Talk:2006 Thai coup d'état/Archive 1

message: Channel 4 news (ITN) has said that the constitution there has been suspended and the parliament dissolved. There doesn't seem to be any news about violence but it seems the government has lost control of Bankok at the least.--*smb 18:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC News reports this too. 82.2.135.152 18:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *smb, is this what all the other thai channels are replaying speeches about? It's hard as a nonthai speaker... 124.121.96.104 22:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial reports 

message: The Prime Minister will be speaking at the UN later today, or did he speak (already)?...well, he certainly will be making statements now(!)...should be something to watch for comment... TJ0513 18:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's spoken earlier but commenting that they should not take illegal methods, but as the constituition is revoked, that dosnt matter anyway 82.2.135.152 18:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prime Minister comments 

message: BBC News 24 has just reported that the King is to meet with the Army chiefs to discuss government but it has not yet updated its site. 82.2.135.152 18:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC News reports King to meet Army 

message: It's interesting seeing who stacks up with what at the moment - it's quite clear that the BBC opposes the coup. I've had the World Service on. ABC (Australia) has come online and seems to view it as a positive development, as does Channel News Asia. Orderinchaos78 19:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there is def some sys bias in wiki as well, its intresting to see that this topic is not being covered nearly as fully as say that liquid bomb plot in uk.--GregLoutsenko 20:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah - although it's not clear what we can do about the fact that this is an English-language project and there are more English speakers in (taking your example) the UK than there are in Thailand. Cynical 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is your evidence of this bias? dposse 21:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  something is wrong with the edit links. As i see it, it is indeed interesting who stacks up, basicly i think hardly one of us knows anything about thailand. Basicly obviously bush and to a lesser extend annan share these feelings. The usa not immediatly wanting to tell they are pro or contra(uncommon), and annan saying 'it is not the kind of thing to encourage(insecure)'. I'm rather interested if that shuttle will appear broken, some distraction.. as a result of the conversation with the king it is now known that the military at least promises a return to elections.. i figure some people will want that 'internationally controlled', and conservative aussies have stated they like the former guy (unlike the thai, but hey is this budhapest;)80.57.242.54 02:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media bias 

message: Wouldn't this article be better placed at 2006 Thailand military coup d'état, as I don't remember any other coups this year? --MZMcBride 20:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article move? 

message: The Thai government site has gone down this evening (link.) I should expect some kind of declaration to come up here if it comes back online, otherwise it'll stay down. Worth watching?--*smb 20:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall that having a government site was Thaksin's idea to begin with, and as long as it stays down, it can imply that Thaksin holds no power. I don't expect it to come back online until the general election is held. --Revth 00:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The site is back, with no news about the coup updated (at least on the english version). Flora 01:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As I write this, the English-language site still features the PM as the face of government (but has no news); however, the Thai-language main page has a more prominent place for some big dude in a uniform with lots of medals. I don't know the Thai language (at all), but my use of an online translation service (requires Javascript) suggests that this is the Defence Minister, with a headline denying rumours of a coup. (A news headline flashing "Hot" seems to say merely that there will be no declaration of emergency in Hat Yai, presumably referring to events of three days ago.) So this has more coup news than the English-language version, but it's still out of date (or at best showing a position of denial by the Thaksin government). --Toby Bartels 03:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thai Website 

message: The article speaks of to the Thairat Daily. Is that the same as the Thai Rath? Bolivian Unicyclist 23:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. On the point above, no doubt the coup is popular in Bangkok, where they've never liked Thaksin. Adam 00:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Thairat Daily is Thai Rath, the country's highest-circulation newspaper.  On Thaksin's popularity in Bangkok, you're wrong, he was once hugely popular there, and his party raked up most of the capital's seats in both the 2001 and 2005 elections.  His popularity there has only started to tumble since last year, which was then accelerated by anger over the Shin sell-off.  Tettyan 03:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A country's military only need press censorship if their coup is unpopular with the people of that country. It's not as though they're trying to depose the monarchy, just the government. Mark Grant 23:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I write from BKK and The Bangkok post was in the street this morning and the Nation has a special Lite online edition that gives thedetaisl minutes by minutes.Roger jg 07:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Due to a very high number of connection it is very difficult to connect to The Bangkok Post. However they are trying to put a light version online (with less graphics) and are not as efficient as The Nation. None of these sites have been taking down, they just can't cope with the demand. All TV channels are back by the way since this morning 9:30 BKK time.Roger jg 07:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Media

