m Signing comment by 76.122.99.157 - "→A hoax?: " |
Xenobot Mk V (talk | contribs) m Bot) Tagging for WP:ECON: inherit class from other projects, (Plugin++) Added {{WikiProject Economics}} |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes| |
|||
{{WPBiography |
{{WPBiography |
||
|living=yes |
|living=yes |
||
Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
{{WikiProject University of Oxford|class=C|auto=inherit|importance=}} |
{{WikiProject University of Oxford|class=C|auto=inherit|importance=}} |
||
{{WikiProject Thailand|class=C|importance=High}} |
{{WikiProject Thailand|class=C|importance=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject Economics|class=C|auto=inherit|importance=}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{FailedGA|16:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)|topic=|page=}} |
{{FailedGA|16:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)|topic=|page=}} |
||
{{ITNtalk|15 December|2008}} |
{{ITNtalk|15 December|2008}} |
Revision as of 23:26, 8 May 2010
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Involvement in solving the red shirt protest
Excuse me, but it seems that the red-shirt protesters has move the front from the street to here on Wikipedia. Look at the sentence : In a pre-dawn raid on Monday April 13, Thai soldiers in full combat gear used tear gas and fired live rounds and training rounds from automatic weapons to clear protesters from the Din Daeng intersection near the Victory Monument in central Bangkok, injuring at least 70 people.[92] [93] The Army later claimed that live rounds were only fired into the air while training rounds were fired at the crowd. Human Rights Watch later confirmed that live ammunition was fired directly at protesters.[94]
The sentence quite jumped at me. Then, when I go see the citation... What the !@#? The Human rights watch group just says:
Mr Thaksin's "red shirt" followers, who claim the four month old government is illegitimate, "attacked approaching soldiers with guns, Molotov bombs, improvised grenades, slingshots, and rocks", the New York based group said. The group praised the restraint shown by most soldiers but said there were cases where live ammunition was fired directly at protesters.
What the clearly-red-shirt wikipedia writer (whose name starts with a 'P') reported is blatantly false and misleading. Please consider action on this false writer's statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donny TH (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed Patiwat, you have clearly cherry picked the information in that source to skew the reading of the incident. For sure, the army lied about firing live ammunition, but Human Rights Watch's depiction of these "protesters" is completely lost. The article portrayed an image of the army firing on unarmed protesters. Given the source, this is clearly a misrepresentation of the facts.
- Much of the material does not belong on this article anyway. We don't need such a level of detail in Vejjajiva's biography.
- The "Songkran unrest" section is clearly focused on a pro-red shirt perspective. Sentences such as "At least one UDD protester died from gunshot wounds sustained during the military's attack in Din Daeng, although the Army claimed the wound was not caused by their standard firearm." lead the reader to the assumption that the army is lying, without explicitly saying so. The entire paragraph does not mention one instance of "red shirt" violence apart from the half-hearted effort sentence of "Abhisit aide Satit Wongnontaey claimed that two government supporters were shot dead by red shirted protesters in clashes in Din Daeng".
- I understand this is a case in which emotions are heightened but it is simply false to portray the conflict as the government and Army launching an assault on non-violent red-shirts. (You cannot read that section and come out with any other impression). If this POV approach continues to be used I will seek dispute resolution. I'm applying the POV tag now. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've corrected your grammatical errors in the article.
- Stop making personal attacks. I'm not a red shirt, but my political affiliation is NOT relevant to this discussion or this article.
- This is an article about Abhisit. Abhisit has categorically defended the Army in its denial that the military shot live rounds at protesters. Reputable third party observers have effectively called the Army liar, and this reflects on Abhisit's leadership. This is the hardest test of his leadership to date, and this material DOES belong in the biographical article. Patiwat (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have yet to see official confirmation (i.e., not made by a politician) that the 2 Din Daeng deaths were caused by UDD supporters. So far, every media source I've seen seems to quote or use Sathit as their source. Nobody has been charged with murder yet. Strangely, I haven't seen any news about the deaths being formally investigated. Murder is a serious charge, and this article should not be stating that murder has occurred as a matter of fact when all we have is a politicians' accusations. Patiwat (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Again, this is an article about Abhisit. If you have something positive to say about Abhisit and think that it adds to the NPOV of the article, then go ahead and find a reference and put it in the article. But note that "positive about Abhisit" does NOT always equate to "negative about Abhisit's opponents." Patiwat (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Let's take a deep breath and think about what content should appear in this biographical article.
