Talk:2006 Bangkok bombings

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2006 Bangkok bombings article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

2006 Bangkok bombings was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 15, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
September 8, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Explosives Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Thailand Low‑importance

	Thailand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Attack type: unknown

I don't think we should say the attack type was "political terrorism" until someone actually takes responsibility or until some evidence turns up. It could be religious terrorism as well. Patiwat 20:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Should this be "2006 Bangkok Bombings" or "2006 Bangkok bombings" or something else? Patiwat 21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page to 2006 Bangkok bombings, but I think that may be problematic since the bombings span 2006 and 2007. -- tariqabjotu 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We might want to put this on hold, lest there be more bombings over the next couple days. Patiwat 21:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only moved the page with the lowercase b in bombings because that is more grammatically correct (see 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings, 2005 Amman bombings, etc). -- tariqabjotu 21:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on the B->b. It's just I'm not sure whether to call it the 2006 bombings, 2006-2007 bombings, 2006 New Years bombings, etc. I'd rather wait and see though. Patiwat 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is it just me or does it appear like it happened at 11 o clock this morning or will happen in around 45 minutes. '6:00pm local time (1100 GMT)'

How about "2007 Bankok New Year Bombings" or something similar?

I don't get what you mean. It should be obvious local time is Bangkok/Thailand Time. 6pm Bangkok time is 11:00am GMT/UTC Nil Einne 06:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No martial law in Bangkok

Sorry to say, but the NYT is wrong — martial law in Bangkok ended on Nov 28. Ref: [1]. Jpatokal 02:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compliments

UKWiki, Wisekwai, Patiwat, et al,

As it has been about 12 hours since UKWiki created this 2006 Bangkok bombings wiki, I'd like to take this opportunity to compliment you all on a fine job. While others have made solid contributions, I note you three have been the primary contributors.
I've been on the web a couple times throughout the day, and have found it quite interesting how the wiki has tracked the events as reported in both the english-language, as well as the thai-language online sources. I've hopped around a number of locations, in-and-out during the day, and just want to share my observation that the aggregation and organization that you've done here is really outstanding.
I'm looking forward to how this article takes shape as events unfound in the coming days. - Thaimoss 04:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok Pundit's excellent blog assembled a fine set links that I used as a starting point. Lots of credit goes to him. Patiwat 09:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australians

Any news on whether or not any aussies have been affected by this?? I have a mate over there at the moment and fuck, im worried out of my mind58.107.175.127 07:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Australians have been killed or injured (thank god). And also, the injury count is now 36, not 20 but can't include it in the article. I don't have a source except for Seven News on the TV. --Lakeyboy 07:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks heaps mate, I hope its accurate58.107.175.127 07:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list of injured people at the External Links section on the bottom.
Besides, he's 100x more at risk from being killed by a drunk driver than he was at being hit by a bomb. Just to put things into perspective... Patiwat 10:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That list of injured at The Nation currently only reports injuries from two hospitals. Surely those injured at the restaurants across the street from the Pratunam Market area will be taken to Bumrungrad Hospital (right around the corner), which isn't listed in The Nation's report. Sadly, there were a lot of foreigners injured at those restaurants. Your point, Patiwat, is solid though: The thai language newspaper Thai Rath (See: Media of Thailand#Newspapers) reports (01 Jan 07 @ 1400 UTC) that in just four days of New Year's celebrations, 275 people have died. - Thaimoss 14:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Bumrungrad is on Sukhumvit and is a bit far from the restaurant. The closest hospital to the scene wold be the Police Hospital. However, the Police Hospital might have been deemed to "hot" (it's just across the street from CentralWorld, where hundreds of thousands of people had massed together and where bombs were later found).

Number of bombs, explosions, locations

There is still a fair amount of uncertainty in the reporting about the number of explosions. Most U.S. and international English-language sources such as CNN.com, FoxNews.com The Guardian Internaional(guardian.co.uk) are reporting nine explosions. Other press (including the BBC article cited by User:Gotyear are reporting 8, as are most local (Thai language) reports such as those in the Thai Rath (Thai Rath; 01 January, 2007 @ 14:18 UTC/21:18 น. : “ทักษิณ” โต้ไม่มีส่วนเกี่ยวข้อง เหตุระเบิด 8 จุดในกรุงเทพฯ (Taksin disputes involvement in bombings at 8 points in Bangkok).
I haven't seen any reporting about two explosions in one location, but am wondering about a confusion there. Also, there are reports of an explosion at a mosque in Chiang Mai and I wonder if that one, in conjunction with the 8 in Bangkok proper, might be the source of "9". I'm not sure we have the final answer on this. - Thaimoss 14:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading, there were 8 explosions and one defused bomb in Bangkok, plus one explosion in Chiang Mai. AxelBoldt 20:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bombs/Forensic evidence