message: Can anyone confirm which of the two the events have occurred on?
I'm in Perth (one hour ahead of Bangkok time) and the first I heard of it was on the BBC World Service at 01:30 my time (13:30 EDT; 17:30 GMT), i.e. 00:30 in Bangkok. Most of the reports have been sourced from the US or UK which are well behind the local timezone. If, however, the events were reported prior to 17:00 GMT, then we can correctly say the 19th. Orderinchaos78 20:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the timeline on the Channel 4 news the main events were around 10pm local time which would make it the 19th.--*smb 20:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was being reported prior to 00:30 there seems a good chance it started before midnight.  -- Beardo 21:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't provide a link, but I'm in London (one hour ahead of GMT, as we're on daylight savings time at the moment) and it was definitely before 1800 our time, before 1700 GMT, when BBC News Online was carrying the breaking news. — OwenBlacker 21:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This news site (Chinese) released this story over six hours ago now. *smb 21:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting way to celebrate "International Talk like a Pirate Day" :\ 220.235.175.247 23:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Evidently it got mistranslated into Thai as "Talk like a Coup Leader Day"... -- ChrisO 23:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  19 or 20 Sep? 

message: Military coup d'état?  Is there any other sort?  I think "September 2006 Thailand coup d'état" would be better. Tevildo 22:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking precisely the same thing. 2006 Thailand coup d'état may work just fine, too. -- tariqabjotu 22:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 2006 Thailand coup d'état seems fine with me. dposse 22:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and done. -- ChrisO 23:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that there are quite a few double-redirects that need fixing now. I'm off to bed now (too tired to continue!) so could someone go through these and sort them out? -- ChrisO 23:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: One hopes that "September" will remain redundant! ^_^ --Toby Bartels 03:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Discussion 

message: I segmented the first few paragraphs above into topics for readability & access. -- RayBirks 00:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, did you mean to ask your question in the "Pictures" section above? That's about the main page pictures. My comment was only on the minor cleanup of this talk page. You might want to cut and paste your question up that way. Just a suggestion. (Click the History tab here on the talk page if you want to review my talk page changes.) -- RayBirks 00:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have put together all issues related to copyrightRoger jg 08:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page cleanup 

message: Can anyone find what time this started, how quickly it ended, etc.? 72.75.39.85 01:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time? 

message: I was reading this and I still don't really know what the PM did and why the military is staging a coup.  I scanned the King's article and the PM's and I got very little on the reasons why there's a coup... It'd be nice if someone familiar with this could write out an explanation? --71.200.61.10 02:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd contribute more, but I'm very busy now and don't have time to search for all the links.  But to try to be helpful, I'll try and put events in perspective for the other editors.  Basically, behind the more public tug-of-war between Thaksin and his critics in the media, academia, etc. (i.e., the street movement) during the past year was an intense power struggle with even higher stakes between Thaksin and elements in the military and bureaucracy that are linked to the palace (i.e., the elite).  There was a strong wariness among the elite of the street movement, but Thaksin threw down the gauntlet with his "charismatic figure" speech.  This was then followed by a highly unusual snap military rotation that saw many Thaksin loyalists ousted from key posts in the army (for more on this, read Elite Strike Back?).  Since then, there has been much struggle over the annual October military reshuffle, with Thaksin seeking to place his cronies into key posts, with the elite faction resisting.  It seemed as if the two sides had reached a compromise when that alleged assination plot against Thaksin was revealed two weeks ago.  Since then, it seems that the two sides could not patch up their differences, and that's why this coup resulted.  For a current news article on the coup from the perspective of this power struggle, see Military coup tumbles Thailand's Thaksin].  I'll leave it to other editors to incorporate this background into the article for now.  Tettyan 03:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reasoning is valid, Tettyan, but the timing, so close to the election, implies that something else was a factor as well.  I can't imagine that the plotters ignored the fact that a coup right before the election strikes the independent observer as being a slap against the democratic process.  The junta claimed that the election wouldn't have been free anyway, but this doesn't really make sense, given the new EC and the active campaigning by all political parties.  As it turns out, a lot of the foreign condemnation seems to be due to the fact that everybody was expecting the elections to occur.  So why did they still do it now?  Beats me.  Unless if some hidden information comes up, it might turn out to be a lucky positioning of the stars thing, that this would be the last opportunity for all of the big leaders of the TRT to be away from the country. Patiwat 01:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brief Synopsis 

