Jump to content

Talk:2013–2014 Thai political crisis/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

RfC: Should the "hidden agenda: royal succession" phrase be included as a fact?

Closing as no consensus. Although there is a majority of voters in support, at least two (Jeanlepetit and Fredtham59 are the same editor. The !votes of several IPs are the only contributions they have ever made to Wikipedia, and almost all the remaining editors in support have only created accounts to edit this article (and have very similar user pages). Number 57 15:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

These are sources current cited to support the phrase "hidden agenda: royal succession":

  • "The leaders of the 100,000-odd protesters who blocked some of Bangkok’s key intersections Sunday are said by knowledgeable political analysts to be deeply involved in not just a battle for political primacy but for control of the looming succession of the country’s monarchy." http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/thailand-land-snarls/

I got a complain about my link selection, so all the cited sources in the article are listed below.

"The unspoken backdrop to all this is the coming royal succession. "

These articles, analysis and opinions, in more or less degree, imply the monarchy-related benefit, relationship and/or agenda of the ongoing protest in Thailand. Considering these sources, should the claim "hidden agenda: royal succession" be represented as fact?

Related guidelines, policies and essays discussed earlier are WP:THIRDPARTY, WP:YESPOV, WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:RELIABLE --Biglobster (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


Threaded discussion

Support I see a lot of reliable source citations describing the "hidden agenda" not only the one you selected. I would see the intent behind this news selection as dubious. A good mix of opinion by experts, analysts, academics and neutral articles from news agency and reporters having a reputation of fact checking. I also took into account the "Hidden agenda: Royal Succession" section.14.207.223.50 (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • If you have more reliable sources than the one listed, cite it here would be very helpful to support your comment. The above links was chosen by an editor who support the claims, and taken directly from the earlier discussion. --Biglobster (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
You request outside input concerning dispute about citations validity. I did and I will not do any research for an article I have no interest in. You made change to the lead, the previous version was very dubious indeed 14.207.223.50 15:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose As the original poster, I oppose to include this as a fact. Despite the high number of news sources provided, I found that all sources are opinion piece and articles from news organisation and none of them represents "hidden agenda" as a statement of fact. Moreover, many of them does not even say that there is such hidden agenda.

Biglobster (talk)

Support Most editors do provide reasonable arguments to consider the edit factual (hidden agenda section) Biglobster only confirm that alone he intend to block the concessus process. Jeanlepetit (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose A good mixture of academics and analysts - still not a fact. If it is a fact, we can include that "Loch Ness monster exists" "Ghosts exists" as a fact. Both claims were not provent or officially stated as a fact, just a mixture of comments, predictions and analysis. Most journalists who do claim so are biased and therefore not reliable. One more thing, why would an anonymous contributor contribute in this talk page as their first time? I see that 14.207.223.50 has made no other contributions to Wikipedia according to his or her contributions page. This contridicts to the fact that "you did and you will not do any research for an article you have no interest in". Very suspicious indeed. 171.99.173.0 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Support I Thai people, I edit Wikipedia long time in Thai and I connect from internet café cannot login my account coz afraid 112. It is fact! Every Thai people know but cannot speak coz law 112. Thai newspaper cannot speak coz 112. Farang news are right.31.220.30.241 (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Support As above editor, will not used my wiki account or IP for this sensible topic. Biglobster main argument "an opinion piece" is junk. Citation to back this edit are strong from famous agency and reporters with a reputation for fact checking. Very few citations might be from biased sources but there are confirmation by independent reports so there are as worthy as the others. Also as said above it is a well know protest issue to most Thai. Biglobsterand 171.99.173.0are only trying to deny the truth with fallacious arguments as did the lese majeste law on the Thai society and trying to block any related edits.101.108.0.77 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You seems to have a hard time admitting they are all opinion pieces, even it is as obvious as your logical flaws. Biglobster (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Support. Factual edit .All has been said by those whom support it Khunthaibkk (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


Support I share views aired by 101.108.0.77 and other esspecialy those in hidden agenda topics. Biglobster (talk)"obvious as your logical flaws" Is it necessary ? 58.11.58.172 (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Support No much left to support the edit all necessary explanation already made. On the other side nothing serious to counter the edit rightness. I only see a "guy" Biglobster (talk) with strong opinion trying desperately and very hard to have his very own POV accepted against the community will!