- SHOULD: Thaksin's accusations that Privy Councilor members Surayud Chulanont and Chanchai Likhitjittha conspired with the military to give Abhisit the Premiership, and Abhisit's denials.
- SHOULD: How the Pattaya security forces responded to Abhisit's orders to defend the ASEAN conference, and the cancellation of said conference.
- SHOULD: Abhisit's declaration of a state of emergency in Chonburi, and criticisms of the state of emergency.
- SHOULD: The general situation in Bangkok as tensions escalated. Abhisit's response (his declaration of another state of emergency, his declaration that protesters were "national enemies", his censorship decrees)
- SHOULD: What Abhisit ordered the Army to do, and what the Army actually did. Abhisit's response to what the Army did. Abhisit's response to criticisms of what the Army did. Abhisit's acts of censorship, and criticism therin. The outcome, and the revocation of Thaksin's passport (the Council of State has declared that this is a political decision, not a bureaucratic one).
- SHOULD: The final toll. Injuries, and breakdown. Claimed deaths, and criticisms and rebuttals of said claims. Economic damages.
- WHO KNOWS: Sondhi's "assassination." Abhisit hasn't made any noteworthy statements about this very important incident yet. But things might escalate, given that Sondhi's son has made veiled accusations that some cliques in Abhisit's government of being behind it. Patiwat (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- My principal concern is that this material should be summarised. Is there not an article which relates to the 2009 Bangkok riots or similar? There are plenty of sources to write this and the points most pertinent to Vejjajiva can be summarised here with a link the the main article in the form of a hatnote.
- Please note Patiwat that I never implied that Abhisit was the greatest guy ever. Nevertheless, you must realise the implications of placing the following information on the article:
- "Sondhi Limthongkul, leader of the Peoples Alliance for Democracy, was shot early in the morning of 17 April 2009. Gunmen firing M-16 rifles sprayed Sondhi’s car, wounding Sondhi and seriously wounding his driver.[106]"
- Mentioning it in this place suggests that Abhisit is somehow involved which has no verifiable basis. I think this is more a case of misplaced information than anything else. You seem very eager to contribute Patiwat and I'd be delighted to see you move and expand this information at 2009 Bangkok riots or similar, while summarising the most Abhisit-related points about it here. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- You want to make that article, go ahead. But I'd rather not start the argument about whether to call what happened riots, unrest, violence, revolution, civil war or whatever, given that the media doesn't seem to have come up with a well-accepted name for the incidents yet. And trust me, anything other than "unrest" WILL spark disagreement.
- I'm fine with removing any references any to the Sondhi shooting until Abhisit makes a notable statement or until the PAD comes out with firmer accusations.Patiwat (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think 2009 Bangkok protests could convey the meaning and situation without any POV: there clearly were protests, no one is doubting that. I can see your point regarding what consists or doesn't consist of a "riot". I've had those kind of arguments before and they bore me to tears. I have no intention of starting the article because it's a topic I know little about and brief stubs can quickly become thousands of unreferenced words on topics such as this. I think it's a valid article if anyone decides to take it up. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 23:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- The protests that led to the 2008 airport seizures didn't warrant their own article and they occurred over weeks and had even larger political and economic repercussions. I therefore don't think the recent incidents warrant their own article. Besides, the two are closely linked: the perceived "double standard" was a major source of UDD frustration and anger.
