Talk:Pai, Thailand

Pai Police Discussion

I have noticed that many 'academic' wiki participates are quick to remove reference to the Pai police department citing that this is not qualified 'wikinews.'

The fact is if that any of you have ACTUALLY BEEN to Pai recently, then you would see that it is more than news and actually just a way of life.

I understand that your interests are to keep wiki clean and filled with only factual and unbiased information, what you need to understand that amoung the residents and vistors to Pai, this is the Factual information and a way of life rather than passing news.

We always welcome edits and help with articles,however please reconsider next time you snap the undo button and consider visiting and living in Pai before you appoint yourself editor and expert on the subject. Wwind (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Although wwind's edit is very ranty and in need of facts, he is definitely correct that the Pai police conduct is a relevant, long-established, innate aspect of Pai that must be documented here--not just the one shooting but the overall trend. It is something that nearly every Pai citizen has thought about a lot in the last few years and makes up part of the inherent atmosphere and climate of Pai. An encyclopedia entry without it would be like an entry on Isreal/Palestine that didn't mention that little conflict they're having. I replaced Wwind's rants with solid historical facts of several incidents with references. That should address the issue of suitability for Wikipedia. 125.24.174.136 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for gathering up those facts and references. It can definitely be compared to the Israel-Palestine conflict as the police behavior has just become a part of the daily life and feeling and definition of the town. If somebody wants to remove that stuff, I ask that if you have not been to pai latey, then you do not understand what is happening in the town. Wwind (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think the whole police issue is irrelevant, as this is an encyclopedia, and not a list for news reports. Nor is Wikipedia a soapbox where one can express the discomfort with some local authorities, or speculation on the reasons around it. And it is quite obviously not NPOV, as it is only written from the view of a few farang living there. That section makes up about 50% of the whole article, as if this is the only thing notable about this small town. I of course know there IS a lot of corruption in Thailand, and wouldn't be surprised if one or several underpaid local officer have abused their power. But this still does not make it important enough to be featured in this detail here. andy (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Andy - have you been to pai Lately? what you have just stated is if we had an article on China and did not mention that they were communist. Since it is in the Region, i will also refer you to the Wiki article on Burma- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma - specfically the portion about the monks protest - is that information in the article -'News' or 'Wiki worthy' The fact is that pai has and is now a police state and anybody who has visited for more than a few days will wholeheartedly agree. just because it isnt in the guidebook (at least not yet) doesnt mean that it is not true. Wwind (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't been in Pai yet. But does that matter? If this information is only accessible to someone who stays there, and does not get any mention outside there it is probably no that much relevant, and we have a problem with making those statements to be confirmable with external sources. As you like to give comparisons - if someone writes about a crackpot physical theory here, and he claims that only when you have studied it in detail you are eligible to have an opinion about it. I don't doubt that the farang community in Pai has the impression of the local authorities doing something wrong, and I fully understand the grief about the recent death of a tourist. But from all what I hear in the sources available to me, this was "just" the case of a police office having his finger too close to the trigger of his weapon, shooting instead of trying to deescalate. Something that can happen everywhere, and it only got into the news outside the town because a foreigner was involved. But the claim that Pai has become a "police town" to me seems to be more using Wikipedia as a soapbox (which it is not) than something proveable, relevant and notable. andy (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