message: in the section day two it says: "Thaksin's brother-in-law Somchai Wongsawat, who is permanent secretary of the Justice Ministry". Thaksin's brother-in-law no longer holds that position. It is currently held by Charupong Ruangsuwan. Davidreid 03:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  Thaksin's brother-in-law used to hold that post, but he was transferred to the Labor Ministry after serving his maximum term (I believe a perm sec can't hold the job for more than 5 consecutive years).  Since then though, Thaksin has apparently trying to move him back to the Justice Ministry, but w/o success, since with an election pending, all rotations of permanent gov't officials have to be approved by the EC (which still does not function).  Tettyan 03:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: facts wrong

message: Lets agree, if at all possible, on how to translate some Thai terms used in the coup.
* The provisional government: Media sites have called this the Administrative Reform Council , the Party of Democratic Reform , the Council for Democratic Reform , and  Council for Political Reform .
::Until this officially clears up, I'd like to use "Administrative Reform Council", as that is what The Nation is using, and over the coming weeks, the Thai newspapers will become the primary news sources. Patiwat 04:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bangkok Post is using Council for Democratic Reform.  I'd rather use the Nations, as the Post doesn't keep permanent copies of articles up. Patiwat 04:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Surnames are a relatively modern innovation for Thais. I think less than a century ago, people still didn't use surnames, and Thai people to this day never address people by surname. Patiwat 05:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is actually isn't that unique or unusual either. MostMany Muslims don't really have surnames. The "bin Whatever" is the father's name (usually) and although it may be taken as the surname, isn't really like a surname (in most cases). It is unusual to refer to someone as "bin Whatever" except by the ignorant and in a few special cases. The bin Ladens is one of those cases as their family does use the bin Laden like a surname (although I'm not sure whether Osama follows this trend, in any case he is rarely refered to as bin Laden in the Muslim world). A number of (non Muslim) Indians don't really have surnames either... Nil Einne 06:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes it's rather interesting. Javanese naming conventions share some similarities with Arabic naming conventions but there are a number of differences for example, they often derive from Sanskrit they don't use 'bin' in their name so Megawati for example is "Megawati Setiawati Soekarnoputri" and SBY is "Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono". Most Malays (from Malaysia) on the otherhand follow Arabic naming conventions to a greater degree so for example "Mahathir bin Mohamad" and "Abdullah bin (Haji) Ahmad Badawi". On the otherhand, a fair number of Arabs evidently (probably more then I realised) are abandoning the more traditional Arabic naming conventions and may not have bin in their name either. However I believe I am still right in the above when there is a bin in the name, it is rare to address the person bin Whatever. There are some similarities perhaps with the changes in Chinese names where the generation name is dropping out of fashion in China but is still the norm amongst the Chinese communities in Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan. Of course Chinese names (and also other East Asian names) are a completely different kettle of fish with frequent confusion arising with the generation name taken as the first name and the varience in name order preference. Ultimately, in all names it comes down to an individuals preference. However what is an individuals preference may be hard to tell. I have a Chinese name and in New Zealand I commonly use the Given name Surname order however I still prefer Surname Given name. Nil Einne 07:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some naming conventions 

message: Surakiart Sathirathai is also listed as a DPM of Thailand. I assume Thailand has at least two DPMs then. Anybody know what happened to him? Given his positions, I guess he might also be at the UN meetings? Nil Einne 06:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he was in New York, and probably flew with Thaksin to London now. And yes, there are several DPMs in Thailand. andy 08:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surakiart Sathirathai 

message: I believe it would be useful to have the section on the future of the Thai goverment back in the article. Afterall, it was an official announcement by Sondhi, why shouldn't it be here??? Roger jg 08:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Future development

