Talk:2006 Thai coup d'état/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Initial reports

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)

BBC News reports this too. 82.2.135.152 18:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

*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)

I think something should be written on the... 'friendliness' as stated at BBC, where soldiers are happy and waving and taking photos etc, general public is not worried, etc. I think the most concern would be why the King hasn't responded yet, or maybe even the thai baht drop. 124.121.96.104 23:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Prime Minister comments

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)

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)

BBC News reports King to meet Army

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)

Copyright issues (Pictures, Video) and Coup

I have several video clips of coup representation declaring the coup, captured from Thai TV. I plan to upload them to my blog. Anyone know what license it would be? I think they arenot copyrighted because Thai constitution has been suspended. underexpose 19:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

i think if its under "fair use" thingy then its ok, since we are not making money from it and if you keep the resolution down its fair use.

A constitution affects the governance of a country - its suspension doesn't affect the country's standing laws. So copyright is still a factor. Low-res screen captures are fair use, though; don't forget to tag them with {{Tv-screenshot}}. -- ChrisO 19:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please redraft most of the second half of the Day Two commentary - it's a rip-off from an Australian news website. MojoTas 03:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Aussie and not familar with the names of Thai political players. I found the use of "Gen. Sondhi Boonyaratkalin" in para one then just Sondhi in the rest confusing and a little familiar and/or disrespectful (could be just me)

That's what they do on CNN too, so it's probably just the usual practice for Thai names (although I can't confirm that). --Toby Bartels 04:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in Thailand people are usually address by their first name, even the telephone books are sorted by first name. Thus in Thailand everyone would call him "General Sonthi" and not "General Boonyaratkalin". andy 08:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[1] this site has pictures, can we use them or do we not have the right licensing? ~Rangeley (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The poster of pictures in that webboard use Navi's official email address. However, it is still unclear where s/he got the photo from. For now, I put a link (under "Media") to that website rather than upload such photo into wiki. --underexpose 20:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of Bangkok Post Front Page: I believe it is fair use to have the front page. It is commonly done on other website such as the BBC. This material is not copyrighted and there is even a possibility when downloading the Pix to indicate it comes from a newspaper front page. Other pictures may be a probleme but not this one! Roger jg 09:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The soldier's picture is also available on the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/5362602.stm and is form an Austin Arensberg. It is downloaded in Wiki with a CC licence. Free picture can be found at NowPublic.com if this particular one is a problem

Media bias

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)

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)

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)

Where is your evidence of this bias? dposse 21:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Article move?

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)

Thai Website

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)

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)

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

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)

Media

The article speaks of to the Thairat Daily. Is that the same as the Thai Rath? Bolivian Unicyclist 23:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I have noted that the Bangkok newspaper websites are functioning as normal. Does anyone know if the papers are actually on the streets today? It is an unusual coup d'etat that imposes no press censorship. Adam 23:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Bangkok Post: Was this site intentionally taken down? I see an article about the coup on google news but can't get on the site.--Sappycynic 02:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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) Bangkok

19 or 20 Sep?

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)

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)

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)

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)

This news site (Chinese) released this story over six hours ago now. *smb 21:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting way to celebrate "International Talk like a Pirate Day" :\ 220.235.175.247 23:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidently it got mistranslated into Thai as "Talk like a Coup Leader Day"... -- ChrisO 23:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Title Discussion

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)

I was thinking precisely the same thing. 2006 Thailand coup d'état may work just fine, too. -- tariqabjotu 22:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Thailand coup d'etat, 2006 would be better, but I agree that September and military are redundant. Adam 22:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 Thailand coup d'état seems fine with me. dposse 22:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. -- ChrisO 23:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

Talk page cleanup

I segmented the first few paragraphs above into topics for readability & access. -- RayBirks 00:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And what is the copyright status of that photo? Adam 00:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

I have put together all issues related to copyrightRoger jg 08:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Time?

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

Brief Synopsis

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) al jazeera has a timeline link with last year's events: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F9E2C9FC-29F6-4443-A916-36D2FEB7FB6B.htm. it shows some source for stockbroking speculation.80.57.242.54 02:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)80.57.242.54 02:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone knows exactly why the military staged the coup, and it is not our job to speculate on that matter. If others speculate about it, we can of course quote them. Adam 02:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Here's something thats usable in the article, from the Sydney Morning Herald: "Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party was expected to win a re-run tentatively scheduled for late November, increasing pressure on his opponents in the military and the old establishment to resort to removing him by force."[2] Very straight forward. Patiwat 08:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

facts wrong

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)

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)

Some naming conventions

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 [3], the Party of Democratic Reform [4], the Council for Democratic Reform [5], and Council for Political Reform [6].

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)

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)

• The regime leader: Sonthi Boonyaratkalin is the spelling that is used for his article title. It is sometimes spelt Sondhi; this isn't his official spelling and can cause confusion with Sondhi Limthongkul. Please make sure to change the spelling to make it consistent. Patiwat 06:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thai names: Thais use their given names as the public form of their names. Thus with Thaksin Shinawatra, his surname is Shinawatra, but he is always called Prime Minister Thaksin. Adam 04:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, how interesting. That'd be like us saying "President Bill" or "President George" rather than Presidents Clinton and Bush. --Cyde Weys 05:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

I have an Indonesian friend called Dr Didi Sutono, who says "In Indonesia I am Dr Didi and in the west I am Dr Sutono." But Indonesians are very inconsistent. The last President was President Megawati but the current one is President Yudhoyono. Adam 06:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Surakiart Sathirathai

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)

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)

Future development

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)

No one knows what will happen next. Who knows, maybe civil warNFAN3 11:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)NFAN3

Did the King order the coup?

Two Thai friends have told me by email that the general belief in Bkk is that the King ordered the coup, which everyone in Bkk approves of. It will be a different story out in the sticks, but the Bkk elite don't care what they think. Adam 08:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought those who respected the king would think it to be rediculous, for the king to stoop that low. I'm not sure whether everyone in Bangkok approving the coup is because those who think otherwise aren't being stupid and keeping their mouth shut, or because Thai people's sense of democracy was far more badly established than imagined. Paul C 09:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