  • You did not answer the only asked question at the hidden section:" the idea of a hidden agenda" is against a prevailing view in Thai community, on which ground (in accordance with wikipedia verifiability)?

Deluxpizzatopping (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Because you have not clarified what the "hidden agenda" actually is yet, and then you just left the discussion. Biglobster (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Hidden agenda is always a highly speculative term. Articles should only focus on given/proven facts. I advise the editor to reword the statement so that it is clearly stated that it is speculation. If the information is relevant to the article (in my opinion, it is) it should be added but not presented as a fact. Arcillaroja (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Support See my explanation in the previous talk page discussion [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredtham59 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Support I already motivated my support on a previous discussion (cf.hidden agenda:royal succession. Agree with Arcillarojabut in such specific case it is because of the lese majesty law that prohibit Thai as a whole and also foreign media, analyst and anyone who might have business or wish to go one day in thailand to talk or write about it and facing a heavy jail term. Without that law it will be no more hidden agenda or at least no controversy as everyone could speak freely.Alfasxp07 (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Support I am Thai and I know well my country to provide readers with a usefull contribution.I understand that a number of Wikipedia editing rules are a result of egregious abuses of editing--No original research, Neutral point of view, verifiability and secondary sources were developed with good reason. But these rules can also be misused and abused. One user on this talk page is particularly concerned. This issue could be seen as limited to the topic we are treating, but I see it as a larger issue. The 112 Lèse majesté in Thailand is of great concern regarding this edit. From those part of the conflict to foreign press every must show restraint. The topic is now so much discussed on foreign and Thai social media, that the law enforcement is on the verge to be harsher [2] and[3]. There is enough support from news and the way the event is related leave no doubt that the wiki edit is factual and should be transcript as a fact. Ladypalm999 (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Despite all the links to recent news article, I think this just more of the same old royal tittle tattle that cycles around every few years. Anyone who follows Thai politics has heard it more than once already. Vajiralongkorn has been crown prince for forty years now. If the king wanted somebody else as heir apparent, we would have heard about it when the constitution was revised in 2006-2007. No matter how many people think the crown prince is a jerk, that won't stop him from becoming king. I should add that Sirindhorn has been a focus of this type of story for many years, and the reason has nothing to do with Thaksin. In 1977, she was awarded the title "maha chakri." This title is often translated as "crown princess" and suggests that the king was preparing her for succession. The king gave up on the idea of making Sirindhorn heir apparent sometime around 1980, but she still has this title. Many Thais don't realize that the title is strictly honorary, so it has led to a lot of confusion. The cheerful dwarf (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The content is just plain analysis and opinion. It should be included as an opinion, not a fact - or not included at all. It should not be in the introduction either: the introduction should be short, concise, and only contain the major facts and events. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal

There is a consensus to merge. One editor comments that this article is already too long, which is a valid concern; however, 2014 attack on Thai protest camp is currently only 68 words long, so there are probably better candidates for subarticles. Sunrise (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Paul 012 has proposed to merge 2014 attack on Thai protest camp into 2013–14 Thai political crisis.

  • I support the merger: We should not create separate articles about every single incident during this crisis. It is much more beneficial to put them in context and treat them in this article. --RJFF (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The title is even ambiguous: there have been several attacks on protest camps in Thailand in 2014. --RJFF (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've simply redirected here after considering several places were the content could be merged. It's unclear to me what significance this incident has in the greater scheme of things; it took place just before the coup, but doesn't seem to be any kind of trigger for that. I decided the incident fails WP:NEVENT. If it later turns out to be significant, there's still the page history for 2014 attack on Thai protest camp. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead too long