For interest, regarding "The fact is that pai has and is now a police state and anybody who has visited for more than a few days will wholeheartedly agree", I live in Thailand and I was in Pai for 10 days a few days ago and I wholeheartedly disagree. Calling Pai a 'police state' does slightly devalue the term 'police state' don't you think ? Hmmm...I wonder if restrictions on the movement of hilltribe people by the army checkpoints near Pai gets close to being police state-like...but hey, who cares about them, they're not important compared to tourists and foreign/Thai residents. However, I would add that my experience and opinion is of no consequence since it is original research which does not belong in wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in Pai RIGHT NOW and editors are not disqualified from editing this page just because they haven't been to Pai. I haven't seen any cops in this town. For what it's worth, I have seen plenty of hippies and backpackers, however, who seem to think Pai is or ought to be some sort of counterculture haven. Compared to China, where I spent the last several weeks, it's practically anarchy here.Bdell555 (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As a regular visitor to Pai (having 'married-in') I can't recognise the own from either the 'police state' or 'anarchy' descriptions. My own experience, over the last 9 years, is that the police don't go out of their way tomake themselves visible, but they are there if you look. As regards the "restrictions on the movement of hilltribe people by the army checkpoints near Pai" - don't forget that Pai is in a region not far from the border with Burma/Myanmar, and the region has long been one through which drugs and weapons have been smuggled. This is the primary reason for the checkpoints, not restriction of hilltribe movement.

Brujahwolf (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"World War II Memorial Bridge"

I considered editing the main article, but decided that it might be better to make my point via the discussion (not having edited before) . . . ! edit, 13 October 2011 - I have made an edit on the main page, and also added a link to Chris Pirazzi's informative "all about Pai" website ! . . . .

In the main article it states that the bridge "still stands about 10 km from Pai on the road to Chiang Mai".

In fact, the original bridge does not still stand.

A good review of the bridge features can be found as part of the "All About Pai" website (see http://allaboutpai.com/bridge/), from an article researched and written by Hak Hakanson, formerly a bridge inspector for the US State of Pennsylvania.

Additionally, a display at the bridge, erected at the time of a refurbishment in 2007, provides further illumination of the history of the bridge, and states that the steel truss bridge was erected not by the Imperial Japanese Army during WWII, but rather by a Thai government entity around 1976. This bridge includes a plaque bearing the words "United States Steel Products Company U.S.A. 1930" (see http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoff_b/4062194957/).

(Geoff Burns - visiting Pai at least once a year since 2003, and married to a local) Brujahwolf (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There is more to the saga of the bridge

With regard to Geoff Burns' observations:

I've found that the bridge was erected in three distinct phases. Spans 4, 5, and 6 comprised the original bridge. Spans 1, 2, and 3 were added as a group at a later time, as the result of a washout. And Span 7 was added at still a later date, also apparently (but less clearly) as the result of a washout. I've published the information in a small circulation newspaper, Chiang Mai Post, and will get an expanded presentation to Chris Pirazzi's website, and my own, in the near future. The support for this are solely my own observations.

I would also dearly love to have a source provided for the comment: 'The Thai government started developing the road leading from Chiang Mai via Pai to Mae Hong Son, known today as Route 1095, in 1967.' I don't disagree with it; I just don't have any support for it.

In the interim I will try to edit the following in the article:

1. Relocate footnote 7: as currently located, it appears intended to support the statement "A wood and steel bridge . . . Thai civilians pressed into service." There is nothing in the reference (another Wikipedia article) that supports that statement. The reference is appropriate to the parenthetical text, 'in addition to the well-known Death Railway through Kanchanaburi'.

2. Delete the first-quoted statement quoted above since it is unsupportable.

3. Modify the remaining text to provide a smooth transition through the revised text.

4. Correct the last sentence in the paragraph: the supply line was never completed. The partially completed road did serve as one route for retreat of IJA personnel from their wholly disastrous defeat at Imphal. Those using the road were primarily wounded and disabled: they were directed to that route on the mistaken belief that it would be the easiest of the several routes available for weakened, handicapped personnel to negotiate. The resulting high death rate for IJA personnel led to its being included in some accounts of 'The Road of Skeletons' which started in Kemapyu in Burma and extended through Khun Yuam, and, in this case, beyond. Support: Inoue, Motoyoshi, Wandering the Burma Front (Yamaguchi? Omura, 1988) [Japanese language: 彷徨ビルマ戦線], Journal on Collection of Japanese War Dead: Burma, India, Thailand, (Tokyo: All Burma Comrades Organization, 1980) [Japanese language: 戦没者遺骨収集の記録 ピルマ・インド・タイ].

Hak Hakanson Chiang Mai PhuDoi1 (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)