- But even if the recent incidents did warrant their own article, I would NOT call it the "2009 Bangkok riots". Because that ignores what happened in Pattaya. And because given the way the situation ended (with military force and a non-reconciliatory approach), there will almost surely be further anti-government protests this year. Patiwat (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Trivia
Someone deleted two notes of trivia in the "Trivia" section. The first noted that Abhisit was an avid football fan. The second noted that Abhisit liked rock music, namely R.E.M.]. These are both taken from Abhisit's personal biography page. I'd argue that in a wikipedia biographical article, trivia like this serves some purpose, namely shedding light on Abhisit's personal character and demographics. While many older Thai politicians gain patronage from sponsoring Muay Thai matches and like to karaoke to Suntharaphorn and other 50's singers, Abhisit is relatively young, and his hobbies and interests reflect that youth. Patiwat 20:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
If matters are considered important, they should go in the body of the article. "Trivia" is by definition trivial and therefore unencyclopaedic. Adam 04:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Ancestry
How many generations do people of Chinese ancestry have to live in Thailand before they stop being "Thai-Chinese"? Most of the Thai upper and middle classes have some Chinese ancestry, since the two communities have freely intermarried in urban areas for more than a century. I think it is inherently racist, and intentionally so, to tag people as "Thai-Chinese" when they are fouth-generation Thais, and thoroughly Thai in culture and upbringing. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, apparently there are those who think these things stay important for centuries. But whatever they were, the early Vejjajivas were fantastically long-lived, or amazingly slow breeders: from the 18th Century to 1964 in three generations! If the first Vejjajiva became prominent in 1799 at the age of 20, he, his son and grandson were all fathering kids at an average age of 62. Unless the family somehow turned Chinese after they became prominent...David K (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- It depends on whether a given individual (or generation) is trying to hide ancestry, or flaunt it, or decides to make a claim to it, or can or can't live up to its standards. When flaunted, or just claimed, it is as much about ancestral memes as it is about genes. The Thai Chinese that I know flaunt it, otherwise, I wouldn't know that they're Thai Chinese (unless I see them eating: Thai Chinese table manners differ markedly.) Having never been to China, I don't know how the Chinese regard them (but suspect it is directly proportional to how much money they have, rather than their pedigree.) Racism works entirely differently in Asia than it does in societies in a snit about racism. Here, it amounts to maneuvers for economic advantage. What is it about where you are? Pawyilee (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the Thai Royal Family is founded by a Chinese. 86.136.143.199 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the Chinese who settle down in other countries do not assimiliate/intergrate well, but rather stick to their own roots. If they live in new country - especially if they're born in new country - they should live like local people. Yet they don't. So it is fair to call them Chinese. This applies to Chinese in Malaysia, Indonesia or the Philippines too. They are the ones who cause other people to call them Chinese. Bunio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.129.8.205 (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Image
If anyone wants an image for this article there is one at the Irish Wikipedia[1] RoyalMate1 23:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- And Thai Wikipedia. But one's about to be deleted whilde the other claims GDFL. Pawyilee (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Meaning of Abhisit
I have deleted the statement that "Abhisit" means "privilege" in Thai since it comes from a highly anti-Abhisit website. Can someone confirm or refute this statement? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would rather say the meaning of a person's first name is irrelevant information in a biography. Let's leave it to the geomancers. −woodstone (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- From on-line dictionaries:
http://www.thai-language.com/dict/
- 1.อภิสิทธิ์ noun privilege; monopoly; exclusive right
- 2.อภิสิทธิ์ชน noun a privileged person
- 3.อภิสิทธิ์ชน noun the privileged class
http://www.thai2english.com/dictionary/22000.html
- อภิสิทธิ์ [N] privilege ; prerogative
http://rirs3.royin.go.th/dictionary.asp
- อภิ คําประกอบหน้าศัพท์ที่มาจากภาษาบาลีและสันสกฤต มีความหมายว่า ยิ่ง, วิเศษ, เหนือ, เช่น อภิรมย์ = ยินดียิ่ง, อภิญญาณ = ความรู้วิเศษ, อภิมนุษย์ = มนุษย์ที่เหนือ มนุษย์ทั้งหลาย. (ป.)
- สิทธิ, สิทธิ์ [สิดทิ, สิด] น. อำนาจอันชอบธรรม เช่น บุคคลมีสิทธิและ หน้าที่ตามรัฐธรรมนูญ เขามีสิทธิ์ในที่ดินแปลงนี้. (ป., ส.); (กฎ) อํานาจที่จะกระทําการใด ๆ ได้อย่างอิสระ โดยได้รับการรับรองจากกฎหมาย. (อ. right).
