Jump to content

Talk:United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

The article says "famed for it's peaceful protests" this is questionable. UDD and PAD are both violent, and both carry out attacks on each other. I think that should be changed. It also says "protesting the military and Monarchy" Im sure they are not protesting the monarchy, that statement is 100% wrong. Capt Flash —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

"UDD" sounds like "อยู่ ดี ๆ" to be okay, to be just fine; is that just a coincidence? Pawyilee (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia ought to have someone to check on this page.... I mean this is not the truth of what really happened in Bangkok!!! I'll definitely find some infos and re-edit this one.

This page is continuily being sabotaged by IvyKing.

Regardless of my own opinion on this topic, this page is heavily biased. --Andrewginger (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, the clash between UDD and PAD is at the Government's House(PAD's base by that time) so it's UDD who charges the PAD not vice versa

Bias

[edit]

This page is biased and includes unsourced statements. Major Thai newspapers such as TheNation or BangkokPost are also biased. Where possible, more independent sources such as the BBC, NYTimes or Associated Press should be used.

I have made some edits to try to remove unsourced material or phrases that assume bad faith, such as the term "anti-government. With the amount of political change in thailand over the past 3 years, it is not clear who the government is that these people are protesting... is it thaksin, the military, the courts, the king, PAD, the yellow shirts, the red shirts? Also, not every protestor wearing a colored shirt represents the views of an official political party such as UDD. Ddave2425 (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)ddave2425[reply]

Do you live in Bangkok? The Bangkok Post prints a variety of editorial and signed pieces (mostly by Thai journalists) from all political perspectives. Perhaps you could provide some evidence to support your accusation of bias. Until then, The Bangkok Post should be considered as a bona fide source. The BBC and CNN, on the other hand, were both biased in favour of the UDD/Redshirts in their reporting of the attempted armed insurrection in 2010. The evidence for this is in the footage shown around the world.Sushisurprise (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009 Protest has serious POV problems and distorted facts

[edit]

(( I since the article's section seems to be copied from there to here as well, I'll just copied my statement from that page for you to see. It's from 2008-2009 political crisis discussion page Talk:2008-2009 Thai political crisis Please MAKE DISCUSSIONS THERE, NOT HERE ))

( Actually, I didn't put on this article's NPOV, it's already there...)

For the most blatant act of twisting the fact from a citation (that was originally negative for the protesters) and make it into a misleading statement that shed a different light, making the military seems so cruel (which is false in this particular incident), go see my discussion in the Abhisit wiki talk page here: Talk:Abhisit_Vejjajiva ,first section. (The other guy there read it and says 'Indeed Patiwat, you have clearly cherry picked the information in that source to skew the reading of the incident' .. oops.. did I just mentioned the writer's name?)

The reason I cited it is becuase.. the exact same paragraphs is COPIED from there to this article! (no doubt by the same writer) And the problem is, I don't know how much more misrepresentation there is, especially a sensitive article written from a guy who has make thousands of edits on Thaksin's article (where many guys there mention POV problems in the article... see its discussion) And I'm not here all the time to check on an added POV statements unlike some writers who can professionally respond to a partially biased facts within 1 business days.(see history on Thaksin's page)

Therefore, I'm putting up a NPOV tag until all distortet facts (meaning lies) like the one I mentioned is resolved. I hope that all fair writers here can help check on the neutrality of the pages and preventing the wiki from becoming politically-biases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donny TH (talk • contribs) 14:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I'd like to asked for your permission to move discussion to the other page.)


Who do the red shirts want to be prime minister? What about Jakkapon and jatukarn are they with the UDD?180.180.106.83 (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CPT and UDD

[edit]

Some members (former member communist party of Thailand) were also trying to overthrow Government between 1950s - 1970s. Can we have a source for this? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Khone Ammat"

[edit]

Who chased Khone Ammat out of the article, and why? --Pawyilee (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Suitsyou did, citing bias and poor grammar.
Khone Ammat คนอำมาตย์ Literally, courtier: ข้าราชการ, ข้าเฝ้า; ที่ปรืกษา; แผลงมาจาก อมาตย์. ref> http://rirs3.royin.go.th/dictionary.asp

--Pawyilee (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abhisit's ancestor who was awarded palace name ๔๘๘๑ เวชชาชีวะ Vejjajiva held the rank of Rong Ammat 3rd Class (รองอำมาตย์ตรี), a former para-military rank equal to sublieutenant. Ammat is supposed to be the abhisit of prai (Thai: ไพร่ -- plain commoner) that falls under the lowly rank of Nai.
Khon Ammat and Prai have taken refuge at Thai honorifics - Other. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Color of shirts

[edit]

Why are their shirts red, anyway? (And why was another protest group using yellow shirts?) 192.12.88.7 (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had been wondering about that, since redshirted crowds are pretty common at Rutgers University events, as scarlet is the school color. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, so as to use proper capitalization and remove "national", which is not commonly included in the name (confirmed by a Google News search). Ucucha 06:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship → United front for Democracy against Dictatorship — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name used on their webpage is "United front for Democracy against Dictatorship", and I think that the page should be moved there. Alternatively, due to the Western media's common inclusion of "National" in the name, it could be moved to National United front for Democracy against Dictatorship. 75.154.92.156 (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Terrorist group