I've made a sub-section called "Bombs" under the "Bombings" section. This might be more appropriately changed into a "Forensic evidence" sub-section if more evidence is made public. Patiwat 18:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August and March

Not suggesting a change to anything here at this time, but think it might be prudent to eventually clarify or expand on the other "2006 Bangkok Bombings".
At our current level of awareness, this reference can certainly only mean one thing. However, we already make note here, which is good, of the August 2006 car bomb. Within the political context that these New Year's day bombings might play out, there is at least one other reported bombing, that of Gen. Prem Tinsulanonda's residence on March 9th, 2006, in which a British tourist was injured, that might very well play into the "bombings in Bangkok in 2006".
I'll defer to Patiwat, Wisekwai, or some of the other primary contributors to this current article, as to how to best reflect these other 2006 bombings, but I think they do have a place. - Thaimoss 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to the bombing of Prem's house. Patiwat 06:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "December 2006/January 2007 Bangkok bombings"? "2006 Bangkok bombings" seems to be too broad and too narrow at the same time. AxelBoldt 19:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's 'irie', not IRK as thought

The Thai news reported this morning that the signatures found at the site of bombings is actually read as 'IRIE' means cool or very good in Jamaican language, not IRK or an Afghani terrorist group as thought. There's a gang member of reggae clique confessed to the news reporter (or to the police, I'm not really certain about that) that he himself is the writer of those signatures and he said he is not involved in any of the events that happen and said it's just a coincidence. There're also evidences that confirm the man's words as the signatures were written long ago before the bombings occur and there're also some witnesses told that they've seen a lot of these same signatures in many phone booths around Bangkok and some also said they've seen them at different regions of Thailand.

There're still no references or citation about this in the net, but These news are reported in many Thai channels (since the morning of 3rd Jan. 07 [BKK]) and should be considered to be add in the article. Kenneth Vergil 16:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any of those references yet, and wouldn't report it as fact just yet in the article. Lot's of government misinformation floating around trying to exonerate Muslim terrorism. The IRK connection came from the Nation and Thai Rath. Thai Rath put it very high up in their massive run-on article on the 2nd. Patiwat 02:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's been confirmed now, as Manager Online reported it. Varoot 04:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Bombings confused

In the further bombings section, the first paragraph needs some attention. The version I see reads:

At 8.45 AM on 1 January 2007, a motorcycle rider threw an improvised bomb into a mosque in Chang Klan Road in Chiang Mai, injuring four people, including the Burmese janitor, Nasis Ahamad. The mosque keeper claimed that a grenade had been lobbed in, but an army bomb expert claimed the blast was caused by the premature explosion of a bomb being built by the mosque keeper.

The problem is that the first sentence reads as a statement of fact, but is then contradicted by the remaining part of the paragraph. Either a motorcycle rider threw a bomb or did not, but it can't be that he did and that Ahamad dropped a bomb. I suspect that this section needs to be revised to state that it was claimed that a motorcycle rider threw a bomb but that on further investigation it seems that something else happened. But I don't know the story and don't want to edit it since it could be wrong.

+Fenevad 19:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA tip

If you want to get GA, put the ref dates in a consistent format and wikilink them and also wait til you can legitimately get rid of the current event tag--that makes it not meet the stability requirement.Rlevse 19:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming article

The press is now referring to the bombings as the "New Year's Eve" bombings.[2][3] I'd therefore suggest renaming the article "2006 Bangkok New Year's Eve bombings" to help differentiate it from the other bombings that occured in Bangkok in 2006. Patiwat 19:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination

1. Well written?: The article has a few things that need to be fixed, mainly redirects, link repair, including more wikilinks, combining some sentences, and spacing issues.