message: I'd like to suggest that editing this article should be blocked for non-users because we know that sooner or later there will be vandalism and editing and counter-editing between Thaksin and non-Thaksin supporters. However what matters is that we should stop all that extra load of work by already blocking this page for non-users only. This is just a suggestion. You are completely free to object to this opinion or express your views in my talk page. (Ahnaf 10:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely NO block of the Internet in Thailand !! I have been online all day and except overload issues, I have had no problem accessing all the info I wanted.Roger jg 11:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: While prevention may be better than a cure, the suggestion above doesn't really concur with our Wikipedia:Protection policy. Articles should not be protected (even semiprotected) simply because they are high profile or because we expect vandalism. Frequent vandalism occurs with most articles linked to from the main page, especially the featured articles and ongoing developoments. However we rarely protect them (although this debate often occurs). One of the key reasons why we don't do so is because we wish to encourage users to edit these articles. It is rather likely there are a lot of users, especially Thais who may be interested in this topic, who may not have accounts, and if we prevent them from editing, they may simply never come back. Indeed, I would suggest high profile articles are really not a big concern when it comes to vandalism. Sure they get a lot of it and it's a waste of our time, but they are usually so actively monitored vandalism is very quickly corrected so at least it doesn't last long. Subtle vandalism to low profile articles is the worse kind since it can easily go undetected for a long time, and lead to things like the Seigenthaler case (although this wasn't that subtle). If I wish to use your analogy, prevention may be better then a cure, but not if the prevention is worse then the cure. Nil Einne 11:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevention is better than cure 

message: This is an impressive article, thank you very much for writing it. Fingers crossed for Thailand! --kingboyk 10:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of my co-workers were commenting on this article today and were impressed as well. --Wisekwai 16:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everybody needs a pat on the back here.  From zero to this in such a short amount of time is quite startling.  Very well referenced.  If/when this situation cools down, this is definately a Featured Article Candidate.  Patiwat 22:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I made that edit, but adapted it from a more detailed timeline from The Nation (the citation is given).  The timeline on The Nation also gives details like the police receiving M-16s and other details that weren't so critical in the end.  I think the most critical detail in all of that is what happened at 6.30 simultaneously in Bangkok and Lopburi.  I've seen this on no other news source, and it is key in telling me who gave the order to "move". Patiwat 04:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice work 

message: It is typical in politics to lie. In a power struggle words are used as weapons. What is going on is a power struggle between one faction backed by the majority of thai people because of measures like increasing the minimum wage and another faction numerically in the minority yet holding the strings of power (royalty, military, money, religion (the buddhudists in Thailand)). This is a right wing coup against a populist party led by a man who was not even running in the next election, so the coup is not against him but against the will of the people as expressed in the next election. I say all this to say that this article should not report words as if they were truth. The words are a smokescreen. The behavior of replacing an election they were going to lose with a coup speaks louder than words about a coup "to restore democracy". The coup is in fact an anti-democracy act by definition. Behavior should count in this article as more important than the words used by the people involved in the power struggle. Naturally, we need commentators other than wikipedian editors to point to these facts and use words to discuss their relevance. but those words by impartial observers must count for more than words used as weapons by the participants. WAS 4.250 12:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, the development of this article has not yet mentionned any attack against Thaksin or the TRT or their opposants. It is a very facts-based article and contributors should be praised for not sliding into the mud of the pro vs. anti -Thaksin...Roger jg 13:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would agree with Roger and Adam - I'm very impressed by how NPOV this article has broadly remained and how professional it now looks. Orderinchaos78 01:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Report unbiased words describing behaviour

message: Could I suggest merging the paragraph starting "On the morning of Wednesday, 20 September, the websites of the leading ..." with the "restriction to human right" paragraph?
Then moving the "restriction to human right" new paragraph in the heading "Criticisms of the coup" but renaiming it "immediate consequences of the coup"
Also moving "Human Right Group" into "Reaction" Roger jg 14:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a "National Reaction" section to mirror the "International Reactions" It will be possible to put all type of national reactions in this section. I believe it makes it easier to read and more logical than spreading the info in three different places.
The info about the huger striker is still presented 3 times. Needs sorting out....Roger jg 15:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: cleaning done Roger jg 17:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Day 2 is a bit messy.. 