They support the coup because they hate Thaksin, and telling themselves that the King wanted the coup helps them feel better about it Adam 09:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No way. It can be speculated from the video the coup claims to the be the proof of having spoken to the king. They show just running cars and no sign of Sujinda-Jumlong like kind of video. Plus, the king is usually stay at Hua-hin not Bangkok. So, I highly doubt that they actually have spoken to the king and if they really did I doubt that the king did approve their actions. 131.215.7.233 10:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the King "ordered" the coup either. But I do think he gave indications that he wouldn't oppose it. And indeed he has not opposed it. Adam 10:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Adam, give me your personal email address and I'll tell you what I really think. You should know darn well that no Thai person (who still expects to live in Thailand) would ever mention what they really think in a forum like this. Patiwat 10:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your homepage is not set up for me to email you, and I'm not posting my email address here. Go to my homepage and email me from there at "email this user." Adam 10:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As a Thai who loves BOTH the King AND Democracy, I won't believe one bit that he had ordered the coup. It is very suspicious indeed why: 1) the King is in Chitrada Palace in Bangkok instead of his usual Klai Kangvol Palace in Hua Hin. 2) We have never seen what the King said to the junta leaders, even though they promised us that it would be "coming soon" since 3 a.m. in the morning. My own pet theory: they got scolded badly and don't want to show it to the public after they've declared "loyalty to the King". THE KING ORDERED THE COURT TO SETTLE THE POLITICAL CONFLICT, LOOKED FORWARD TO A CLEAN ELECTION, AND DIDN'T WANT TO APPOINT AND UNELECTED PRIME MINISTER. Yet, they think it's loyal to make a coup and suspend the "best, most democratic, people's" Constitution.
The worst thing is, the middle-to-upper class and the "intellectual elite" of Bangkok are agreeing with it. It's unbelievable. At least during Thaksin's regime we can openly criticize him and even yelling "Get Out!". People who protests about this coup is immediately thrown in jail. Lots of civil rights are suspended. 15 years of Democratic development went down the drain. AND BANGKOKIANS ELITES THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
Patiwat is, as usual, trying to drag the king in the conflict. I refuse to believe it. But I wholeheartedly agree with him that: Thaksin is bad, a coup is a lot worse.
O.K., sorry about the rant. It seems I'm the only few Thais who want Thaksin to go down Democratically - and absolutely hate this coup. I also hate when people are citing loyalty to the King to promote their petty cause, since in the long run it will only hurt the King himself. DTRY 11:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If the King opposes the coup he can always go on TV and say so. If he says nothing that will be taken as an endorsement of the coup. Evon more so if he swears in the junta's nominee as Prime Minister. This is a dangerous course to take after 15 years of democracy. Remember what happened to Constantine II of Greece. Adam 11:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion shouldn't even take place here! This is only gossips and rumours and unless there are factual information, I don't the point of this being discussed at all. It's irrelevant. Let's keep these bar-stool discussions out of here.Roger jg 11:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What can one expect from a person who tolerates the split infinitive? (shudder). Adam 11:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I also don't use the Oxford comma! ;-) Roger jg 13:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Read "The King Never Smiles" by Paul Handley, he doesn't have all the right answers, but he does put thing into perspective. Tettyan 12:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia policy, let the facts speak for themselves, and only note speculation when it is published by someone else's. The facts in this case show that after the April elections, Thaksin confidently publicly declared victory. The next day, he had an audience with the King, and a few hours later, appeared on TV, practically crying, saying that he wouldn't accept the Premiership. And a few days ago, General Prem had an audience with the King at the same time the tanks started rolling out of Lopburi. Patiwat 14:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, here is what some of the press is saying about the King's role: Patiwat 19:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• "It remains unclear exactly what role the king played in removing Thaksin. The palace claims it was not involved in the events, but the king late Wednesday endorsed Sonthi as the head of a temporary governing council, according to a nationally televised announcement -- essentially giving his blessing to the coup. Many Thai people, along with political and monarchy experts, see it as another example of the constitutional monarch's behind-the-scenes power, which he has exercised sparingly but effectively in his six-decade reign.... There was no one event that led to Thaksin's ouster, but a series of missteps that prompted many to accuse the prime minister of challenging the king's authority -- an unpardonable act in Thailand.... Some say the palace was infuriated by Thaksin's apparent attempt to steal the spotlight during the king's lavish June celebrations for his 60 years on the throne by breaching protocol by greeting visiting royals ahead of the Thai monarchy." [7]
• Sulak Sivalak: "If the king didn't give a nod, this never would have been possible. Thaksin failed to realize that the king has been on the throne for 60 years and he's no fool. The man is old, and Thaksin thought he could play around with him -- and it was a dangerous game. He felt he could belittle the king, and that's something the king cannot stand." [8]
• Paul Handley: "Thaksin showed a certain lack of regard for the king and the palace's desires. And he showed a lot of independence which the palace saw disfavorably."

I fail to see the point of speculation not based on evidence. Why trying to involve the king and event suggest that he had control over the coup if there is no evidence? I think the last paragraph of this section is trying to say far to much and is borderline POV.Roger jg 05:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

When a paragraphe starts with "However, if one consider from another point of view.." This is called a Point of View (POV) and goes against Wiki policies. Again may I remind editors that this article is not the place to discuss the involvment and prior knwoledge of the King. If you have tracable information about it fine otherwise keep the discussion for the bar tonight! Roger jg 08:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger jg, which paragraph starting with "However, if one consider from another point of view.." are you referring to? I'm not sure what you're talking about. Patiwat 08:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it and two others that were based on POV Roger jg 09:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Patiwat, you so-called "facts" are just speculations from social critics. While they might sound, they're not a concrete, undeniable evidence. And most of foreign news reporters get it wrong that the King released a statement ordering Thai people to obey the CDRM. That statement was MADE BY CDRM NOT THE KING. All the King did was appointing Sonthi as the chief of the CDRM (not Prime Minister, either.) Of course, one may assume that this means He supports the coup. Let me remind you that he did appoint Thaksin as the Prime Minister after 2005 elections, even though he gave disapproval speeches about Thaksin's government many times in the first four years. He appointed Thaksin since it was the will of the people, no matter wrong or right. This time it's no different. Lots of people especially in Bangkok support the coup, and there's almost no way to reverse the damage that was done. Since Sonthi had assured that he will set up a civilian government and return the power to the people quickly, it might be better to let him do it. I myself still wish the King should scold Sonthi and told him to go back to the barracks quickly, however.
And here are some non-factual speculations of my own:

1. Why, after 3 days since the coup, are there only a picture of the King and the Queen meeting with leaders of the CDRM and privy councillor Prem sent to the media? Why aren't we allow to hear what their conversation is about? If the conversation is beneficial to the CDRM, they would not hesitate to air the whole footage all over the country.
2. Why, in the picture of the said meeting, nobody smiles? The King and Queen looked serious, and the CDRM and Prem didn't look so happy either. Was there something wrong?
3. Check this link on Prachatai website. Scroll down to comment 62 (in Thai.) While the accuracy of the post is questionable, it should be an interesting read. Comment 64 is also an interesting speculation.

So, unless we heard any actual word from the King, I will stand firmly on my case. Don't write encyclopedia entry from speculations, guys. - DTRY 16:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Prevention is better than cure

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))

According to this page there are only 38 native thai speakers on wikipedia. Obviously there will be a few more than this but I don't think there will be enough for a edit war to begin, especially as internet access is supposedly blocked/partially blocked in thailand. As the article is being constantly revised and updated, vandalism/bias will be easy to spot and remove. So, I don't think it's necessary, but you know, whatever. Sam Hayes 10:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sam Hayes. This is an extremely active article, which should help prevent any vandalism from lasting. Even the Thai version of this article is surprisingly active. Patiwat 10:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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) Bangkok

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)

Intro too short? It should be a summary of key elements in article

An editor removed information in the introduction on the junta's arrests of Cabinet members and protestors, noting that the introduction should be concise. This is a significant article of pretty good quality (tons of references, very NPOV so far), and GAs and FAs usually have introductions of 2-3 paragraphs, summarizing all key elements of the article. I think that arrests of political prisoners is certainly something that deserves mentioning in the intro. What do you think? Patiwat 10:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a large amount of information in the article, and the short introduction doesn't do it justice. I'm expanding it with summarized information that isn't covered in the original paragraph. Patiwat 12:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm also adding a summary of international reactions on the coup, since this is information that does not seem to be available in the mainstream Thai press, and would therefore be something the Thai reader would be extremely interested in. Please modify the wording of the summary if you think I'm not capturing the right diplomatic statements. Patiwat 12:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is currently 7,800 words long (40-50,000 characters, depending on how they are counted), but the 1 paragraph introduction is only 100 words long. For an article of this length, a 1 paragraph introduction is not acceptable. See [Wikipedia:Lead section#Length] for guidelines, which suggest that an article of this size needs a 3-4 paragraph intro. Patiwat 12:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The intro should stay fairly brief, even if this article is lengthy. Moreoever, the emphasis should be balanced, not arbitrary or otherwise. There are lot's of developments to cover. Let's try to keep the lead looking clean and professional. El_C 12:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of developments covered by the lead, each could receive a paragraph (elections postponed, media suppression, dissolution of parliament, arrest of cabinet members, ban of protests and arrest of protestors) but then it would be too lengthy. The incremental by-paragarph addition fails before reaching this logical conclusion, by virtue of imbalanced emphasis on one of these developments veruss another. El_C 12:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

