current language is unarguably objective, and I do not have another suggestion for fairly capturing the possibility that actual usage is greater. But I remain concerned that the casual reader who is unfamiliar with Thailand and inclined to underestimate its degree of development will be encouraged in that inclination by the 12%/26% figures. Why do you think the report's estimate comes from an online survey? There is mention of an online survey in the introduction, but I read that as related to the information about user habits, not the number of users. However the report overall is very vague about methodology (e.g., "several approaches and methodologies were used"; "full scale IT surveys on household and business establishments"; "a few other mechanisms"). The 8.4m figure at http://www.internetworldstats.com/asia.htmcomes from the CIA, and the CIA site does not detail the sources for its statistics. David Watson 21:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Online survey: That was my undertanding on how they got their figures, but as you said it is very unclear. Sometimes they write registered users, sonetimes only users. Registered users I understand, users not sure... Roger_JG

Numerology

I don't know how this is relevant. However, Sonthi announcement following the coup was not at 9:39. I was sitting in front of my TV and it was around 9:20 and contradicts the Nation's own timeline which say 9:16 am Sonthi holds a press conference. Roger jg 08:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Could your clock be too slow or too fast? ;) Anyway, which date are you referring to? --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 08:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wednesday morning. The day following the coup. My clock is 5 minutes late, that still not enough ;-) Roger jg 09:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant because there has been much debate about why the coup occured when it did, so soon before elections. Until the authoritative history is written, the article from Nation is as good an explanation as any. Verifiability, not Truth, mind you. Patiwat 10:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

but we should then mentionned that the number are rather wrong... Roger jg

i will put it up in a section with the other possible explanation. Hope everybody will be happy with that but it is a bit conjectural. Roger jg 10:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I would add that we are not in the nine month of the Buddhist era ... I believe we are somewhere between Karttikâ & Âsvina the 7 and 8 months. If we base ourself on Songkran, we are in the 5 month after the new year. All of that is a bit far fetched to mee... Should we mentionned that Thaksin allegedly went to Burma recently to visit a famous soothsayer who obviously got it wrong ??? Roger jg 10:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Mention that in the Thaksin Shinawatra article if you like. Patiwat 10:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

i am not sure it is truth or worthy. Roger jg 10:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How to format Day 1, Day 2, Day X sections

Right now, the chronology sections (Day 1, Day 2, etc.) are formatted in a mix of conventional prose and bullet points. A lot of those bullets are single bullets. Prose combined with single bullet points (especially when they contain lots of text) just don't look professional. The purpose of bullet points is to allow individual items in a list of items to be easily identified. Individual bullet should not be mixed with text, unless if there is a clear need to highlight the information in the bullet. That is not the case with the chronology sections.

My suggestion is that the chronology sections should either be long lists composed completely of bullet points, or should not contain any bullet points at all. My preference is the latter. To mix them up like that looks weird. Thoughts? Patiwat 11:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We could work on that. I adopted the follwong convention: when there is a time I used a bullet. No time, no bullet. I think it is important to provide the time for the fist day and for important events. Otherwise it is not that important. Then we can use bullet for all information. I have no objection to that.Roger jg 11:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

PS : I can't find the tinmeline from the Bangkok Post, if you see it please let me know!!! Roger jg 11:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

After cleanup looks much nicer now. Thanks. Patiwat 19:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sections in National Reactions

Who moved the section on "public support" up over the section on "public disapproval"? What is the justification for it? Humanoid 19:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do it, but I think that "public disapproval" should be located next to "public protest". Either "approval" or "disapproval"/"protest" needs to come first; I have no issues with "approval" coming first... Patiwat 20:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I did. the reason being that public support was between public disaproval and public protest. Logically these two sections should be group together as their content is closer to one another. Roger jg 01:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The sections should be ordered in the order such that the sections that readers are most interested in should come first. Readers tend to find conflict much more interesting than agreement. They would therefore be interested in reading about the disapproval and protests, before the support section. Humanoid 20:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure we are here to answer the reader's interest in sensationalism, but to present a coherent and organised views of an historical event. After all, if they only want to read about blood and guts, they can read the subpage about protest only. If we were very honnest, the protest section should be trimmed down to its real importance, but I doubt this will happen here. 58.10.65.49 06:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Pinthongta and London Metropolitan University

I have removed the mention that Thaksin's daughter is studying at London Metropolitan University. The listed citation did not back it up, and I haven't seen anything that links her with that institute. Patiwat 23:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Internet censorship

I have rewritten this section to present more relevant information about Internet censorship. I have kept the 19sep.org info as well as the picture which I believe is a good illustration. I have limited the text to factual information, not adding anything unecessary that could lead to lenghty discussions. I believe saying more would give undue weigth WP:NPOV#Undue weight to the censure of this one website. One must consider that in their very large majority all renowned websites are still up and running and that many bloggers have been able to express their opinions (pro or cons) and note that this information itself is not currently openly stated in the article. However I believe it is not necessary to say it as the facts will speak for themselves.