message: from the article:
I think there a milltary bases there and it doesn't say anything about the U.S. having milltary bases and what they were doing with them during the coup.---Scott3 Talk Contributions  Count: 950+  18:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no military bases there - all US forces were withdrawn in 1976. See United States Air Force In Thailand. -- ChrisO 19:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you mean in the sense of garrisons, no (see above). It's possible that there may be a few advisers/trainers in country, but it's unlikely that there's more than a handful. -- ChrisO 23:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't the U.S. have milltary bases there. 

message: I would have thought Junta was used to described more when the military enter a longer term of governance. Is that not so?
I mean the coud d'etat happened happened today. Does this mean the military leadership intends to stay in power? I would like someone to comment this, and potentialy change it.
L@7-r 20:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junta? 

message: good to know someone felt like leaving a huge picture of their genitals on this current event page was a worthy exercise of their time. I deleted it.
ah, nvm. someone else got rid of it. I accidentally deleted the thai flag, thinking it was the genitals, haha. >_<
Spankmecold 22:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's been happening alot on wikipedia. You should have seen the Steve Irwin article after his death. It's still semi protected because of it. dposse 01:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow 

message: The article notes that Taiwan's Ministry of Forgein Affiars "admonished nations visiting Thailand for security and no more reactions about this coup d'état.", citing 外交部提醒近日計畫赴泰國人注意安全  The translation sounds harsh, but just doesn't sound right.  Otherwise, if an official english language statement was made, that would be much preferred. Patiwat 05:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it means nationals/citizens rather then simply people. Nil Einne 07:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any chinese readers? 

message: Concerning references used in this article (and elsewhere), please be advised that the news articles at www.bangkokpost.com and www.bangkokpost.net expire after just one day.  There is a separate web site where the Bangkok Post archives can be found, but it requires users to register for membership before gaining access to anything more than article summaries.  Therefore, although I think referencing the Bangkok Post is still good practice for Thailand-related articles, I highly recommend avoiding using direct links to the Bangkok Post online (or at least the links should be replaced after they become obsolete).  Matatigre36 06:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good point and it is a nightmare to find article again after (I am registered). I believe the timeline will be lost too....Roger jg 06:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Bangkok Post news articles expire after just one day 

message: Have there been any reports of action against TRT? Have its offices been occupied, its assets seized, its bank accounts frozen? And also what about companies associated with Thaksin, his family or cronies? Adam 07:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No asset seizures yet, since the Auditor-General is still investigating the charges.  I saw a newspaper article saying that TRT HQ is empty, because of the ban against political meetings of >5 people.  I guess every party's HQ would be empty for the same reason.  Not sure how the PAD leaders actually legally met in order to dissolve themselves, since by meeting, thet would have gone against the 5 person political meeting ban.  But then again, anybody who wears yellow seems to be above the law.  Shin Corp buildings technically aren't owned by Thaksin any more - they're owned by a Singaporean entity now.  And the Singapore government has been disgracefully lenient to the junta so far: "Singapore hopes all parties involved will work towards a positive outcome."  Not even a slap on the wrist.  That being said, several Shin Corp buildings are still surrounded by tanks.  Suriya's car factories are in the eastern seaboard; his personal whereabouts are still undisclosed.  Patiwat 08:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TRT

message: Wikipedia policy is to be very careful about NPOV and verifiability in articles concerning the lives of living people.  The junta is making some harsh accusations about the former government.  A reader who doesn't know any better might just take these accusations at face value and assume they are correct.  This could do serious harm to peoples' reputations - an extreme example of which would be the NPKC's 1991 accusation that Chatichai was protecting the plotters who tried to assassinate the Queen.  I think NPOV requires us to not just state these accusations, but to show the perspective of the accused as well, and include any appropriate appropriate information that would be sympathetic to the accused.
For instance, the junta accuses Thaksin's government of corruption.  Information (with references, of course) should also be shown that Thaksin's government reduced corruption during its years in power.  Or, the junta accuses Thaksin of repeatedly insulting the King.  Information should be shown that all juntas accuse the incumbents of insulting the royal honor and that the many previous charges of lese-majeste thrown at Thaksin have been highly contentious.  
Guys and gals, is this interpretation of WP:LIVING correct? Patiwat 08:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: could we simply add the word "alleged" to make it clear? Roger jg 09:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those accusations have been around for much longer than the military took over. Adding information about Thaksin reducing corruption  would also mean that we would have to add all that information about increasing corruption. In my opinion that huge amount of information would not fit in this article. SmellyCat 11:30, 21 September 2006 (GMT+1)
This article is about the coup, not about Thaksin. If the military say, "We removed Thaksin because he was corrupt," that is relevant. A discussion about whether Thaksin was or was not corrupt is not relevant. Adam 09:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have made a small change about the accusation of the Junta "being discussed". This suggested people were actually  questionning the justifications given by the military. I haven't read, seen or hear anything like that. As said earlier, the justifications given by the military are "common" and in the present situation they are rather more sensical than in previous coup. In all case, nobody is talking or writing about that and certainly not to say that the military just wanted to take power! Roger jg 01:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:LIVING considerations 