True. But again, as per Guidelines, 1 paragraph is inappropriate for an article containing this much information. And simply adding sentences to the back of an already long paragraph is starting to make that paragraph quite unreadable. Guidelines suggest 3-4 paragraphs. I'll suggest they be divided up into

1. Highest level explanation of what happened

2. The ARC's post-coup key actions: timeline for democratization, restrictions on human rights

3. Local public support and protests.

4. International reactions. A summary showing the diversity of views. 1-2 sentences should be given to summarize reactions of superpowers: US, UK/EU, UN

-- Patiwat 12:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to expand on everything in a balanced way, that's fine. But adding one paragraph on one specific development skews the emphasis and is non-neutral (the neutrality policy supercedes the style guideline). El_C 13:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the lead criteria in that style guideline is probably better suited to nondynamic entries (without a {{current}} tag; i.e. the vast overwhelming majority of articles). For ongoing and controversial events, the benefit of a lead being very brief —even if it contravenes the style guidelines— is that it works to prevent unremitting edit wars. El_C 13:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That first argument doesn't really work for me. That argument could be applied to any article, and would imply that intros are either completely uselessly short or non-existant. Because by its very nature, summarization is a "lossy" process and thus some bias will inevitably creep in in choosing what is lost and what is retained. But the fact is, we're an encyclopedia, and we have to be usable for our readers. Usability requires us to make our content readable; a 7,800 word article, even if it is very well divided up into sections and sub-sections, still needs an intro of sufficient length to be comprehensible for a first time reader without 20 minutes on their hands. Patiwat 14:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just explaining, as an aside, the reality of why leads often do not live up to the guideline in these type of articles (of course, no other encyclopedia has an entry on this topic). Feel free to expand the lead, but do note how decisive it is in terms of prose and balance. I think it's unreasonable to expect those incremental by-paragraph additions to stay in the lead until they're rewritten. In that sense, too, it's better to have a slim lead until a balanced expansion is worked out. El_C 21:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, do you agree with the outline I suggested above? Please, not just a "yes" or "no", but say what you think should be expanded and what you think does not need to be mentioned. Patiwat 03:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the outline seems fine, but expanding what we have right now (highest level explanation) is the tricky part (again, in terms of prose & balance). I don't really have a strong opinion for it being expanded at this time, though, which is why I haven't attempted it. El_C 10:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• For your records, the additions which I originally hid, and now removed, can be found here. El_C 10:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Whose reactions to include?

Whose reactions to note (besides official government or NGO statements) of in the article? I'd suggest editorial opinions of key publications, former senators/MPs, and academics. We should try to maintain an NPOV, so don't limit it to just the anti-Thaksin crowd. But lets not include interview comments by random people on the street. Patiwat 10:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a section for the local thai media and the various governments to show their opinion. I'll like to suggest opening a section for international Media under international section. From what ive read. They oppose the coup but are nonetheless, still critical or Thaksin. TSim 13:16, 21 September 2006 (-500GMT)

Nice work

This is an impressive article, thank you very much for writing it. Fingers crossed for Thailand! --kingboyk 10:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Many of my co-workers were commenting on this article today and were impressed as well. --Wisekwai 16:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

I would also like to add my congratulations on the comprehensive timetable in the implementation of the coup set out in the article and the insight it gives into the mechanics of a Coup.It is the most all encompassing article I have read abot the Coup stated in a very factual way.203.56.245.123 02:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

By far the best coverage I have found anywhere on the Internet, and I have been looking fairly hard. Amazing accomplishment for an encyclopedia. David Watson 05:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Report unbiased words describing behaviour

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)

No doubt there will be plenty of commentary of this kind in the coming days which you can quote in the "reactions" section. Others will point out that Thaksin is an arrogant, authoritarian, corrupt demagogue who brought this coup upon himself (and the Thai people) by his shameless behaviour, and those opinions can be quoted as well. Adam 12:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Day 2 is a bit messy..

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)

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)

cleaning done Roger jg 17:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the U.S. have milltary bases there.

from the article:

“

• United States - The State Department announced that it was "monitoring the situation with concern." A spokesman said, "We look to the Thai people to resolve their political differences in a peaceful manner and in accord with the principles of democracy and the rule of law." U.S. Ambassador to the UN John R. Bolton noted that "We have press reports and I think for now the important thing is to look for the sustaining of constitutional processes in Thailand."

”

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)

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)

Are there any US troops statying at Thai bases? -- Dudtz 9/21/06 6:08

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)

Junta?

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)

• Junta: Wikipedia:"A military dictatorship, or the committee of officers who rule it", or Merriam-Webster:"a group of persons controlling a government especially after a revolutionary seizure of power". No inference should be made about how long the thing lasts. I used it as a neutral pronoun for the military leaders before they formally established their council/party/committee/whatever. After that, I use it as a neutral pronoun to ARC/DRC/CDR or whatever we want to end up calling it. Patiwat 22:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

wow

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)

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)

The future of this article, i.e., when we should expand into a new one

Assuming the coup is successful, we'll eventually have to ask ourselves what the outer boundaries of this article are. If the 1991 coup was any sign, the junta will eventually appoint a civilian government, at which point the policies of the government can be placed in the biographical article on the Premier-to-be. Also based on 1991-1992, we can expect the junta to play an ongoing political role, which - once we figure out what the heck their formal name in english is - we can then expand on in either the CDR/DRC/ACR/whatever article. The former has been promised to happen in 2 weeks, but I wont waste my breath. The latter should hopefully be any day now, or later if/when Thaksin announces that he's not giving up. Does this make sense: once the CDR/DCR/ACR/whatever crystallizes, we put subsequent junta announcements/orders/trials/human-rights infractions in the new article. Patiwat 23:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article can only be about the coup. It can't became a running chronicle of Thai history. Adam 00:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a last section in the events heading : unfolding events, day three and later (provisional). I think we could put here new revelations made after the coup and try to limit the time line to the few coming days or maybe until the new government is in post? Roger jg 01:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

PS; I will try to go the railway station today so that at least we have a picture of a Tank ! If they are still there !!!

Several news websites have areas for people in the affected areas to comment on what is going on right now in Thailand. Some comments suggest months of prior planning and alliance forming leading up to the coup by the leaders. Its all still unverifiable so i'm gonna sit on it for now. FYI From a fella called Tony, may not be on the same page. TSim 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing much to report from Hualamphong Railways Station. The military presence is minimal. 6 soldiers oustide the underground station exit in front of the station, 3 soldiers at the main entrance of the station, one military truck with a handful of soldiers. In a nearby alleyway I found a group of young soldiers pilling up food that was given to them by the locals (a huge pile of it!). I have a pix of them but I don't know if is worth putting it in the article

Soldier in an alleyways nearby Hualamphong Railway Station 21-09-06

Thai women bringing food to soldiers in an alleyways nearby Hualamphong Railway Station 21-09-06

Good wordk - any photo which is clearly free of copyright is welcome. We still don't know the source of the photo of the soldier which is the article at present. I suggest you delete it and replace it with the first of your two photos. Adam 03:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

PS There can't be many countries where you can take photos of soldiers on the day after a coup without getting shot at or arrested. Adam 03:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

i am not good with picture formating on Wikki.. This pictures does not show the yellow ribbon. I have a better one but I am IN the pictures with the soldier (They offered it! I din't ask!) Roger jg 04:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Post it here and we will give you an opinion. Adam 05:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not prepared to make my face public....;-) I live here !!!Roger jg 05:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Goodness me - Thailand is not North Korea, even now. You were not doing anything subservive. But of course that is your decision to make. Anyway, I am going to put your first photo in the article in place of the existing one which we don't know the origin of. Adam 05:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to this topic, I think we can not continue adding info add libitum for the next two weeks, but I am not sure how to get out of this article and move onto the next one? Should we expand on the decision taken by the CRDM in the article about it? Where do we expand on the prostest/support to the coup? There are a few things to add about Thaksin and his familly. Should we put that under thaskin's article? Should we create a "2006 Thailand after the coup" article? suggestions Roger jg 09:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Any chinese readers?