As a remark, it remains to be proved that the ICT took the TRT website down. For now the link WE make is cicumstamcial. Please no speculation on this point... I also still consider that the info on the constitution should not be in this section but moved back where it was.Roger jg 02:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the draft constitution, where would that belong? Patiwat 03:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

for draft constitution in the CDR section or future gov? For the previous constitution being taken offline in the timeline when it happened. Roger jg 03:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Keeping it short

Overall we should try to limit the content of sections which now have their own page to a minimum. The critics of the charter should be in the charter page for instance. Here we should only say that there are critics. The same goes for the decision of the CDR, the councils and the interim government. We have pages for these. Roger jg 03:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about grammar

What tense should we use? For example "The announcement bans news critical to the junta" vs. "The announcement banned news critical to the junta", or "The charter was similar to the 1991 Constitution" vs. "The charter is similar to the 1991 Constitution".

Present tense if the fact remains true as you speak. The charter is. But for the announcement both are correct though it depends on the context (...), choose one and let's stick to itRoger jg 03:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

thinking again about it (because it is a problem I often encouter in my personal writing) the tense for the charter should be changed when it is replaced by the new one. Then for the announcement, I think "banned" is better because we are writing about an event that has occured in the past. At the time of the announcement, it is correc to say "bans" if you are the speaker, but we are the reporter and we report it later in time so it sounds better to say "On such day at such time the nth annoucement banned", happened in the past but still true. I am not sure to make sense... Roger jg 07:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You see the dillema, don't you? Using the example of the charter, if you change the tense every time a new charter comes up, you're going to be changing the body of an article more often than you should. IMHO, we should write everything as if we were 10 years in the future - everything should be in past tense. Normal encyclopedias aren't written as if they were in the middle of changing events, and neither should we.

Purge

purge is a very strong word associated with more than the mere transfer of military to inactive positions. I invite you to read the Wiki article on purge which provide exemple of historical purge. I'd also point out that the referenced article does not used the word purge but "flush out". Roger jg 06:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, "flush out" is a pretty nasty word as well, reserved for feces.... "Removed" doesn't make it very clear that these people were not transfered as part of the bureaucratic process, but because of a regime change.

Besides, the purge article defines it as "removal of people considered by the group in power to be "undesirable" from a government, political party, a profession, or from community or society as a whole, often by violent means". In the case of Thailand, even though only one individual (the Justice Permanent Secretary) was removed by violent means (he is being detained without charges - essentially he is a political prisoner), it still qualifies as a purge of the civil service. Patiwat 07:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

i think the word is too strong and does not comply with Wiki fairness of tone policy. Most people will think of stalinian purge. Officers have been releived of their function and transfered to inactive position, they are not in jail, they have not been sent to re-education, camp, neither have they been shot dead on the spot. Third opinion welcome Roger jg 09:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like "purge" has been dropped in favor of "initiated the removal from the civil service of people appointed by the Thaksin government," but for what it's worth (Roger asked for a third opinion) I would say any widespread removal of civil servants appointed by a prior regime is a purge, regardless of whether there are additional consequences, unless it is limited to political appointees, that is, the top policymaking jobs in which an incoming government will routinely place its own new appointees. In the US, those appointees are not part of the "civil service." Similarly, with respect to the military, changes beyond what are routine for an incoming administration (I do not think any such changes are routine in Thailand), if widespread and clearly based on a perception of loyalty to the prior regime, can reasonably be called a purge. So I think purge could be fairly used here, though I would not suggest it is any better than the current language. David Watson 21:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you use purges for what happened when Thaksin took power? Should we ask a Wiki Editor? It's really that I think it is a bit disrespectful for those who have been victim of what I would called "real" purges. Roger JG

Interestingly the BBC says "Thaksin military allies sidelined" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5391870.stm Roger jg 04:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

National responses

I have added a new subsection reporting on the reaction of the TRT and its supporters (it was missing). I have reorganise the order in this section according to what I think is most logical: reactions of those who are the most concerned first i.e. those who have been ousted then the people. I have chosen the support first and protest after since it reflect the general reaction (please no debate). Also it allows to alternate and balance this section of the article. Please note that I was able to introduce the so controversial woman without POV. I would like to forestall all discussion about Thaksin populist policies: They were; not only by definition but also as recognised by academics and economists. I am looking for a reference regarding grass root organisation, but someone might be able to help. What happened to the Caravan of the Poor for instance? Roger jg 09:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The way you've phrased it seems fair so far. I don't think this section should be expanded too much though, because I can imagine that it would be very hard to clearly say what should be included and what should not be included, especially if people start getting more vocal. Patiwat 09:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I though the reaction should be prersented. That's the best we have and I believe it does reflect the situation: 1 where is the TRT 2, those who think it's over, 3 those who will still run election, 4 the grass-roots suporters.Roger jg 11:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving time?

