Talk:Nana Plaza

Meaning of "Nana" (Thai: นานา)

Thanks to Lerdsuwa for the March 20 revert. "Nana" does not mean "fantasy". It means "various, diverse, several", and is used in conjunction with other noun or root words. For example: "Nanachat" means "international" (as in "various nationalities"). "Nana jit dang" (Thai: นานาจิตตัง) means (idiomatically) "Different men, different minds", which might be translated colloquially in American English as "To each his own". The Thai word for "fantasy" is usually expressed as จินตนาการ (as in "imagination") - Thaimoss 23:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Thaimoss just removed my link to a page containing further information on the Plaza and reviews/details of every bar. No sense in starting an edit war, but why is that considered spam?

He also removed the Big Mango bar link that was there before I made my edits. I guess a bar's website promotes that bar by definition, but I'd personally consider it relevant.

Basically I guess I'm asking where the linking policy is defined, if at all. Obviously some people have strong opinions on these kind of articles, but if Nana Plaza merits a page, surely supplying relevant information should be encouraged? (this thread was added by [[[User:124.120.151.201|124.120.151.201]] 14:46 May 5, 2007)

From my perspective, I think you answered your first question, with the observation you made in your second paragraph. The policy you're looking for is Manual of Style:External Links, and in particular the sections, What should be linked, Links to be considered, and Links normally to be avoided. There are a large handful of sites that continually attract irrelevant, commercial/promotional, or tangentially-related external links; Nana Plaza is just one. Please have a look at the External Links style page, and based on what you read there, let me know what you think. - Thaimoss 13:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Okay, I'm with you on the bar website. But "What should be linked" in the style guide suggests "[s]ites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons", which one could argue describes the bangkokbadboy link. That guide also suggests "[s]ites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews". - 124.120.145.57 08:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There was another typical nasty comment from this wanker that was removed. Can someone please just troll the fuck out of this guy? He's done it enough to us. --LordNecronus (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation request

Haven't the Rainbow group been somewhat Japanese-oriented since around 2001, maybe earlier? If so, the expansion of their bars might count... perhaps someone (or if I get more time I can) can dig up an archived Stickman weekly (or going back far enough, even a Trink article) discussing the rainbows... mr_Handy 05:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

re: User:Maohui77

Your continuous addition of heavily biased and defamatory material - including wrong citing of sources - to this article will be reverted on sight. If you wish to contribute to wikipedia, you need to understand that a) we adhere to a Neutral Point of View b) cite only correctly c) do not defame/ insult the subjects of our articles and d) do not speculate.

1. The top floor Cascades Bar is a typical "ladyboy" bar - a long dark space staffed by men dressed as women. A real freak show not for a faint of heart. - "freak show" is your personal view, it is insulting and inappropriate to be used on wikipedia; "not for a faint of heart" is again your personal view and a judgment that is unencyclopedic. Also: what constitutes "a typical "ladyboy" bar" is specualtive.
2. Majority of male-to-male commercial sex workers in Thailand are believed to be HIV positive[1][2]. this is a deliberate wrong citing of sources - source 1: The Nation; Anti-Aids campaign to focus on gay men says: "The rate of infection among MSM surveyed in Bangkok surged from 17 per cent in 2003 to 28 per cent last year, van Griensven said." (MSM includes all! men enganing in sex with other men, not just sex workers) and source 2: The Nation; HIV prevention forgotten, 'now verging on crisis' does not even mention gay men - therefore your sentence is pure fabrication!
3. Use of yabba (yaba - Thai meth) is also common among this group of population[3] and again the source you cite does not mention anything about the use of Yaba in this group of the Thai population
4. The use of yabba and lack of police enforcement make these creatures very aggressive. They do not hesitate to assault and rob an unsuspected visitor, and will attack 'en masse' anybody who simply passes by[4] and yet again the source you give does not back your claim up... once again you invented yourself a statement - this is a clear violation of NPOV and blatant lying with the intent to defame; also your use of "creatures" in this lines show your bad faith/derogatory editing.
5. The local police rarely investigate reports of crimes against tourists. Yet, having a quick look at one page of one the sources you give I find 5 articles! dealing with police investigating crimes against tourists.
6. Nana Plaza has only one narrow exit and is a real firetrap. Chances for escaping fire from any of upper floor joints will be minimal at best. and that is yet again your personal speculation.