Fix redirects for: UTC, Sonthi Boonyaratkalin, Major Cineplex Ratchayothin, Phahon Yothin, Apirak Kosayodhin, Pratunam, Saphan Khwai, Seacon Square Shopping Mall, Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil, Victory Monument (disambiguate), Big C, urban guerilla, junta, CNS, grab for power, ABAC, M79, baht, close-circuit television cameras (disambiguate), US Dollar, & Panlop Pinmanee.
Add wikilinks or further explain these terms: (remove wikilinks to the second instances of Surayud Chulanont & Thaksin Shinawatra in the intro), cooking gas cylinders, police box, grenade, C4, TNT, blackout, digital alarm clock, (remove wikilink for the second case of M4 in the Forensic evidence section), Casio watches, coup, (Council for National Security is wikilinked to many times), shrapnel, & (rm 2nd case of baht in the economic impact section).
~~Fix this statement: "Surayud blamed the "old power clique" was behind the bombings." to something like "Surayud blamed the "old power clique" as the group responsible for the bombings."~~
Combine some of the statements and better organize this paragraph: "Victory Monument. Seventeen people were injured. Two Thais died at the hospital from injuries. The bomb was placed in a bus-stop shelter and went off at around 6:00 p.m. A second bomb went off nearby shortly after.[11][12][13] One Hungarian was reported injured.[14] The bomb ripped through the bus stops, shattered windows at the nearby restaurant and sent debris in all directions."
~~Combine some of these statements: "Three foreigners and two Thais were injured. One of the foreigners' legs was blown off by the blast. The foreign tourists were having dinner at the restaurant."~~
Remove extra period after this statement and write out the numbers for eight foreigners: "An additional 38 persons standing nearby the blast zones were also injured. Amongst the victims, eight foreigners were hurt: 2 British men, 3 Hungarians, 2 Serbs and 1 American."
~~Remove the space between the end of the sentence and period: "This would make the bombs the same type as found in a car outside of Thaksin Shinawatra residence in August 2006 ."~~
In the responsibility section, combine some of the smaller sections only made up of several sentences. Remove the statement or cleanup: "Here are a few images of the first reactions of the citizens who woke to a New Year's day in disbelief and stunned at the events. Manik sethisuwan 01:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)" and consider moving the images throughout the article instead of a gallery. Also modify the statements underneath the pictures in the gallery.
In the statement: "Senior junta leadership agreed that Muslim terrorists were not involved, and that the initials were meant to frame the IRK and muddy the waters." Don't use "muddy the waters", unless you want to include a direct quote stating that.

2. Factually accurate?: ~~Add a source to the statement that is followed by the citation needed tags. This needs to be added for it to pass, if you can't find anything, remove it from the article for now.~~

In the 1 January 2007 bombing section, is Nasis still in the hospital?

3. Broad in coverage?: The article covers the situation well, if possible see if there is any information about precautions for next year's New Year's Eve celebrations. This isn't necessary for passing GA, but would benefit the article.

4. Neutral point of view?: The article appears to be NPOV, make sure it stays that way.

5. Stability?: No problems here, don't foresee any problems in the future.

6. Images?: Plenty of images, again consider removing the gallery and including them throughout the article to any other pertaining sections. I would also suggest modifying the statements under the gallery images. I don't really think the image Image:The First Sunrise of 2007 - (Bangkok).jpg is necessary for the article.

Comment: The images tended to repeat themselves: two of people watching TV and two of the hospital compound and the iTV truck. I've removed two and sprinkled the remainders in the article. — WiseKwai 06:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well-sourced which is very good, and the above suggestions shouldn't be too difficult to fix. If you'd like, cross off or check the suggestions when you fix them. I am going to leave this article on hold for up to seven days. Let me know when you are done fixing these suggestions or if you have any questions on my talk page. Keep up the good work! --Nehrams2020 04:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation templates should have been used from the beginning. I'm going back through to convert the references over, while also checking the existing references and updating the access dates. — WiseKwai 06:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed

I have passed the article according to the suggestions above, good job on fixing them so quickly. If you can, attempt to find out if Nasis is still in the hospital (it's been a month and a half now) and add any updates as necessary. Make sure the article keeps its high quality, adding all new information with sources. That was also good to go through and switch over all of the citation templates. Keep up the good work and if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. --Nehrams2020 19:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results of latest investigations

The latest investigations have revealed that, contrary to early speculation by the junta, southern seperatists were most probably behind the bombings. When this becomes final, the earlier sections of the article will probably need a slight re-write. Patiwat 02:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]