I would like to invite all users involved in editing this article to make specific proposals on how to shorten the overly long lead section. Obviously my ideas of what could be cut were not acceptable to everyone. So please join the discussion in order to find a compromise solution. --RJFF (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The messy intro has been bugging me a while too, so I'll see what I can come up with in my sandbox. Jr8825 • Talk 14:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I hope we can remove the part about there being a "hidden agenda." This is very openly about two guys who just don't like each other going at it. Between Bhumipol and Thaksin, I'll take the one who didn't murder his own brother. Does anyone know what it was about Thaksin that made the king object to him in the first place? Thaksin got stuff done and one upped the king. If there is any other issue involved, the king has kept it to himself. The great huha (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't around at the time to participate in the RfC, but I think there is no doubt that the monarchy should be mentioned, given the number of mainstream, reputable sources that have mentioned its - possible - role in relation to the crisis. (BBC, AlJazeera, Bloomberg, The Independent are all listed in the RfC discussion, I've also come across this Economist article as well.) The question in my mind is whether it is a significant enough factor in the crisis to warrant mention in the introduction - and given the extremely divisive nature of Thai politics, I think it's highly unlikely that everyone will agree about that (as the RfC has already shown). While I'm no professor of Thai politics, I would personally say that it should be included, as a majority of analysts I have read have mentioned it in some form. I'm still chipping away at the intro in my sandbox, and once I've got something reasonable I'll bring it here to be dissected/torn to shreds. Jr8825 • Talk 09:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not a professor of Thai politics, either; but there are professors (or assistant professors, or lecturers, their actual academic title is not that important) of Thai politics who have published their observations and analysis of the current conflict. Several are already linked in the article (Pavin, McCargo, Montesano, Nelson, Ukrist), we could add many more (Pasuk & Baker, Connors, Thitinan, ...) Each of them has their own thoughts and explanations of what is behind this crisis, including social conflict (lower/lower-middle class vs. upper-middle/upper class), regional conflict (North/Northeast vs. South; or capital vs. periphery), economic interests, and also succession (at least mentioned by Pavin and Thitinan; I think it is not that important what journalists say, scholars are better qualified to analyse the political/social/economic/cultural... backgrounds). In my opinion it is problematic to only mention one theory of what is the background of this conflict in the lead section, and neglect the other reasons that are discussed by high-profile analysts as well. This would be selective and unbalanced in my view. I would rather have a separate section in which all potential causes of the conflict can be discussed, mentioning which author(s) represent them (and, if any, which author(s) reject them). If we discuss all potential reasons that are contributed to the debate by any analyst in the lead section, the lead will be huge. And this could daunt readers rather than inviting them to continue reading. --RJFF (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I have just come across the draft in your Sandbox. It looks quite good. Mentioning the different potential causes without going into detail is a viable option, in my view. As far as I am concerned, your proposition definitely goes into the right direction: Providing a concise, but sufficiently informative and comprehensive introduction into the topic, without going into too much detail. I really like your work. --RJFF (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I would go a little further and cut the clause "Deeply controversial in Thailand". Firstly, "controversial" is a weasel word that should be avoided where possible, and secondly it is self-explanatory: Were it not controversial, there would not have been a political conflict. --RJFF (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

So here's my proposal (below). I've tried pretty hard to sit on the fence without making it deathly boring! It does include strong adjectives, but I don't think they are in this case 'weasel words' because they are a widely-accepted factual description of the crisis - (e.g. the protests aren't just divisive [(adjective) "tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people"], pretty much every analysis agrees that they are greatly polarising Thai society, so they are deeply divisive). The same goes for the protesters, they don't just see Thaksin as corrupt, but view him as far more corrupt than anyone else. I chose words such as 'disenfranchised' because they have been so widely used in coverage of the crisis. It's a tough line between being concise yet thorough so someone unfamiliar with the situation will get a feel for it, so any feedback would be appreciated. Jr8825 • Talk 17:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for intro

This RfC was closed because consensus was reached. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The 2013–14 Thai political crisis is an ongoing period of political instability in Thailand. Anti-government protests took place between November 2013 and May 2014, organised by the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), a political pressure group set up and led by former Democrat Party MP Suthep Thaugsuban.[1] The protests eventually resulted in the removal of the incumbent prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, a coup d'état and the establishment of a military junta.