To sum it all up: your additions to this article have so far been in bad faith, derogatory, false, invented and are therefore unacceptable. Either you add well sourced, neutrally written and unbiased material to wikipedia or you will be blocked. noclador (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of references

Copy of a discussion previously held on User talk:John B123#Nana Plaza regarding the repeated removal of references from this article:

“ I thought I'd better draw your attention to the Nana Plaza article, specifically to an editor who has today removed the additions that you made to the article on 25 March 2018, describing them as "countless inacurate references and spam links." I had a similar experience on 8 December 2016 when the same editor removed numerous content and citation additions I had made (including one sourced from the Daily Telegraph) because they were "spam links". A look at the editor's account indicates that this is the only article it has ever been used to edit. I am not aware of any specific policy the editor has violated, but at the very least the approach used by the editor is responsible for the fact that the article has currently no citations. I suppose if this editor's approach is correct, the obvious question is whether the article is WP:NOTABLE if it cannot be sourced with anything other than "spam links". What do you think?

Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Polly Tunnel: - Hi. I'm not sure what the object of that edit was really. It simply removed the references but left the content untouched. If the links were "inaccurate references and spam links", then I would have expected the content to be changed to remove the inaccuracies/spam. Looking back at the edits he made to the content you added, it seems that anything he doesn't like, or doesn't agree with his personal view he deletes. In my view Nana Plaza is WP:NOTABLE and whilst the sources may not be the best, they seem to be ok under WP:RS. I'm inclined to revert his edits. Thanks, John -John B123 (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this editor's deletions could do with being reverted. They may object, of course, as it seems to be their only article and they behave as if they WP:OWN it. Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Polly Tunnel: Thanks. I'll also look at reinstating the previous deletions of your edits on Nana Plaza . --John B123 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Polly Tunnel: Hi. The references have been removed again by the same editor. I have reverted his edit. Cheers --John B123 (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@John B123: Thanks. I thought something like that might happen. I notice that the editor's edit summary said: "Another round of spam culled. If user John B123 continues to undo justified edits removing spam he will be reported to admin for violation of Wiki T&Cs/guidelines." The editor does not appear to have used WP:ANI before (unless using a different account or as IP) but does appear to have heard of the process. I expect the intended argument would be a strict interpretation of what constitutes a WP:RS and hence that all of the deletion should stand. Of course, the logical extension of that argument is that what the editor has left in should also be removed and that the subject is unverifiable and should not have an article. The most obvious parallel counter-argument to this editor's behaviour is WP:OWN, and the editor could potentially be reported for that or given an ownership WP:WARNING on his/her user talk page.

The qualification in your edit summary "...as previously discussed with other editors" reminded me that the discussion here is unlikely to have been seen by this editor. If there is an expectation that the editor will make a complaint against you then it might be helpful to move this discussion to the article's talk page. That way any third party will be able to see that the editor had read your arguments. It appears that this article has a history of creating disagreement over sourcing. The article's talk page has discussions dating back to about a decade ago on the subject of whether the addition of certain content and sources was justified or not. However, this editor does not appear to have been involved in those discussions – the first edit listed for the editor was in 2016. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

”

Do any other editors have any thoughts about this? --John B123 (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Examining each of the references in the article, Central Information Services, LLC seems rather questionable as a publisher. Overseasattractions.com accepts user-contributed content, and it isn't clear what their editorial policies are, so probably can't be regarded as a reliable source. Barnewsbangkok appears self-published. So is Bangkokredeye.com. Andrew Drummond is a well known underground journalist, but his writings need to be taken with a grain of salt. The Ieconomics.com link is dead. And I can't quite work out what Deranged-society.com is about. User:BeenToBangkok's wholesale removal of citations is clearly non-constructive, though, and I've warned them. If this continues and they refuse to engage in discussion, report them to WP:AIV. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Paul 012: Hi, thanks for your input. Moving forward, as pointed out above, without reliable sources to verify the content and show notability of the subject, is this article a candidate for deletion? --John B123 (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think AfD is warranted. The Bangkok.com and What's On Sukhumvit references are fine, and there are likely more reliable sources to be found as well. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, it's always useful to get an uninvolved editors opinion. --John B123 (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I have again reverted BeenToBangkok's removal of the references. --John B123 (talk) 08:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)