message: I have reverted back the note that "information has been allowed to spread relatively freely." Accept TV station which owned by the army, private media are still able to operatate. Foreign news outlet can broadcast live video. This is a proof that information is allowed to circulate relatively freely. Yes, there is an issue by the ARC "asking" a journalist to control the content of the news. I donot see it as a censorship, just yet, because the wording of the issue is "asking for cooperation" rather than "an order". No arrest has been made no far regarding press censorship. Also, CNN and BBC seems to broadcast anything they want. I will remove the note should press censonship occurs in the future. --underexpose 15:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: most likely so, we there are "no prove" for that. it's very rational to believe that they co-operate because there was a gun pointed to their head; but we couldn't prove or verify it (so far). Yes, CNN and BBC signal were blocked off from the sole cable operator in Thailand, but their coresspondent in Bangkok seems to be able to operate freely. --underexpose 21:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: well there is no gun held over anybody's head yet. Let's not take this out of proportion. The pressure is here but it is not physical. I added one line of text in the Freedom of expression section but only about Thai TV becasue we have not yet fully clarified what has/is happening with satellite and cable. Also it is quite obvious that the military can have full control over local news but not over CNN and BBC. In this case it is censure but again no violence or coercion is involved and I was able to talk live on the BBC world radio on the next day of the coup. So let's be honnest, the censure is rather limited.Roger jg 03:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Restriction 

message: I have removed this text from the opinion poll section:
"Given the high amount of censorship and control of media, people remain skeptical of the results."
I did this for the following reasons:
- There was no source for this claim.
- I think the term "people" is vague in this context.
- There does not seem to be "Hight amount of censorship".
--SmellyCat 15:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text that is available now is much more clear. In this context it is clear that "people", does not refer to just Thai citizens. And it has a reference that shows quite a change in opinion. Although note not completely contradictionary. It's not that they had much choice who to vote for in the elections.
--SmellyCat 17:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, there is a considerable amount of censorship posed throughout Thai media; however, a suggestive word like "people should" or give a single reason to such a controversial issue is not quite NPOV. I'm sure "some" people are skeptic. Is everybody skeptic? I don't think so. Is every skeptic has the same reason? probably not. I change the sentence to "Many people are skeptic about poll results due to censorship after the coup." It's the best NPOV I could think of now. Any suggestion that will improve NPOV of this article is welcome. --underexpose 22:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While someone appears to have removed the whole thing which is probably best and I'm not suggesting it would be reinserted I have some suggestions which may be helpful in general. You should avoid quantitative terms such as "many" when they can't be supported. I'm sure some people are skeptical of the poll results however it is rather difficult to establish that 'many' people are skeptical. Use "some people" is better. However it is probably better to say "some comentators" to avoid the whole confusion. Also please remember that regardless of whether people have expressed skepticism of the poll results, we cannot bring this issue up without a citation. I.E. unless someone has publicly expressed skepticism in a reliable source, we can't discuss this. N.B. many is okay is circumstances where it can be supported such as when it claimed that many people have been giving food, drinks and flowers to soldiers. Nil Einne 08:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more. This article covers some controversial (or even sensitive) issue. Please kindly refrain from using a personal oppinion. Every claim should have a verifiable fact. --underexpose 19:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion poll section 