Deeply divisive in Thailand, the primary aim of the protests was the removal of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's influence on Thai politics and the creation of an unelected "people's council" to oversee reforms of the political system.[2] Protesters view Thaksin as highly corrupt and damaging to Thailand's democracy,[3][4] although he enjoys strong support in many poorer areas of Thailand due to his reforming social programs and economic policies.[5][6] Political parties allied to Thaksin have won a majority in every election since 2001. Other issues, such as the royal succession,[7][8][9] a rural-urban or north-south divide,[10][11] over-centralised bureaucracy,[12][13] royal and military influence in politics[14][15][16][17] and middle-class status[18][19] have also been seen as factors behind the crisis by analysts and commentators.

The protests were first triggered by a proposed blanket amnesty bill that would have pardoned several politicians from various charges since 2004, including Thaksin Shinawatra, Suthep Thaugsuban and Abhisit Vejjajiva. Opposition from across the political spectrum, including the pro-government Red Shirt movement, caused the bill to be rejected unanimously by the Senate of Thailand.[20] Anti-government protests continued however, with demonstrators occupying government offices, blocking major road intersections and holding mass rallies in Bangkok to call for the resignation of Yingluck Shinawatra, the sister of Thaksin, and her Pheu Thai government. On 8 December 2013, all 153 opposition Democrat Party MPs resigned and Yingluck dissolved the House of Representatives, calling a snap general election for 2 February.[21] Voting was disrupted in areas of Bangkok and Southern Thailand by PDRC protesters blocking entry to polling stations, leading to an annulment of the result by the Constitutional Court.[22] Sporadic violence, including shootings, bomb attempts and grenades thrown at protesters, led to 28 deaths and over 800 injuries during the course of the protests.[23] On 21 January, Yingluck's government declared a state of emergency in Bangkok and the surrounding areas, to little effect.

Yingluck and 9 ministers were removed from office by the Constitutional Court on 7 May 2014 over the controversial transfer of a senior security officer in 2011.[24] Supporters of Yingluck and critics argued that the move was politically motivated and an abuse of judicial power.[25][26][27] On 20 May, the Royal Thai Army declared martial law throughout the nation,[28] followed two days later by a coup which removed the government and placed General Prayuth Chan-ocha as acting prime minister.[29] The ongoing political crisis has raised fears of a violent response from supporters of Thaksin, who feel disenfranchised after the governments they have elected in the last 5 general elections have been removed before completing their terms.[30][31][32]