[edit]

Is the UDD really a "terrorist group" as the infobox says it is? While I can see how one might construe some of their actions as terrorism, they are clearly not representative of what one generally thinks of as terrorists. If we call the Red Shirts terrorists, we might as well call the Yellow Shirts terrorists, as well as every other direct action or paramilitary group. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 00:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between inciting violence for change and terrorism. If we are going going to define the Red Shirts because they are trying to threaten the rich or powerful, then, again, surely the Yellow Shirts would be terrorists are well? I don't see why either should be called terrorists; they are not trying to sway public opinion or even to scare the public (at least permanently). hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 14:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me the PAD is the real terrorism, but the UDD I think there aren't because no evidence that the explosion came from them. The government call them as terrorism because the UDD anti them, This is my opinion. --KungDekZa (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you name you are thai คุงเด็กซ่า. I think you are not have natural point of view. I think i have but i don't know maybe i don't have it too. PAD protesting softer that UDD. That mean you think PAD is terrorist you must think UDD is terrorist too. but heard in trustful news source UDD leader ordering a protester to arsoning. Don't you heard that? It's on every thai free TV and some Online newspapers. Vandalism is it not crime or terrorist? you can call them both "terrorist" but i think UDD still terrorist. You can choose put it in infobox or not i think i don't have NPOV but i try to have them (Maybe I discussing in influenece that angry status).--112.142.119.194 (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone, let's keep our opinions to ourselves and stick to what reliable sources say. While the government has used the term terrorist many times to describe attacks against soldiers and civilians, they have not been explicitly linked to the Red Shirt movement itself. It could be mentioned that some have claimed that the described terrorists are part of the Red Shirts, but citations to reliable sources are needed first. --118.173.145.55 (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leader order to looting Central World, Turn bangkok to sea of fire, destroy mosque, Temple, Church, Siriraj Hospital (That His Majesty live is in there in this time) and said they have unknow force to support, they order every one to make Molotov Cocktel, order to burn Provices City hall. This is Government Said and Government can impound a lot of heavy weapons and ammunations I don't know you will going to trust Government if you are red you will belive that government blame you and you think red shirt are peaceful innocent protester. I will find some more trustful News source. This time you will trust government or not--112.142.119.194 (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UDD group doesn't have heavy weapon on its own. However, they do have the support from the black shirt group. The UDD's leaders know this well, Taksin hire the black shirt to do the job, shooting and burning. The UDD's leaders order the prodesters to burn the city just before they turned themselve in. The evidents are there on the youtube, it is clearly that they are not fake videoes made by the government to foll the citicen. The videoes are recorded from the UDD own Red TV. The heavy weapons that are found by the soilders are not fake, they have news reporters following them when they did the search. The weapons are in the red's camp area, if the normal protesters did not know this, the UDD leaders known this. Just think, the red guards search every bags. How can they let the weapons in? This only mean the UDD leaders themselve known of the play and the black shirt and let them in. ANY OBJECTION? -- By a Thai citicen.

While there were fringe groups within the Red Shirt movement that support violent tactics, including those that happened during the April-May 2010 protest, they are not the majority. Most of the protesters were peaceful, as seen in the September and October series of protests, where ten thousands protester did nothing but shutting down roads and dancing/praying/remembering their fallen comrade for a few hours before dispersing. Maybe it's time to write about this new movement and the new red leaderships as well. Anyway, I'm removing the terrorist designation until the majority of the movement supports it. -- DTRY (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thaksin Shinawatra and the PT/UDD organisers have all along been very careful to avoid any proveable connection with the more violent of their people. There is a possibility that an armed group linked to the Redshirts was at work during last year's troubles, but as the government inquiry has yet to make its report known, there is as yet no proven link. Certainly there was terrorism at work, witness the burning of Centralworld, but those charged with terrorism have yet to be brought to trial.Sushisurprise (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DRsY_iX-y5U/S7yarK3rrpI/AAAAAAAATGw/TklhkFRKdHg/s1600/10.jpg They have warfare,They are terrorists! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.87.186.68 (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Separated "Red Shirts" article?

[edit]

At least as of 2011, it is clear that "Red Shirts" is a more general term and include more than just UDD. There are groups like Red Siam, Red Sunday, and regional groups that although still loosely associated with UDD, they have their own agenda and movement. -- 180.183.144.131 (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is more apparent in 2016 that UDD ceased its activity. While "Red Shirts" as an "ideology" or popular movement is still carrying on, although with difficulties under the Junta regime. I suggest to seperate UDD (a large fragtion of Red Shirts) from Red Shirts. -- Bact (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Camarilla inappropriate

[edit]

Spanish Camarilla corresponds Thai อำมาต who support Yellow Shirts and oppose the Reds. I would suggest "clique," but it doesn't seem to be derogatory enough.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Front_for_Democracy_Against_Dictatorship&oldid=1204822193"