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)

They probably meant "warn" rather than "admonish" and "people" rather than "nations". Looks like computer-translation at work. Adam 05:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it means nationals/citizens rather then simply people. Nil Einne 07:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

the Bangkok Post news articles expire after just one day

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)

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)

TRT

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)

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)

Blackout

What exactly is the meaning of this? "Foreign news channels, such as BBC World, CNN, CNBC and Bloomberg Television, were reported to have been taken off the air,[5] although foreign broadcasters were still able to broadcast relatively freely from the Thai capital."

All my Thai friends say that at least some, if not all, of those foreign news channels were available the whole time. Or maybe just in the hotels?

What does it mean when a channel is taken of the air, but still be able to broadcast?

Again what about this news: "As of 15:35, foreign news channels CNN, BBC, CNBC, NHK and Bloomberg remained blacked out by the sole cable operator, UBC. All Thai news programmes were also cancelled under orders from the military." A source of this news was included, however the link does not work. Would it be wrong for me to just delete news like this? Because my friends in Thailand say something very different.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SmellyCat (talk • contribs) 08:10, September 21, 2006 (UTC).

I wouldn't delete it just yet. A trusted reference, even if it points to a dead link, still has more weight than "my friends told me..." (not that I doubt your friends, just that we gotta assume good faith in the part of the original editor) Lets wait until some other reference either backs it up or disproves it.

My understanding was that the article was trying to say that local viewers couldn't watch the news channels; they were blacked out. However, CNN, BBC, etc. reporters could still take video footage of the coup and then broadcast it back to HQ so that the world wide audience could watch the footage. Patiwat 08:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What happened is that the terrestrial programmes were replaced by videoclips of the king and patriotic songs. The digital channels broadcasted by satellite and distributed via UBC went off air a bit later.. only a black screen. However, it seems that depending on the package you had some people in some places were still able to receive the BBC and other news channel according to the Thaivisa expat website. The broadcaster were not forbiden to broadcast it is just that the signal was not sent through... I lost HBO, film star and the sport and discovery but I don't have the BBC in my package so I can only guess that it was taken off air too. Overall we did not have any news until the next day after Sonthi's conference. Roger jg 08:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. That makes it more clear. If you could find references to this and update the article I would be pleased. SmellyCat 11:04, 21 September 2006 (GMT+1)

The reference I have is in the timeline of The Nation and by witnessing it. It should also be covered in some of the other Nation/BP articles. A BP article "coup d'etat" reads:" In the early hours of the coup, most other communications continued uninterrupted. But after several hours, all cable-TV broadcasts were cut, apparently because Mr Thaksin and other Thai ministers were giving interviews to CNN and the BBC, which are widely seen in Bangkok."Roger jg 09:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The UBC Cable viewers could not watch BBC/CNN/CNBC/TV5 (the French Channel) but if you had a satellite package (DSTV) then there was no way the military had control over the broadcast and you could continue to receive the channels. 124.121.97.175 09:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we clarify whether newspapers appeared as normal on the day of the coup and on subsequent days? Is there obvious censorship of print media? Are opinions critical of the coup being published? Are Thaksin's statements being reported? And on another matter, where is Mr Abhisit? Has he said anything? Adam 09:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was made clear that newspaper were published on the following day. We have the frontpage of the Bangkok Post in the article. There was no direct critics of the coup (unless those already mentionned in the article) but keep in mind that both The Nation and the BP supported it though finding the means regretable. Thaksin said noth9ing yet, Abhisit was on TV last nightRoger jg 10:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Are the Thai-language papers supporting the coup? What about the provincial press? What did Abhisit say? Adam 10:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Abhisit spoke Thai beyond my understanding. Might be useful to reference this but I am a bit snowed under right now :http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/21Sep2006_news18.php

ARC vs. CDR

It seems that after the king's endorsement of the coup the ARC was then refered as CDR. At least this is how it is now refered to in The Bangkok Post today. We should agree on what to do with this Roger jg 08:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• The Nation uses ARC, while the Bangkok Post uses CDR. A Wikipedia article has already been established for ARC. I'm still just calling it "the junta" or "the regime" or "the guys in yellow with guns" for now :-) It'll take a bit more time until we know what their official name in English is. Patiwat

The Nation is now refering to a CDRM

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30014256

I'm of the opinion we should use the ARC as it appears to be the closest thing we have to an official translation. While we don't always use the official translation, in this case in the absense of a clear most common translation the official is the best bet IMHO. Of course I'm not 100% sure if it is the only semi-official translation, potentially, different government parties use different translations. But the government public relations department website at least appears to use ARC http://thailand.prd.go.th/index.php Nil Einne 12:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If anyone is interested, the Royal Thai Police are making good progress in getting their systems Y2K complaint http://www.police.go.th/trenglish.htm :-P Nil Einne 12:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

the latest development is this from the nation:

"The Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy (CDRM) yesterday asked the local press to report its name in full and to exercise self-censorship on political news in order to foster social unity. "The name is important in relaying a right message and its shortened version might be misleading," CDCM spokesman Lt General Palangkun Klahan said."Roger jg 12:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the info to the main article but a disambiguation might be needed. Roger jg 13:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

title updated. "military regime" is still in the body. I think we need to use the official name as recommended by the junta. This creates a few problems, but nothing unmanageable.Roger jg 13:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough the PRD is still using ARC but they have expanded it to "Administrative Reform Council Under the Constitutional Monarchy" [9]. The ICT are supposed to be looking after the official CDRM/ARCCM website [10] but www.ict.go.th as mentioned at [11] doesn't work for me Nil Einne 14:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING considerations

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)

could we simply add the word "alleged" to make it clear? Roger jg 09:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Patiwat is correct that we should not present accusations as anything more than accusations. Using "alleged" as Roger jg suggests is how this is typically done. Due weight considerations also mean well sourced responses to the allegations (and not original research by us to respond to the allegations) should also be included. Adam is right that "A [full] discussion about whether Thaksin was or was not corrupt is not relevant". We should simply state and source the charges and the rebuttles and let the details be wiki-linked to more appropriate articles. WAS 4.250 13:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Fact - inaccurate, unverifiable

The following is inaccurate:

"As of 15:35, foreign news channels CNN, BBC, CNBC, NHK and Bloomberg remained blacked out by the sole cable operator, UBC. All Thai news programmes were also cancelled under orders from the military."

I work at the Bangkok Post and was watching local news programs on the morning of the 20th. There was a black out until about 10am. The article cited is no longer online and I can't even find this in the article database. It must have been breaking news. Please specify. The bottom line is that there was hardly any effort to suppress news at all.

The following is also inaccurate, television was blocked until roughly 9 to 10 in the morning the night after the coup. The following implies that it is still being blocked:

"and blacked out all local and international news broadcasts in Thailand."

(Jonfernquest 11:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC))

Agreed TV was back on air as I indicated in the artiicle (day 2 section) shortly after Sondhi's intervention in the mormning. However, cable came back a bit later. For satellite I don't know. This requieres clarification in light of the previous message about cable vs. satellite subscribers.Roger jg 11:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I had a similar comment, which you can read at the Blackout section above.