Pawyilee (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- From my wife: บเป็นอย่าง
- My opinion: Were he Thai, then, in all likelihood, a fortuneteller bestowed it upon him, not his parents. Even though he is not Thai, it is still likely—in my opinion, of course. As for the geomancers, I'd rather that they puzzle out why it sounds like opposite, in English. Pawyilee (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean "Were he Thai"? He is a Thai citizen, his parents are Thai, his grandparents were Thai. As I have asked before, how many generations do people have to live in Thailand before they become Thai? In any other country this would be regarded as gross racism. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- You just don't get it, do you? This is not any other country, and I don't think you could support that claim, anyhow—certainly not anywhere in Asia or Africa. As for how many generations, that depends entirely upon how well they conserve their memes, not their genes. And as for PM Abhisit, he is Thai via a pseudo-relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation or loyalty, but only because a fascist dictator imposed on Siam the name of a race (classification of human beings). As for my wife's comment of บเป็นอย่าง, it clearly identifies her as not of the Thai people, but of the Isan (Lao). She said it last night when she was sleepy, but this morning she's wide awake and says what sounds to an English-tuned ear like, "Chan my! chope opposite, kowjy my?" As she didn't put nayoke or any other titular reference before opposite to change this noun into a name, that translates to: "I don't like privilege, understand?" Pawyilee (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean "Were he Thai"? He is a Thai citizen, his parents are Thai, his grandparents were Thai. As I have asked before, how many generations do people have to live in Thailand before they become Thai? In any other country this would be regarded as gross racism. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Aphisit or [abhisiddhi] Error: {{Transliteration}}: unrecognized language / script code: iast (help) does mean privilege, but as woodstone says, the place for such discussion is not in a biographical article. You don't see discussion on Saint George the dragon slayer on the George W. Bush page.
-
- The Saint-George meme has no relevance to GWB, nor to Georgia (the U.S. State), but it is relevant to Georgia (the country.) Besides, it is not customary to refer to an American by his given, but his family name. The relevant meme in his case is the Flaming Bush that lured a nation into be-wilderness. Pawyilee (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- And on the bickering about Thainess, it seems that we are discussing different things. In Thailand such descriptions refer first and foremost to nationality, with ethnicity coming second. A Thai national of Chinese ethnicity would refer to him/herself as คนไทยเชื้อสายจีน, a "Thai person of Chinese descent", and most likely not as คนจีน or "Chinese person", which would imply that he/she does not have Thai citizenship. Your wife may have Lao ancestry and practice the customs of the Lao people, but the mainstream school of thought in Thailand would still identify her by her Thai nationality. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, she's not a citizen of Thailand, but a subject of the King of the Kingdom of Thailand, though I know few speak that strictly, anymore (though some still did when I was a child 60-some years ago.) And she's Isan/Lao in the same sense that Nang Ai Kham was "the genuine article": her father was Kom, and my wife's grandfather was of the Gomena's of Gujarat. Both he and his father were still alive when she was a child. Bu-tuat went home to die in his homeland, but Bu took the family name Phasuk from his employer, became a Buddhist and a subject of the King. I don't know how that was done, and despair of ever finding out. But the Gomena clan is not Chinese, nor well-know in Thailand, so it's not worth her effort to preserve Gomena memes. As for your reference to mainstream, she's not in it--maybe you should check out the Nang Ai Kham link for the meme of nagas run amok. Pawyilee (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I acknowledge that, for Thais, there is an important distinction between Thai ethnicity and Thai nationality. Persons of Thai nationality are not necessarily of Thai ethnicity. In a country like Australia (where I live) there is no such distinction, because there is no "Australian ethnicity." For readers of the Thai Wikipedia, this distinction may be self-evident. But for readers of the English Wikipedia, it is not, and needs to be explained. If someone in Australia refered to Penny Wong, for example, as being "Australian-Chinese" in an article, this would be regarded as very racist unless it had some relevance to the topic of the article. Calling Abhisit a "Thai-Chinese" when his family have lived in Thailand for four generations appears racist to most English-speaking readers. If this expression is to be used it needs some explanation of how Thais view ethnicity and nationality. But I also question its relevance given that most of the Thai upper class have some Chinese descent. I don't think anyone refers to the current King as a "Thai-Chinese", although the mother of Rama I was part-Chinese. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, racism has been given a bad rap, but the alternative to the good/evil conundrum is "useful" vs. "not presently useful (but may prove useful, again." [Ref: Mockumentary introducing] The Gods Must Be Crazy. Ever since seeing that movie, the concept has been an essential part of the way I view the world, especially its humans; but, the topic is Meaning of Abhisit.