  1. ^ "Suthep declares 'people's revolt'". Bangkok Post. 30 November 2013. Retrieved 14 January 2014.
  2. ^ "Thai protest leader explains demand for 'people's council'". China.org.cn. 4 December 2013. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
  3. ^ Young, Jeffrey Young (24 February 2014). "Turmoil in Thailand - Corruption and a Political Struggle". Voice of America. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
  4. ^ Jones, Aidan (21 January 2014). "Thaksin corruption claims stoke Thai protest outrage". The Nation. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
  5. ^ Stout, David (7 November 2013). "Popular But Ruthless". Time. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
  6. ^ Amsterdam, Robert (27 October 2010). "In Defense of Thaksin Shinawatra". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
  7. ^ Mark Fenn (10 January 2014). "Thailand on the Brink". The Diplomat. Retrieved 28 March 2014.
  8. ^ "Where is Thailand heading after protests?". BBC News. 7 March 2014. Retrieved 28 March 2014.
  9. ^ "The path to the throne". The Economist. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
  10. ^ Bagenal, Flora. "How the Urban-Rural Divide Became a Street War in Bangkok". Next City. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
  11. ^ "You go your way, I'll go mine". The Economist. 25 January 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
  12. ^ Boonmi, Thirayuth (17 October 2013). "Centralised governance the root of Thailand's woes". Bangkok Post. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
  13. ^ Rojanaphruk, Pravit (31 July 2013). "Centralisation of power 'behind social ills'". The Nation. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
  14. ^ Shawn W Crispin (30 January 2014). "No deal behind Thailand's polls". Asia Times Online. Retrieved 28 March 2014.
  15. ^ Brian Rex (11 February 2014). "Thai princess uses social media to 'declare war': Photos posted by Princess Chulabhorn Mahidol widely interpreted as a sign of her support for anti-government protesters". The Independent. London. Retrieved 28 March 2014.
  16. ^ Thongchai Winichakul (26 December 2013). "The antidemocratic roots of the Thai protesters". Al Jazeera America.
  17. ^ "Powerful forces revealed behind Thai protest movement". Reuters. 13 December 2013. Retrieved 28 March 2014.
  18. ^ Vorng, Sophorntavy. "Status City: Consumption, Identity, and Middle Class Culture in Contemporary Bangkok". Asian Correspondent. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
  19. ^ Saxer, Marc (23 January 2014). "How Thailand's Middle Class Rage Threatens Democracy". Social Europe Journal. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
  20. ^ "Thailand: anti-Thaksin protesters set new targets after amnesty bill defeat". The Guardian. 12 November 2013. Retrieved 13 January 2014.
  21. ^ "Thai prime minister dissolves parliament". Al Jazeera. 9 December 2013. Retrieved 15 December 2013.
  22. ^ "Thai court rules general election invalid". BBC. 21 March 2014. Retrieved 21 March 2014.
  23. ^ Cite error: The named reference fatalities_16_may was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  24. ^ "Yingluck, 9 ministers removed from office". Bangkokpost. 7 May 2014. Retrieved 22 May 2014.
  25. ^ "Experts Decry 'Judicial Coup' Against Yingluck". Khaosod English. 7 May 2014. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
  26. ^ Brennan, Elliot (8 May 2014). "Thai PM removed by judicial coup: What now?". The Interpreter. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
  27. ^ Bello, Walden (24 May 2014). "Military coup follows judicial coup in Thailand". The Inquirer. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
  28. ^ Cite error: The named reference martiallaw was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  29. ^ "'ประยุทธ์-เหล่าทัพ'แถลง'ควบคุมอำนาจรัฐ'" (in Thai). Komchadluek. 2014-05-22. Retrieved 2014-05-22. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
  30. ^ Blake, Chris (23 May 2014). "Thai Coup Risks Clashes as Thaksin Camp Better Organized". Bloomberg. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
  31. ^ Marshall, Andrew MacGregor (23 May 2014). "Is troubled Thailand tumbling into civil war?". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
  32. ^ Daniel, Zoe (23 May 2014). "No one blameless as Thailand faces civil unrest". ABC News. Retrieved 31 May 2014.