SmellyCat 13:51, 21 September 2006 (GMT+1)

On the BBC website someone in Samui writes: Thursday, 21 September, 2006, 10:20 GMT 11:20 UK

As of 17:18 Thai time today, BBC World is still off the air, though CNN is back on. Last night, when Thaksin was shown at the UN on CNN - the picture and sound were cut temporarily. All very spooky. Glad that we can still get the BBC in this internet cafe! DudleyC, Koh Samui, Thailand. A clarification is clearly requiered about who can see what !Roger jg 11:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Media Restriction

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)

It is not cooperation. It is censorship and control. CNN and BCC have their coverage blocked whenever they mention thailand. They're not "asking" media to censor it, they _are_ in control of it. The tv stations were some of the first buildings they took over when the coup began. Everybody who protested or held a hunger strike or has shown something on tv that was not allowed was arrested. Is it cooperation when people only cooperate because a gun is held to their head?

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)

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)

Opinion poll section

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)

People means human beings. There is a _high_ amount of censorship. You won't learn about that through thai media, because they are themselves censored and are limited in what they can say.

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)

Should we replace it with "given the coup order no.5 and announcement no. whatever that is"? 131.215.7.233 18:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Photo of Thai giving flower/food to soldier

Anyone got a usable license photo of Bangkokian handing out flowers or food to soldier? It's been show in Thai television a lot recently. I am not for or against any side here; but I think it will present a good (and balanced) point of view in Bangkokian's reaction to the coup. --underexpose 22:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I found few on the Flickr, don't know it's usable license.

* http://www.flickr.com/photos/wisekwai/tags/coup/

* http://www.flickr.com/photos/charactorizedme/tags/coup/

or should we just make a link there. --Manop - TH 01:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Check the CC licence on flickr. I am going to Siam this afternoon but I don't expect to see any thing.... We never know...Roger jg 02:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I chose a CC license for thos photos with the idea of uploading them to Wikimedia. Anyway, I plan on uploading the Flickr photos to the Commons this afternoon. They were only uploaded yesterday, but I didn't migrate them to the Commons. Flickr's interface is so user friendly! I'll create a gallery of them there and add a Commons link, then the active editors on this page can freely pick and choose which ones they want to use. - Wisekwai 02:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Several photos have now been uploaded to the Commons and have been added to the coup gallery. There are fewer soldiers seen milling about today, and they are wearing berets instead of Kevlar helmets. - Wisekwai 07:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Organizing Reactions from the US

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)

Thanks to Emax0. That looks a lot better. Patiwat 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Did Sondhi outsmart Thaksin?

There is an important opinion published in the Nation this morning http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/09/22/opinion/opinion_30014290.php where the author contend that Thaksin had plans to take over with his own military coup. Of course there is no evidence unless Newin and Yongyuth confirm the story but I believe that it should be part of the article.

That editorial seems to be pure speculation - the author doesn't even mention a source. I'd wait until something more solid comes up. Patiwat 04:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

both men are now in custody, the Rangers are being disarmed, accusation againt Yongyuth have been made public. I think there is a bit more than speculations. Overall it is not more speculative than saying that the whole section about the King being aware and supportive or even controling the coup. At least here we have a few confirmed info. But a proper identification of Sonthi's "informer" would be nice.Roger jg 06:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If there are other sources that report on official accusations against Yongyuth and Newin, then by all means, mention them. That Nation opinion article was written in a way that made the theory seem like speculation from the author, rather than the party line of the junta. I'd be very interested (but also very distrustful) at any confessions Newin and Yongyuth might give. Patiwat 08:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

p.s., How were Rangers part of the conspiracy? I thought it was normal for Park Rangers to have weapons, and normal for juntas to disarm anybody not under their direct control.

They are under the command of Yongyuth were given weapons som etime ago. Check the ref I provided where you asked. Roger jg 18:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments on Finland Plot article

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)

Reference Needed

"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)

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)

Ripping off other websites

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)

I have removed that sentence and tidied up the section. By the way, it seems increasingly obvious to me that the coup was instigated and organised by Prem, acting with at least the tacit approval of the King. Do others agree? Adam 04:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

POV

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)

Suspicious reference Web site

I just add a sentence about people supporting the coup refered from CNN.com. And found the next line there is a sentence saying people against the coup reference from a website that sounds suspiciuos (at least to me :) http://www.geocities.com/defendthaiconstitution/home.html seems like the hoax to me. Could anyone check that? There is also the phone number, too. --Manop - TH 05:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a hoax. I was there too. It was raining, and a miserable time to be protesting. The camera crews were pissed. The non-TV press coverage was pure luck - serendipitously waiting at the Consulate for some update of Thaksin's whereabouts. Patiwat 08:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No offense. How can you know that? Any reference?

I can say that "I was there too. I saw nothing." --Manop - TH 16:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced it with them "claiming" that there was a demonstration. Added back the citation, too. Patiwat 07:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

May I ask? Did you or someone that you know make that Website? I'm kind of surprised to see the new Website listed after the event. Since it's on Geocities, it should take several days (or weeks) for Google to catch. Sorry that for asking such a question like that --Manop - TH 18:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Pridiyathorn Devakula

I have started an article Pridiyathorn Devakula, since he is front-runner to be appointed PM. Please do not add those horrible purple quotation marks: I will delete them. Adam 07:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• A rumor, and an old one at that. He later denied it. Patiwat 07:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

He said he had not been asked. Not the same thing. He can't deny that he might be asked, because he doesn't know. Adam 08:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That article on the Pridiyathorn Devakula bio was much meatier than the rumor that I had been reading. The wheel of karma would have come full circle for Sondhi Limthongkul if Pridiyathorn were made PM, given the history between those two.

Those ugly quotes seem common in many articles, particularly for long/significant quotes. What's your criticism of them, besides that they are ugly? Patiwat 08:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a host of quotation templates to choose from varying greatly in layout, and some are even customizable with regards to the size of the graphics. __meco 09:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Do I need any other ground to criticise them on other than that they are ugly? They are very ugly, and don't belong in an encyclopaedia. If there are other quotation formats available, let's use them. Adam 09:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

I think it should be clear that censorship is very loose and that there is a good dose of self-censorship as I indicated initially both at www.thaivisa.com and pantip.com.

It would be misleading people to believe that these site are being censored when they have adopted a policy of self-censoring, whatever the reason.

19sept is available at blogger.com (I assume it is the same)Roger jg 09:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I currently do not like the article when it comes to censorship. Even though there are tough statements made regarding freedom of press it, the current reality is not well reflected in the article.

I would like to see the information about censorship divided in two areas.

(1) Sharing information inside Thailand.

(2) Sharing information from Thailand to outside.

I have seen no censorship so far related to area (2). In the article it seems like the most terrible things are happening in Thailand without CNN or such being allowed to broadcast about it.

About area (1) I have to say that in practice it seems not have much effect, since Thailand has so many hotels with satellite, and more internet shops than you can imagine.

Every sentence I have added to this article regarding this, has been quickly removed again for many times. Why??? I hope someone with more Wikipedia experience can make a more informative section about censorship that reflects reality better.

--SmellyCat 10:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There are users who delete any reference regarding self-censorship quickly. Let's make a censonsus here. I vote that right now in Thailand, Medias adopt self-censorship. Maybe Patiwat could help us here, He has been active at Censorship in Thailand --underexpose 14:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem may very well be verifability. I have no doubt that there is a large amount of self censorship. However the Thai media are clearly not discussing the fact they are practicing a large amount of self-censorship. So unless and until a reliable source does discuss this issue, there is little we can do... Nil Einne 14:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As underexpose noted, who needs consensus when you've got data :-) The Thai media has always practiced self-censorship, as multiple US State Dept surveys on human rights note (here's one). And they take a particularly careful approach towards reporting about the royalty. Which explains why the foreign press has been so avid about reporting on the role of the King in the coup, while the Thai press has done nothing. Dozens of examples are given in Handley, as well.