Not a geomancer but an astrologer would have been consulted, if his parents followed tradition, and his parents may have been high enough up in elite society to have consulted the same palace that awarded their family name. The most important consideration is that the initial consonant อ is consonant with the weekday of birth. I've been told "Abhisit" is an abominable transliteration, though NOT as abominable as that of the family name, but the Palace has its own rules, which override others. The same source says "Abhisit" is a fairly common given name, given that so many babies are born on the consonant day of the week, but, this being Southeast Asia, it is customary to use other names bestowed later, by parents, playmates, friends, enemies and the occasional king. Everything about PM Abhisit marks him as one of the elite of the elite (except his nickname "Mark," which likely follows post-Hobbesian English custom as a sound signifying naught but a place-holder). But we really need a native Thai editor to join this discussion of what place "Abhisit" holds among his friends. We've already commented on the place it holds among his enemies. Currently in Bangkok where my wife insists we discuss the topic sub voce, if not subsiste sermonem statim. Pawyilee (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I corrected my gross error on the award of PM Abhisit's family name, thanks to Paul. Now, who can check the Chinese-language reference for "PM Abhisit, himself a fourth-generation Thai Chinese, is of this lineage," to see if it supports the claim: I can't read it. 23
As to the meaning of his given name, I'm not pleased with the way it reads now:
I'd like to move the parenthetical comment to the end of the section, remove the parentheses, and expand it to establish his name's "auspicious" beginning:
- Thai people don't just pick names at random or ones that sound nice or have good meanings. Most of them would consult an astrologer or monk in order to choose a name that is auspicious and would bring the child plenty of good luck in their life. Thai people believe so much in auspicious names, that if they feel that their name hasn't brought them enough good luck they will change it! ( ref, which has lots of questions, but very few answers!)
Then go on explain how it is used in the current political environment by his enemies. Can't be done without references! (Thaksin's article needs a somewhat similar entry on his childhood play-name that has his enemies lampooning him as a cat!) Pawyilee (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Family name
The Thai-language article is more interested in the origin of his family's Thai name:
สกุล "เวชชาชีวะ" หรือ "Vejjajiva" เป็นนามสกุลพระราชทานสมัย รัชกาลที่ 6 ลำดับที่ 4,881 จากนามสกุลพระราชทานสมัย ร.6 ที่พระราชทาน รวมทั้งสิ้น 6,423 นามสกุล โดยพระราชทานให้กับรองอำมาตย์ตรีหลง (หลง เวชชาชีวะ) แพทย์ประจำจังหวัดลพบุรี กับ นายจิ๊นแสง (บิดา) นายเป๋ง (ปู่) และนายก่อ (ปู่ทวด) เนื่องจากเป็นต้นตระกูลเป็นแพทย์จึงมีคำว่า "เวช" [Doctor, physician] อยู่ในนามสกุลด้วย Source
Pawyilee (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Stuck it in footnote #8 Pawyilee (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- It didn't look right where I first stuck it, so I moved it under Family as follows:
.... During the reign of Rama VI, three generations of Yuan-clan Lopburi provincial physicians were given palace-name number 4,881 (of 6,423) "Vejjajiva"—"Vej" (TH "เวช") signifying physician: Mr. Chen Saeng (TH นายจิ๊นแสง) (father,) Mr. Peng (TH นายเป๋ง) (grandfather) and Mr. Ko (TH นายก่อ) (great-grandfather.) [22:same source as Thai article, above] PM Abhisit, himself a fourth-generation Thai Chinese, is of this lineage. [23:somebody entered this ref; I haven't read it] (His given name should be preceded by an honorific or followed by his family name, as otherwise it reverts to a noun signifying privilege; monopoly; exclusive right.)[24:thai-language.com/dict/ entry, above][25:On-line Royal Institute Dictionary 1995 entries, above]
Revert or edit as you please. Oh, and I tinkered with the entry on his prep school, too, to read: ...he transferred to [[Scaitcliffe School|Bishospsgate_School]],[17:Formerly a preparatory boys school, Scaitcliffe merged in 1996 with Virginia Water girls preparatory school to form Bishopsgate School for boys and girls on the site of the former boys school.] then completed his secondary education at Eton College. Pawyilee (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Can someone translate รองอำมาตย์ตรีหลง from ๔๘๘๑/เวชชาชีวะ/Vejjajiva/remarks?[2] Pawyilee (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- รองอำมาตย์ตรี was a pre-1932 civil official rank, equivalent to the military sub-Lieutenant. หลง, of course, is the person's given name. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- More on the name: UDD is demonstrating against Khone Ammat, though their article no longer reflects that, but here we see a Rong Ammat 3rd Class (รองอำมาตย์ตรี) was the first to bear the palace name Vejjajiva. Tsk Tsk. Meanwhile, his article no longer reflects that Abhisit means privilege in the sense of a royal monopoly. Who would think his ammat ancestors thought of that when he was given his official name? And who gave him the name Mark? --Pawyilee (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Odd revert