Please dissect/destroy (see above conversation for more info). For some reason the refs aren't working properly, but all the text is there, have a look in my sandbox for a duplicate of the intro with the full reflist. Bear in mind that the blank references there are due to the fact that I copied the section straight out of the existing article, so named references introduced elsewhere in the article (such as the infobox) won't appear. I'm more than happy to put the work in to transfer the intro into the article (duplicated refs will have to be sorted out, as well as moving any information in the existing intro further into the article) as long as no one greatly opposes it. Jr8825 • Talk 17:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Great work! Thank you very much. Overall I agree with your proposal. In my opinion you have really put the most important issues in a nutshell. Your proposal summarises the most important events, actors, developments and potential causes. It is, as I have written before, both comprehensive and concise.
I still think that we should avoid the use of "contentious", "controversial" and "divisive", not just because they are weasel words, but also because we do not need them. If you write that some see Thaksin as "highly corrupt and damaging" and on the other hand he "enjoys strong support in many poorer areas", you do not need to write that he is divisive. It is self-evident. If the transfer of the security officer leads to charges and an impeachment of the prime minister, you do not need to write that it was controversial. It is self-evident too. If you write that critics said the CC ruling was "politically motivated and an abuse of judicial power", you do not need to write that it was contentious. It is just redundant. Moreover I would not only mention the 28 deaths, but also the hundreds of injured. Not only those who are killed are victims of the violence, but also those who are (sometimes gravely) injured. All in all, your proposal is still a major improvement and brings the article a great step forward. --RJFF (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to be a little fussy: The Thaksin camp did not win a large majority in 2007. They were slightly ahead of the Democrats and only had a majority due to a coalition with minor parties. --RJFF (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • What's missing from this version of the intro is the emotion that is driving the conflict: Thais from the northeast vote for pro-Thaksin parties because they resent being looked down on by city slickers. Urbanites claim that people in the countryside are ready to sell their votes for a few baht and a bottle of Singha. This is yet another smear against the farmers as far as Thaksin supporters are concerned.
  • An even bigger oversight is that there is no mention of the king. Until you realize how many Thais would jump out a window for the king, you have no idea what this conflict is about. The schools don't teach anything about democracy or rule of law. Political education is just king, king, and more king. In short, there are plenty of Thais ready to disrupt elections or support a military coup if that's what they think the king wants. It's enough to give you, "a headache as big as a farm," as the Thais would put it.
  • There has always been speculation about royal succession. There always will be. That is the nature of monarchy. Reporters connect whatever they are writing about to current events in order to make it appear fresh. In the business, it's called a "news peg." The great huha (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made some of the changes suggested by RJFF (removal of 'large' majority, removal of contentious (I think that is pretty obsolete), added the injuries).
Over the usage of "controversial" , I would argue that the intro might otherwise imply that Yingluck's action was definitely wrong or right, whereas controversial shows that there is argument over her actions, not just the court's ruling and punishment of her.
About the word "divisive", I still think that's actually one of the most important parts of the intro. In other countries people may hate or love politicians, but this is not necessarily taken in such a personal way as it is in Thailand, I have read various articles about how the crisis is 'tearing families apart' over their political views and hatred between the two camps in the past is widely documented. I think that the word is pretty key to understanding the gravity of Thailand's crisis.
  • In response to The great huha's points, I think the intro does implicate reasonably clearly the emotion that is driving the conflict, through the words 'deeply divisive'. I don't personally think that more need be added to the intro, seeing as it is a 'political crisis' after all. I would say that the emotions should be clarified and explained further down in the article itself (which is next on my hit-list after the into!). However, if other people also feel that I've overlooked the intensity of emotions I'm more than happy to re-work or add a clause to that effect.
The monarchy. Are you saying that aside from the succession, you think there should be a point about royal interference in politics (the princess)?  Done If you're saying it should be mentioned because of it's influence, I think that would be better suited to be explained in the background section, rather than the intro, because it is an issue applicable to all Thai politics, not just this crisis in particular.
About the royal succession, even if you think it just a 'news peg', the amount of coverage it has had from reputable sources (such as the Economist for example, which isn't exactly a tabloid paper about to take liberties for sensational headlines) I think it definitely warrants a mention, regardless of your or my personal opinions.
Thanks for the feedback, Jr8825 • Talk 04:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I've added a mention of royal influence on politics, I'll add more cites later. Jr8825 • Talk 05:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
In its current version the proposal is totally acceptable to me and a massive improvement vis-à-vis the status quo. If we followed The great huha's proposal we would get a problem with WP:NPOV. I think that everyone who is interested and observes this conflict has an opinion about it and it is very difficult to stay neutral. But Wikipedia does not have the ambition to hold the truth, but neutrally report all significant views on a topic, without taking sides (even if one side may deserve our sympathy more than the other). In my view, Jr's proposal seems to be sufficiently balanced as it presents the views of both sides, as well as the analysis of third-party observers. I strongly support replacing the lead section in its current version by Jr's latest proposal. --RJFF (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I've now gone and cut away at some of the excess citations, which were probably WP:CITEKILL. (Here's a link to the version with lots of refs.) Jr8825 • Talk 15:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Even better! --RJFF (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have argued: (1) PRDC supporters protest and disrupt elections because they think the king wants them to do this. (2) Thaksin supporters are people from the countryside who don't appreciate urbanites looking down on them. I don't see how either of these propositions are POV or even controversial. Anyone who has talked to the members of the two groups can confirm what I am saying. The great huha (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Talking to members of the two groups is original research, not what Wikipedia should do. Moreover, not everything that is verifiable has to be included in the lead section. Otherwise the lead section would be as long as the whole article. Jr's proposal already includes that a rural-urban divide and royal influence in politics are considered factors behind the conflict. There is no need to go into more detail in the lead section. --RJFF (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I really like your version of the intro. It contains all the key facts and does not contain excessive points of view. I oppose to the addition of more royal-related content (hidden agenda royal suggestion can stay as an opinion as it is now). The old intro has been spammed with pro-government points of view. let's hope that other editors won't be doing that to this one. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I certainly feel vindicated by this news. Not only will the junta continue Yingluck's economic policies, including her "corrupt" rice-buying scheme, but they are bringing back Thaksin's old economic team to implement them. How long before military officers are appointed to the major corporate boards again, as they were in 2006? The great huha (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Umm... what exactly has that got to do with improving the intro (or the article for that matter)? We're not here to debate who is worse! Jr8825 • Talk 12:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
You realize that the article has a 14-paragraph section on the rice-buying scheme? It's an article about an unfolding news event. I don't see anything improper about linking and discussing the latest news in this area, whether we decide to include it or not. The great huha (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Jr8825, Not much objection here, shall we proceed? It has been here for some time. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I was biding my time to see if there'd be any other responses, but I'll go ahead and make the change now. I'd appreciate if someone could close the RfC, thanks. Jr8825 • Talk 06:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for your efforts. Unfortunately I cannot close it, because I took part in it. --RJFF (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposing a major removal of content