The key thing is that recently, the bar for self-censorship has been much lower. Even before the coup, the courts ordered some web boards to hand over IP logs because some posters had criticized the court's instances of judicial activism. But at least then, we had our People's Constitution to fall back on. Right now, the guys in charge are making webmasters and moderators a request they can't refuse. So they are being even more paranoid about what they allow on their sites. To wrap it up, although Thailand has always had self-censorship, the level of self-censorship has increased dramatically with the abrogation of the constitution, the declaration of martial law, and the junta's "requests". Patiwat 15:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The word "control" is more appropriate than "censorship" under these conditions. WAS 4.250 16:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sentences I added to indicate self-censorship in particular at Thaivisa and pantip were removed despite these forum informing their user that they will self censor ! Roger jg 16:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It does not make sense to talk about TV censorship in a section called "internet censorship" especially that TV censorship is already discussed elsewhere. Now there is hardly no control from teh junta over the internet. This is not China as written elsewhere. One website has been shut down and I assume that this website did move to blogger to this address http://19sept.blogspot.com It is still possible to read the blog and there is not ACTIVE action taken by the Junta to close down or block access to this site or other. Note that they could if they wished, since they do it for porn-sites. Let's be honnest about it. One can pretty much create a blog and criticise the coup as much as one wants and the Nation just published one article critical of the coup. From a political point of view, it does not make sense to censor the internet as website are always accessible, if not directly, with a proxy. Roger jg 17:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not self-censorship if somebody is pointing a gun to your head and tells you to "be careful what you say" or else we'll shut your site down. That's why many sites for thailand practice what looks like self-censorship, because if they didn't, their site would be shut down, and they could face prosecution. Censorship has existed in thailand for a long time before the coup, and people have learned to watch what they post to avoid legal action by the police. -- User:Humanoid 2006 September 22, 17:30 GMT

agreed. So what is different between pre-coup censorship and post-coup censorship? If it is the continuation of a perenial practice let say it plainly and not try to portray the Junta as doing something original Roger jg 17:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that 19sept.org was moved to 19sept.blogspot.com is false. They are NOT the same site, and they do not seem to be run by the same people. I was reading 19sept.blogspot.com before the 19sept.org domain name was even registered. And as for the note about tv censorship in the internet section, it is just a note, not a discussion. The note is put there to show how the military considers internet censorship less important because only a very small percentage of thai people actually have internet access in their homes. I'm not _talking_ about tv censorship in the internet section at length, I'm only mentioning one tiny fact about it. It's just a small short note. -- User:Humanoid 2006 September 22, 17:35 GMT

I was not claiming it but assuming it. The note on TV is still redundant. For information, Thailand has 8.42 millions internet users as of March 2005, = penetration of 12.7% (source NECTEC). In Bangkok and vicinity there are 2 millions users corresponding to a penetration of 26.6 %.

Does your source differentiate between internet accounts used in the home and business internet accounts? Most internet connections in this countries are by businesses, that is to say, in company offices, and in internet cafes. The penetration internet in personal homes, I would estimate to be more like 2-3%, not 12.7%.-- User:Humanoid 2006 September 22, 17:53 GMT

NECTEC is the official Thai body in charge of monitoring the internet in Thailand. It relases a yearly repport on internet users, actvity and so on. From 2001 to 2004 the percentage of households with computers raised from 5.1% to 11.1 % nationwide. In Bangkok it raised from 19.8% to 28.1%. In 2003 the 15-24 represented 52% of the users (not business then). You can figure out the trend for 2006, 3 years later. The fact is that the internet is broadly available in Thailand and recently Broadband has taken over slow connection http://iir.ngi.nectec.or.th/internet/user-growth.html Roger jg 18:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that it is HOME users, and not users in general. It seems to me that they are counting internet account subscriptions. A business office that has an internet connection will be counted in this figure as a "user". -- User:Humanoid 2006 September 22, 18:27 GMT

I fail to see the point to limit internet users to those who are "at home" The fact as recorded by Nectec is that here is 8.4 millions internet users. I could go back to the repport and find out how they were counted. By now we are probably close to 10 millions. This is a non negligeable percentage in a developing country. All this users be they home users, business users or interent cafe users HAVE access to the internet and can find information should they wish too. The point is that the censorship of the Internet is close to nul considering that only ONE web board has been closed down. It would be misleading for a foreign observer to say that the internet is being censored or even monitored, We are the living proff that itis not. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that there is no control but this is hardly censure. A lot of user are young people. Now that they bother reading news is another story... Roger jg 18:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The point of distinguishing between _home_ users, and those who simply use the internet is that people who have the internet at home will actually use the internet daily and will search the web for news about the coup. Users who only access the internet from cafes to check their email will not usually not do so on a daily basis. Also, those people already see lots of pro-coup news on tv thinking that it fully covers the events of the coup. Not knowing that the news on tv is censored, they'll feel satisfied as having heard everything there is to hear about the coup, and will not search the internet for different uncensored news about the coup. What percentage of internet cafe users would have read the www.19sept.org website that has now been shut down? I don't think as many as those who have internet access at home. Even if your 12% is precise (which I doubt), that still means that 88% of people only get news from tv and radio and word of mouth. The final result is that most people only hear the censored news from tv, and not the dissident news from the internet. Also, you cannot say that only one board was closed down, since it's only one board that we heard of that were closed down. Boards that are located outside of thailand cannot be closed down by the junta, they can only block access to that board from inside thailand, so the webmaster of the website outside of thailand will find it difficult to know that his website was blocked from the inside. -- User:Humanoid 2006 September 22, 18:58 GMT

This is pure speculation and POV. I suggest you read the 2005 NECTEC report and you will learn how many hours Internet users spend on the internet (about 10-12 per week if I remember well from memory) and what they mostly look for (news, again if I remember well. The figure I quote are not mine but come from the report. You can chalenge the report if you wish but unless you go in each house and ask every user what they "would have" done, you can not speak for them Roger jg 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility is that by "internet users" they mean people who use the internet period. Not people who have the internet at home. I know many people who have email addresses and check their email every so often, but they don't have internet connections at home, they always go to an internet cafe or a school computer to access their email. Whatever it is that they mean by "internet users", if anybody claims that 12% of thai homes have an internet connection, I would find that very hard to believe. -- User:Humanoid 2006 September 22, 18:38 GMT

Could you revise your text so that it reflect this? Maybe limited access would be better than a small percentage. Have you been to a small town in the country side? Even in Nikhom Khamsoi in far Issan they do have internet shop. Also it is a POv to suggest that a reason why the Junta did not look closer at the internet. We don't even know if thay have been thinking about it Roger jg 17:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have been on the country side. From my experience so far there is usually not more than internet cafe per village. And many villages I've been to had no internet cafe at all. Most "computer cafes" on the country side don't have internet connections because they are mainly used for playing computer games.-- User:Humanoid 2006 September 22, 17:58 GMT

I have changed "very" to "relatively" in the phrase about home Internet access. This makes more sense anyway, since the point being made is comparison with television. Not sure this adequately addresses the variety of comments made, but I believe "very few" inappropriately suggests rarity, and I think the statistics cited establish that home Internet access at least in Bangkok and among significant sectors of the population is not rare (my own experience also supports that). I do not think this should be reverted to "very few" unless some citation is supplied. David Watson 05:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

it is indeed all relative. For info in 1979, merely 17% of households owned a television, but a positive growth has been observed since, with the figure reached 92% in 2003. The household ownership of radio, on the other hand, declines from 79% in 1979 to 51% in 2003. In 2003 dial up represented 54.3 % of the mode of access to internet (Source: Nectec). With potentially 10 million users (I have 8 and maybe more internet shops in a radius of 100 meters from my flat) I still fail to see the point of trying to put TV and internet in perspective. Information is available on the net, people can acces to it. This section should only say that as far as it is know and as far as today only one site has been taken down. I don't think I have much to add to this discussion, the readers can make their own opinions from the discussion.Roger jg 05:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are the differences I can see so far: before coup = Illegal to criticize the king, but legal (but dangerous) to criticize the government, and legal to criticize coups as guaranteed by the 1997 constitution. after coup = illegal to criticize the king, illegal to criticize the coup, illegal to criticize the military, illegal to criticize the junta government, and many more people are getting arrested for criticism. -- User:Humanoid 2006 September 22, 17:44 GMT