In this edit I seem to have reverted to a former version which does not exist. I've no idea how this happened as I'm pretty sure I just clicked the undo button (hence the edit summary). I'm reverting to Patiwat's version before the IP additions just to be on the safe side. I'm pretty sure I did not do any further editing. Perhaps this was a bug in the system? Very strange. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 11:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also, that lead could use a trim anyway. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 11:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Sondhi Limthongkul assassination attempt
Sondhi's son has accused Deputy Prime Minister and senior Democrat Party figure Sanan Kachornprasart of being behind the assassination attempt. Thaksin isn't so specific, but implies that the government is killing people who know too much. Meanwhile, Abhisit's foreign minister is claiming Thaksin is behind it. This matter can now be included in the article, Abhisit being Sanan and Kasit's boss, after all. Patiwat (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Gossip, name calling and unsubstaintiated conspiracy theories do not belong in an encyclepdia Ddave2425 (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)ddave2425
- The new user dave is not expressing this well, but I agree that the assassination attempt is pretty tangential. All that connects these two topics are veiled implications from rival factions. The only thing that need be noted is if an official claimed that Vejjajiva was connected with this. If no one stated this accusation then removal of the information is a wise option. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 04:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
GA nomination
I strongly disagree with a GA nomination and am very doubtful of an "A" wikiproject rating (reverted now). The article has numerous problems. The "Sondhi Limthongkul assassination attempt" is just one example - Various people blamed the government without a proven basis: how is this relevant? The final paragraph of the lead is but a little hint of the POV and recentism that belies this article. Citation and discussion of pre-2006 life is pretty poor and contains over arching and leading comments (e.g. "Abhisit has occasionally been criticized for relying on his good looks to support his career.") Early political career is summed up in these simplistic sentences: "In 2001, Abhisit made a bid for party leadership, taking on a seasoned politician Banyat Bantadtan. Abhisit lost. However, Banyat led the Democrats to an overwhelming defeat by Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party in the 2005 legislative elections. Banyat resigned and Abhisit was chosen to replace him." What happened in that five year interim following these events?
Furthermore, I highly doubt the veracity of the ownership of this picture. I shall delete if from commons unless it is released under a commons compatible license. This is so far from GA and A class it's quite a premature nomination. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 05:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Freedom of expression
The Democrat Party, and especially Abhisit, have long stated that they support removing freedom of expression. It would be great to have a section on how they've destroyed freedom of expression in Thailand, especially given the harsh censorship and deregulation of the Thaksin era. But since Abhisit has only been in power for a few months, there have been few actual incidents where he has done anything with regards to this matter. When Abhisit has a few more "at bats", it would be good to have an article section on this. In the meantime, here are some citations that might be used to create such a section (please feel free to add the list, and ensure lots of different POVs). Patiwat (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- http://nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/30100921/Govt-to-launch-media-war-countering-red-shirts
- http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/04/national/national_30101893.php
- http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/04/17/politics/politics_30100670.php
- http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/26/politics/politics_30098873.php
- http://nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/30098829/Constitution-Court-files-libel-complaint-against-P
- http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1237295203&grpid=01&catid=17
- http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=15253
- http://cpj.org/2009/03/assault-intensifies-against-thai-online-news-media.php
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7928159.stm
14 March
Surely the current protests need an article of its own, and not bunched in the middle of this article like this. Sodacan (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Done at 2010 Thai political protests. --Pawyilee (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
www.rohit.kumar.com 4045787474 wife harvard whois? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.99.157 (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
A hoax?
This article is obviously a hoax. It is a biographical article on the current Prime Minister of Thailand, a man who is in the Thai and international news almost daily. Why would anybody think this were not a hoax? Patiwat (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)