Any objection? Apart for where is my house in the map ? ;-) Roger jg 11:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Phrasing of intro to censorship section

The introduction to the "Restrictions on human rights and freedom of expression" section does two things. 1) It establishes context for the reader by stating market share of various media, and 2) It summarizes the content of the section. The summary will be, by nature, redundant. But it should also be fair and balanced. Right now, it says "The junta imposed censorship on television on the first day of the coup. However, no newspaper publications were suppressed and censorship of the Internet did not start until several days after the coup."

This implies to me that TV censorship ceased after day two, and there was little to now censorship of other media for the few few days. This is misrepresentative of the actual situation, in which TV did not show any footage of anti-coup demonstrations.

I'd suggest a slight addition (changes in italics): "The junta imposed censorship on television on the first day of the coup and did not allow anti-coup demnstrations to be broadcasted. However, no newspaper publications were suppressed and censorship of the Internet did not start until several days after the coup." I believe that this reasonably gives additional weight to TV, which is important since TV is by far the most dominant media in Thailand. Patiwat 18:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should not get into this level of details or we would have to give every kind of details about what was not allowed in the intro. Make it more general: "The junta imposed and maintained censorship on television broadcasting from the first day of the coup. However, no newspaper publications were suppressed and censorship of the Internet did not start until several days after the coup." Details of what was allowed or not is in the relevant section. Roger_JG (Sorry not logged in)

Midnight University Closed Down

from http://www.nokkrob.org/index.php?&obj=forum.view(cat_id=nk_live,id=6)

Around 20:00, 27 Sep 2006, local time, Midnight University website, http://www.midnightuniv.org/ , a Thai website that offers free access to academic articles on Natural, Social, and Human Sciences, with a forum where discussions were largely towards current issues, politics or history, has been CLOSED down by the order of Ministry of ICT, Thailand. WITHOUT any notice or reason

-- 88.73.140.104 10:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edited out soapbox message that has no place here]-- 88.73.140.104 10:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Roger jg 03:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That's ironic: Mmidnight University was very vocally anti-Thaksin. This will be the first censorship of a major internet/academic website. I'll wait until a solid english-language reference reports this before putting it in the article though. If you want this news to appear sooner, then just tell all of your friends in the media to file articles on the closure. Patiwat 10:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Nation just reported on it, and it has been updated on the article. If there is an english-language petition, it should also be posted onto the petitions section. Patiwat 23:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the first time that the Midnight University has caught the wrath of authorities, I believe they've been warned and blocked before. If you insist, I will try to search for past reports. The open discussion about topics relating to the monarchy ensures that the site's watched closely, no matter who's in power. Tettyan 00:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The ICT said not being aware of this. But that's what they say. Will we know more? And how? Roger jg 03:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Was the 15 October election officially postponed?

Someone noted in the intro that the 15 October election was postponed, citing a Reuters source dated September 19 which said "A general election scheduled for October was postponed last week, probably until November."

This surprised me - I had heard rumors and discussion and statements saying the elections would probably be postponed, but I never actually saw an official anouncement of the postponement. The way the Reuters source was phrased is very fluffy. Who the heck postpones something and then sets a new date "probably" in November? You'd think that if the EC were going to postpone it, they would give a firm new date.

On the 19th (a Tuesday), "last week" would have been 11-15 September. Reading through articles written from 11-18 September, I see no official announcements that the election was postponed. The latest article I see on this is from 15 September, which states "The newly selected chairman of the Election Commission, Apichat Sukhaggananda, also said the EC is likely to postpone the date for the upcoming election by one month." [5] Again, this is not an official postponement. I don't consider what I'm doing to be original research - I consider this as trying to identify the best quality reference by triangulating the information with other references.

Given the questionable quality of the reference cited for the postponement claim, I think that the intro should be reworded back to its original form: "[The coup] occurred less than a month before elections were originally scheduled to be held. The military cancelled the upcoming elections, suspended the Constitution,..." Patiwat 10:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

red links removed

I just went through the entire article and removed all the red wiki links. There was no point in keeping them. dposse 20:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, several of those links are to people with articles. They turned up red due to alternative transliterations of their names. Patiwat 02:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If you feel like fixing all of them, then be my guest. dposse 15:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)