User:Humanoid I believe that if properly summarised by a third partie Patiwat ? this article could reconcile our diverging positions. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/09/23/opinion/opinion_30014428.php Roger jg 18:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is nothing but a bad opinion piece. Do you watch thai tv? Tell me how much negative criticism has been said on thai tv? None that I heard so far. Even small tickers at the bottom of the scream in which they posted sms messages sent by viewers were blocked by the junta. They're afraid one of those sms messages might say something negative about them. Yes, there was censorship under thaksin, as I said before, it was not illegal to criticize the government, but it was dangerous... now it's completely illegal. That article you linked to is making the claim that there is less censorship after the coup. Many people will back me up that the opposite is true. See for example this blogger's post about censorship: http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2006/09/censorship-after-coup.html -- User:Humanoid 2006 September 22, 19:28 GMT

Here's a quote from The Nation found on the blog I linked to above: "The Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy (CDRM) yesterday asked the local press to report its name in full and to exercise self-censorship on political news in order to foster social unity." It is NOT self-censorship when a military rolls into your city with tanks and machine guns and asks you to practice "self-censorship", and you agree. Self-censorship is completely voluntary, not under the threat of being arrested. People don't seem to understand that. -- User:Humanoid 2006 September 22, 19:37 GMT

Another thing you need to remember is that all those inside thailand who say there isn't much censorship after the coup are the very same people who are happy about the coup. Of course people who have nothing but good things to say about the coup will not find there to be any censorship... they are free to say all their positive views about the censorship. It is only those with negative views about the coup who will be affected by the censorship, and only those people will be complaining about the censorship. -- User:Humanoid 2006 September 22, 19:42 GMT

What ever happened to those 49% of people who were planning to vote for Thaksin in less than one month? Have you heard any of their views expressed on thai media? Nope. Not at all, afaik. Even if you are to believe the contradictory claim that 85% support the coup, and only 15% don't support it, where are those 15% people's voices in thai media.... none again. For a media that claims there is no censorship, it's amazing how 100% of thai media has not criticized the coup. Even that article you linked to doesn't criticize the coup, it just talked about a litmus test for the future. -- User:Humanoid 2006 September 22, 19:48 GMT

all of that is beside the point. It is expected that following a military coup some form of censorship is introduced. The point here is that the censorship is not new and that it has been limted considering that the newspaper websites were reporting the coup minute by minute, that they were published the next day and that they published several pieces critical of the coup. The internet but for one site is widely accessible. Overall it was business as usual in Thailand with more restrictions put on TV and radio that were the expexted consequences of the coup, but this is neither Burma or China and we are not put under 24 hours junta propaganda with military speaker praising the graetness of the leaders, especially that Thai news before the coup were not known for their critical approach to news reporting. This is not BBC Newsnight! As I explained below it is a westerners'ideas that Thai people want desperately to protest or say bad thing about the coup expecially those who wanted to vote for Thaksin. Self-censorship is part of the Thai nature and you can easily experience it in everyday life if you live among Thai and it is not limited to politics. My point is that the portraying of the situation is unbalanced and misleading for someone not familiar with Thailand politics and society. Roger jg 05:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me links to pieces from thai media that were against coup? Let's not forget that tv news did not show the coup minute by minute as it went by, they were only showing music of the king. I only knew that a coup was going on because I happened to have a satellite connection to CNN from another country, and it was only through them that I found out that tanks were rolling into bangkok Humanoid 10:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This debate seems to have gone on with quite a bit of detail, but I'm not really sure what the practical implications are. Could one of you briefly explain what you're debating over, and what are the options you're proposing for the article? Patiwat 07:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I simply argue that censorship is misleading and overstating the facts in the social and cultural context of Thailand before and after the coup. Newspaper publication is not hindered or banned, journalists are not sent to jail, critics have been published, internet is accessible, people can and have access to information if they wish to. We should only say what is happening and not trying to speak "in lieu" of the people. In this regard I have added a very short introduction to the section on restriction on human right and freedom of expression (recycling previous text) in order to put things back in context. Hence it makes it clear how much censure there is, something I don't deny but that should not be overstated. Roger jg 07:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper publication of positive views are not banned, but negative publication is. The junta said themselves that they've asked the media to practice "self-censorship". Show me links to thai media publications in thai language that is negative of the coup. So far, I've just seen english publications that only quoted others that were against the coup. Maybe one can argue that the junta doesn't understand english. Humanoid 10:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Channel 7 news was just on tv now. Although CNN considered the thai protest important enough to show on international tv. Channel 7 news AGAIN only showed people taking pictures with the tanks and saying good things. No mention was made of the protest at all. You need to remember that what you see in english internet publications is not a reflection of what is shown in thai language publications and thai television. Also, if you do a traceroute, you will see that the server hosting www.bangkokpost.net is located outside of thailand. They seem to be getting away with defying the martial law on their english publication. Just because some people manage to get around the censorship, it does not mean that there is no censorship. You cannot publish views critical of the coup in thailand now, it is the law. Humanoid 10:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that there is censure. I dispute that the current censure prohibits people to acces to information and that a majority of people necessarily want to protest against the coup Roger jg 11:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody claims that censorship makes it impossible for somebody to access information. There's no need to mention the obvious. Humanoid 20:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem not to grasp that there is a difference between freedom of speech and censorship. Censorship ALSO relates to the ability for people to access information.

--SmellyCat 21:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of speech, and censorship are two very different things. Nobody would relate the two as being the same. Especially not me. Humanoid 22:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

SmellyCat, as I was pondering why you would make such a false claim about me, I think I know why you said that. Above, I said "Nobody claims that censorship makes it impossible for somebody to access information".... you seem to interpret that as though I don't know that censorship has a lot to do with "the ability for people to access information", but that is not the case. What I said is that it's not _impossible_ to access information. I said that, because no censorship is perfect. No censorship in the world, not even the great firewall of china is capable of making it IMPOSSIBLE for people to access information. Do you understand? Humanoid 22:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Humanoid, I don't kown if you are Thai or not, but it seems you are missing an important point here: The King has endorsed the coup. And not only the coup, but the military goverment and its motives. The King has also asked the Thai people to cooperate with the military. For most Thai this means that there is little reason to protest. Protest would also go against the royal decree and be disrespectful of the King's wish (The army didn't use that argument yet becasue it simply does not need to). Beside, if you live amomgst Thai in a village of in a low-wage working-class environment (like Bon Kai where I live) the coup does not rank high in their daily preoccupations. What matters is that by the end of the day they have a home and food for dinner. Prostest is real but is not a reflection of the general Thai feeling towards the coup. This does not means that they support it (thought opinion polls tend to say that they do in a very large majority) but it simply means that they have other things to deal with first. As simple as that Roger jg 05:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

SmellyCat

SmellyCat, you mention that "In the article it seems like the most terrible things are happening in Thailand without CNN or such being allowed to broadcast about it." Could you point out what made you make this inference? Patiwat 15:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not one particular thing. When you are reading about control of the media, internet censorship, ban on protests, arrest of opposition leaders, blackouts of all tv channels, public protests, I get a picture in my mind which is not consistent with reality. Yes, media is controlled, but only local media to my knowledge. Yes, some Thai website(s) were taken down, but the Thai population has unlimited access to the WWW. There is no China-type internet censorship. Those of us outside Thailand have normal access of information from Thailand. Or if that's not true, please tell me. Look at the two sections public support and public protests. They are not balanced. When you just state that opposition leaders are arrested, without telling why, I get the wrong idea. These are just a few examples...