message: There have been a lot of reactions from the US, by a lot of people, over several days, of varying severity, and ranging from general comments about their concern over the situation to specific comments like the review of foreign aid.  How should this section be organized? Patiwat 23:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Emax0.  That looks a lot better. Patiwat 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizing Reactions from the US 

message: I created an article on the Finland Plot to fill a contextual hole on events leading up to the coup.  Given that the junta hasn't threatened to investigate any plot to overthrow the monarchy, I don't think the Finland Plot will be detailed any further.  The article might interest many editors of this article, so have a look, please. Patiwat 04:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments on Finland Plot article 

message: "It was widely assumed by Thai analysts and the international media that the coup had the support of King Bhumibol Adulyadej." 131.215.7.233 04:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were several, and they are given in the subsequent paragraphs, e.g. S Sivarak: "Without his involvement, the coup would have been impossible."  Acharn Thitinan: "He is widely seen as having implicitly endorsed the coup." Patiwat 08:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Needed 

message: There is a huge chunk coming from the BBC website in the role of the king section which I am not fure is fully neede. Especially if they are the journalist interpretation such as "In fact, such is the faith that the Thai people have in their monarch that many believe if the king did intervene, it was obviously the best course of action to take." That's unfactual and self-serving. Roger jg 04:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what I think, Adam.  We don't have to rely on an editor consensus here, because it also seems to be the consensus of the international media and Thai academics (or at least Thai academics that are overseas or aren't afraid of pissing off the junta) as well. Patiwat 08:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ripping off other websites 

message: PLEASE. Until now this article has been free of POV and that is why it is good. May I remind some editor that this is not the place to discuss Thaksin's wrongdoing or the reality of such and such allegation against Thaksin or the Army. If there is no evidence or verifiable repport it has nothing to do here. Journo's opinions might be enlightening but only for what they are. I have my opinion on the matter but I keep it for myself. Roger jg 04:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Sonthi originally stated that Defense Minister Thammasak was detained.  Someone recently changed this to say that he is in hiding - no reference was given.  What's the deal? Patiwat 09:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what's the real thing, hiding or detained. A news source needs to be cited if he is hiding currently. --Terence Ong (T | C) 09:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defense Minister Thammasak detained or in hiding? 

message: The article states: "General Sonthi would have learned from an intelligence report that Yongyuth Tiyapairat and Newin Chidchob were planning to organise a counter protest with the support of the Forestry Police armed with HK 33 rifles..." and references "The Bangkok Post, September 20, 2006."  It is difficult to verify this reference without knowing the article title.  Has anyone else seen this?  Patiwat 09:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry my mistake... http://archives.mybangkokpost.com/bkkarchives/frontstore/news_detail.html?aid=192902&textcat=General%20News&type=a&key=forest&year=2006&click_page=1&search_cat=text&from=text_search Roger jg 16:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  20 Sep article on Ranger conspiracy 

message: We should ensure that the 19 September Network against Coup d'Etat which name has sudenly poped up in several sections of the article understand this is not a soapbox to promote whatsoever opinions on the coup. They are free to do that in their own article Roger jg 16:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well not quite. Their own article should be an article about the group (assuming it is notable enough to be mention, the fact that it's been mention in the Nation and the Bangkok Post suggests it is) and their beliefs but their article is still not a soapbox for their opinions... Nil Einne 17:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: you are right. What I meant is that I will leave that to other ;-) Roger jg 17:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  19 september network 

message: how and why is this current event listed in there, and how do i remove it from the categorization? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kleinheero (talk • contribs).
Calling attention to this again. Gazpacho 17:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  categorized in "companies on new york stock exchange"? 

message: This is inaccurate see The Nation 
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30014408 Roger jg 17:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  arrest of ALL protesters 

message: It seems that Thak's familly is still in BKK
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/09/23/headlines/headlines_30014454.php Roger jg 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you've probably realised by now, I added that but didn't mention it here. Any earlier reports that you've come across or was this the first public sign that they're still in the country? Nil Einne 18:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thaksin's familly whereabouts 