I suggest removing the section regarding the plans and announcements prior to the occupation of Bangkok. The 5-10 paragraphs leading up to 13th January in the Occupation of Bangkok section talks about Suthep's plans regarding the shutdown (not all of them were true: e.g. They planned to close 20 major intersections, they only closed 7) and unnecessary pro-election opinions. They obscure the navigation of the article, I think they should be removed. Since the scale of removal will be large, I wish to have an agreement before commencing. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree in some degree:
  • Plan for intersections blocked should not be in details like that, because the final outcome is already known to be 7 so 7 intersections should be the details instead. It should say something like "20 intersections planned, though 7 actually blocked as follows 1) 2) 3) etc."
  • Due weight is necessity. Unnecessary pro-election or pro/against whatever opinions consideration should take due weight into account. Having said that, I agree that there are some excessive opinions in the article. The opinion should be used sparingly to help readers understanding the topic, and we stick with the fact for the rest. Even pro-election (i prefer defining them as against-Democrat) opinion is dominating the article right now, we should not limit to removing those for clean up.
  • Lots of small changes maybe more appropriate here than one big change. --Biglobster (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


As the political crisis is still on process, we should wait and see what to remove and what to keep. I strongly oppose any change right now as I do for the lead section but will agree to a major rewriting process not only for the mentioned section but to the whole article later. Also by removing part of the article some ref will not be accessible for verification such as news from bangkok post and later rewriting will be much more difficult.Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 16:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"Lots of small changes maybe more appropriate here than one big change" agree but as I do not trust your autoproclamed NPOV It will have to be discussed and I will not accept any compromise if no prior discussion with other editors with a clear consensus.Fred Tham 59 Do not bite, so talk ! 16:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not that I have time or plan to do it myself, but I am not sure why anyone would need your approval and follow your rule, and why I need to come to discuss to get consensus for everything I am going to edit. One thing I am sure is that no one own this article. --Biglobster (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No please, enough damage to the introduction, do not destroy the rest of the article as you already did for the intro, leave the task to more neutral editor.125.25.205.103 (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The political crisis has settled quite a lot. I shall proceed. It is far too detailed and full of comments and plans that were not put into action. I shall not do this in one edit and please feel free to make comments. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I support this. Thanks for your efforts! --RJFF (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013–2014_Thai_political_crisis/Archive_3&oldid=1140182917"