I also do not like the introduction to "Natural reactions". What does the cancellation of the election has to do with limited information about the reaction of the people anyway??

--SmellyCat 16:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Defense Minister Thammasak detained or in hiding?

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)

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)

20 Sep article on Ranger conspiracy

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)

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)

19 september network

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)

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)

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

Protests

First report is in about the protect. It appears to have largely been a non-event at the current time (not really that surprising, it would have been exceptionally foolish of the DCRC to try and stop it) but still probably should be mentioned http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/09/23/headlines/headlines_30014455.php Of course this is from the Nation in Thailand so potentially they've underestimated the turnout or missed details which reflected poorly on the DCRC but no indications as yet... Nil Einne 17:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

in this regard, I find that "Control of the media, ban on protests and political activity, and arrest of opposition leaders by the junta has made it difficult for those opposing the coup to openly state their views" is not reflecting the reality when we have in this artcile sevral reactions against the coup and report of demo that have been published in the media. I prefer my introduction to this section, which merged the previous text with my initial text Roger jg 17:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This demo only happened on the 4th day. ALL protesters before this date were arrested. The article also has this quote from one of the protestors: "We believe we speak for a significant number of Thais who are too worried or too afraid to speak." People were afraid to show up at Siam Paragon today. I wanted to go, but was convinced by another not to go. However, if there is another protest tomorrow, I will try to go in light of this postive report of today's protest. It's only a matter of time before the military take action on this obvious breaking of their martial law. Read up on Black May. Protesting was going on for several days before the military started shooting and killing people. At the beginning they were simply watching and monitoring the event.... fast forward 14 years later, and now they're using advanced digital video recording technology to help them monitor the event. The quote you posted remains true, there IS control of the media, there IS a ban on protests, there IS a ban on polticial activity, and opposition leaders were arrested. Just as the protestor claims, it is difficult for people to openly state their negative views of the coup, not only because their views are censored in thai media, but also because of a fear of being arrested. This might change over time as the protests are left untouched, but it's definitely the case at this moment. Leave the sentence there as is, once things change, you can modify the sentence to say that it was difficult during the first week of the coup. User:Humanoid 2006 September 23 20:18 UTC

I was at Siam station arround 5 PM and around Siam Discovery Centre between 5 and 6 before going to the Lido cinema. I did not notice anything. I only saw one soldier. Roger jg 04:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It started at 6 pm Humanoid 08:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Was the "19 September Network against Coup d'Etat" petition signing at Paragon the same event as the 100 people dressed in black in front of Siam Center? It wasn't so clear from the media reports, so I'm including both for now in the article. Patiwat 01:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw video footage of the protest on CNN from outside of thailand many times. I've been scanning thai tv channels all day to see if they would mention the protest, and I have not seen any mention of it yet, but the military did interrupt ALL channels at 3 pm to deliver a message, so it looks like the military still has the control and power to interrupt all tv signals in order to deliver their own messages. Humanoid 08:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

CNN has said that there were more than 100 protesters and showed video footage proving it. That Bangkok Post article that claims that there were only 20 protesters and that police were not present are lying. Police was present recording the whole thing so that they could arrest people later. Humanoid 08:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The first article from the nation that you quote reads: "The protest attracted several bystanders and around 100 Thai and foreign journalists. Nobody was arrested." This does not read that there was 100 protesters and I don't know how can distinguish between bystander, protesters and jounalsits in the mass, especially ifyouy were NOT there. Please publish accurate info on Article Roger jg 08:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

On the CNN footage that I saw, the protesters were mostly wearing black, holding up signs and facing the streets. The observers were facing the opposite way, looking at the protesters. It was clear that those 100 people facing the street were protesters and not observers, they were inside the crowd facing the same direction as all the other protesters, and had signs scattered throughout their group. Humanoid 08:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

POV. Both articles should be quoted with what they actually say. None say that there was 100 protesters. Roger jg 08:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I found a post made by the actual group organizing the protest. They say there were 30 protesters, and over 200 observers. http://prachatai.wordpress.com/ Humanoid 08:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In Thai but it says ประมาณ 30 คน I don't know if acceptable as a source of info?Roger jg 08:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldn't be acceptable? It's been verified by footage on tv showing lots and lots of people, as well as the nation article saying that there were more than 100 people there. Humanoid 08:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I maent because of the language. We could say "... and about 30 protesters according the organisers" and refthe site, that is what is done usually Roger jg 08:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, do that. Add that it's "30 protesters and 200+ observers according to the organizers". Humanoid 09:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Patiwat Teh Nation article does not say that there is 100 protesters. Please check it again. Roger jg 09:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The Nation _does_ say that there were nearly 100 protesters. Here's the quote: "Nearly 100 people staged the first civilian protest against the coup last night, calling it illegitimate and a violation of Thai democracy." Humanoid 10:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

could you point to where in the article it says so? I don't mind having it but if the organisers say 30 that looks a bit stupidRoger jg 11:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

How could you not see it??? It's the very first sentence in the article in bold at the top, just under the title. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/09/23/headlines/headlines_30014455.php Humanoid 21:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That is inthe lead not the article. I am not splitting hair but reporter rarely write the lead. And in this case it contradict what the artcile itself say. But as I said I am not against having all the figures

Let's also not forget that CNN on tv said that there were more than 100 protesters, while they showed a video clip of the protest. So far, the only place I have seen any video of the protest. Humanoid 21:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I found an internet article from CNN that claims "over 100 protesters" exactly as I previously said I heard on tv. When they said the same thing on tv, they actually showed video footage of it. Since CNN is the only one with video footage, making it possible for them to pause and count carefully, as well as proving the number they claim, I think we should conclude that there were over 100 protesters and leave it at that. All other people making estimates don't have video footage to back up their estimates. Humanoid 21:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the number of protesters at the same time surely varied over time. If it started with 30 people, grew to 100 at its peak, and then shrunk back down to 20 near the end, the actual numbers of protesters should not include just a count at one point in time, but the total number of people that participated, even if for a brief moment. I think that the reason the estimates vary is because people just counted at one snapshot in time. If that is what is happening, then clearly the count made at its peak is the closest to the total number of people. Given the additional justification for using CNN's number given above (they have video footage to prove it), I'll modify the article to just say "over 100". Humanoid 21:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, this is open to debate. As I said before I am happy having all the figures reported since it is what is cutomary done when people disagree about number of protesors in a demo. I understand your concern about censure and right to protest but it would be inacurrate to overstate the military censure. Someone not Familliar with Thailand may think that it was all rosy under Thaksin, when in reality for a farmer in a village in far Issan or even for a slum dweller in Bangkok near Hualompong, the level and access to information is about the same. Lest you forget, Reporters without borders world-wide press freedom index 2005 ranked Thailand 107th out of 167 countries dropped from 59th in 2004.Roger jg 04:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

categorized in "companies on new york stock exchange"?

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)

arrest of ALL protesters

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

And this http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/09/23/headlines/headlines_30014455.php Roger jg 18:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thaksin's familly whereabouts

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)

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)

International Reactions/length

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Unbalanced report in the protest: Undertsanding the protest

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)

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)

Warning Sign in Thai page of 2006 Thailand coup d'etat

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)

I think it does not conform to wikipedia policy. --Bhadani 10:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Archiving Talk page: Do we have a consensus?

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)

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)