message: The article is getting quite long, so I've subbed off the International reactions section to its own article. Eventually, this will need to be done for other sections, too. Iorek85 02:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I agree with the countries you've mentioned.  Certainly the US, EC, and China should be there. Bฺฺิฺฺut I'm not sure that India influence is that significant.  I'd say replace India with Russia, and then add the UN.  Also throw in Australia or Denmark, one of the more critical countries, for balance.  Patiwat 06:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of your suggestions but also feel an ASEAN country should be included. ASEAN of course have a policy of non-interference and it's unlikely anything will be done at the ASEAN level it's still of significance IMHO. I would suggest Malaysia (as both ASEAN and a neighbour) but I am part Malaysian so perhaps I'd let someone else decide... Nil Einne 18:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree that international reactions should be spun off to a separate article. The article isn't that long. __meco 18:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 45kb of plain text, after subbing the section (according to notepad), and over 7,000 words. WP:SIZE says that more than 30-50kb is too long (6,000-10,000 words), and this article is only going to get longer as the coup goes on. As for the comments about the summary, I don't mind what goes there. I just figured an Asian country would be important (India), and that some balance was needed (China). Iorek85 01:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: International Reactions/length

message: The way the protest is currently presented in the article let's suppose that Thai people in their majority want to protest against the coup. I see two problems with that. The first is that it is not necessarily true; the second is that it does not explain the nature of the protest. 
For a reader not familiar with Thailand it must be clear that in their large majority, The Thai people are welcoming the coup (Suan Dusit's poll and other news repports, or simply talk to people), even the pro-Thaskin supporters because it is a way to unlocked the political situation that has been deadlock for months. Then many Thai people are not bothered with demonstration in general. Even at the heyday of anti-thaskin demo, the number of protestors was relatively small compare to protest that can happen in the West.
It is important to put things in perspective for the foreign reader. There is chain of command here starting from HM the King who endorsed the coup, the military junta and its motives for the coup in a royal decree, down one level to the CDRM who run the show and  down to those who obey the orders. Thai people will tend to respect this chain of command especially that it is headed by the King and as a consequence not want/need to protest.
It must also be clear that protesters are not all pro-thaskin but people who oppose the military coup as a mean to get out of the deadlock. There is no protest from the farmers because thought they supported Thaksin they are not politically organised and their support was mainly anchored in his large handouts. This is well known and recognised. The same goes for the base members of the TRT who saw an opportunity to get elected if running under the TRT banner. A blatant exemple can be found in former TRT Bangkok MP Mongkol Kimsoonjan who said that Thai Rak Thai might be disbanded even if Thaksin returned to Thailand and that for him "if there are two choices, I may choose the Democrat Party because it is more popular than others in Bangkok". Read *hence I could get elected whatever my political conviction*. It says it all.
Don’t get me wrong, the are people who support Thaksin and there are people who oppose the coup and I contributed to the article by referencing some of these protesters. But in it's current form the article is unbalanced and does not reflect the true nature of the protest qualitatively and quantitatively. Roger jg 04:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of what you're saying.  Basicaly, we've got few things under the "pro-coup/anti-Thaksin" section and a lot of things under the "anti-coup" section, thus giving the wrong impression that people against the coup are the majority.  Yes, we should prevent readers from having this interpretation.  The problem is that there haven't been that many news worthy events of note from the anti-Thaksin group, whereas the media is jumping at reporting the slightest challenges from the other side.  I think the way to fix this is not to trim down content in the "anti-coup" section, but to write some introductory sentences to the section in order to give it some more context.  Patiwat 06:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced report in the protest: Undertsanding the protest 

message: Thai page of this artivle, :th:รัฐประหารในประเทศไทย พ.ศ. 2549, has a big warning sign at the top,
with a text warn the contributors about not to write anything that will effect the national (Thailand) security. Does this conform to the Wikipedia policy ?
-- 85.184.10.46 10:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it does not conform to wikipedia policy. --Bhadani 10:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people have stated their views on the Discussion page of that article, and most seem to indicate opposition to the warning.  It should be taken down any time now.  Patiwat 10:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning Sign in Thai page of 2006 Thailand coup d'etat 

message: I think the main contributors should all be happy with the state of the discussion. Shall we archive and start afresh? Roger jg 11:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it more useful to not just archive all discussions, just ones that have not been commented on in the last X days. I'd archive anything not commented on since the 21st. Iorek85 03:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving Talk page: Do we have a consensus?