User talk:Patiwat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Transliteration of Thai names

As a farang in Thailand I find the pronunciation additions extremely helpful (e.g. King Bhumibol Adulyadej/pʰu:mipʰon adunjadeːt; & Suvarnabhumi (pronounced su-wan-na-poom)). Please don't stop doing this, otherwise I will never know how to pronounce Nitya Pibulsongkram. Perhaps, pronunciation could be extended to all Wik articles, as in the Oxford dictionary?? Regardless, keep up the good work of making the current political situation comprehensible for foreigners. Rive 02:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I prefer to show the names in Thai, because pronunciation in written Thai is much less ambiguous. The Foreign Minister's name is pronounced "Nit Pi-boon-song-kram". I'm not proficient enough in the IPA. And I'll leave it to someone else to make audio recordings of name pronunciations. Patiwat 20:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For Thai writers

Hi there! I speak and can read Thai, but my keyboard doesn't have Thai characters. If you want, you can post Thai language messeges, but I'll have to respond in English. Patiwat 06:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transliteration of Thai names

You might well be right. I thought that the transliteration section was somewhat justified in this case, since the pronunciation of King Bhumibol Adulyadej's name is so very different from that which the transliteration suggests. However, I'm not in the habit of adding such sections to articles, and in this case, I was merely making an edit requested by an anonymous user on the talk page, so you might want to pursue this discussion there. Personally, I think the transliteration section spoils the flow of the article, but I also think that cramming so much information into the header makes it very difficult to read; I would therefore favour the box system which you illustrated in your postscript. TheMadBaron 23:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Weird transliterations are extremely common in Thailand: "Shinawatra" should be "Chinawat", "Nyanasamvara" should be "Yanasangworn", "Paripatra" should be "Boriphat", "Vejjajiva" should be "Wetchachiwa", etc. How about we try to get input from others in Talk:Bhumibol Adulyadej or Wikipedia:Thailand-related topics notice board? That way, whatever the consensus is can be applied to all Thai bio articles. Patiwat 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I give up (again)

Practically all my important contributions to the coup have been completely deleted, mostly by Roger_jg. Even in the subarticle on public disapproval. The wiki has a clear policy on verifiability and NPOV. My additions to the articles were in accordace with those policies. I had reliable sources referenced. And the NPOV policy clearly states that all sides deserve to be heard. As it stands, in the subarticle, the section on reactions from common people (and poor) was completely deleted. They are the most numerous in the country, yet they are not mentioned at all in the subarticle. And there is only one paragraph (at the moment) left in the main article about the poor's disapproval. Since you're the only other major contributor there besides Roger_jg, and you're not biased, I am hoping/requesting that you can do something about the poor people's voices not being heard. As for me, I don't see the point of contributing anymore when all my most important contributions keep getting deleted by Roger_jg. I have a lot of work to do outside of wikipedia, and when my wikipedia work has resulted in absolutely no progress (being completely deleted), I have little reason to think that further contributions to the article will make any difference. So I am giving up again. I don't think I'll contribute to the wikipedia articles on the coup in Thailand again until I see that Roger_jg is not involved anymore. Humanoid 22:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't give up yet. Lemme have a looksie. Patiwat 22:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


I think the issue with the article right now is that its title proclaims that its coverage is the "public", but its actual coverage is focused on the views of organized groups and the intellectual/academic elite.
The one data point we have that includes the "common man", the opinion poll, gives the reader a quantitative picture about what people think of it. But it doesn't give any insight at all into why the common man, who has been the focus of Thaksin's government, either supports the coup or doesn't. For that we need either deep and objective analysis, which nobody has been able to provide yet, or a very selected, balanced, and referenced selection of quotes that provide insight on both sides of the fence.
The quote that you provided is a very powerful and sincere statement that digs deep into the driving factors behind supporters of Thaksin who are against the coup. I particularly like it because it can stand on its own, without any commentary.
However, it must be balanced by an equally powerful statement from a supporter of Thaksin who is for the coup. They exist, and in my opinion, they are the majority of the nation now. Why don't we both try to find a quote from one of them that's been published in the press; a quote that can also stand on its own in clearly illustrating why somebody who has benefit from Thaksin's policies and voted him back in 2005 and 2006 is now supporting the coup.
So far, I have only come across three kinds of people (a) anti-thaskin, anti-coup, (b) anti-thaksin, pro-coup, (c) pro-thaksin anti-coup. I have not seen anybody of the (d) pro-thaksin, pro-coup kind. I also don't think we need to find a (d) to balance my inclusion of voices from (c). The inclusion of (c) is more than balanced by all the inclusion of (b), which is the direct opposite of (c). The opposite of (c) is (b), not (d). Humanoid 02:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, if information is available, there is no policy that we need to find contradictory information (for balance) before we can add it to an article. If 99.99% of people think the sky is blue, are we not allowed to claim that the sky is blue in wikipedia until we can balance it by finding a claim by somebody who thinks the sky is red? The thing is, wiki policy says that all views should be given a chance to be heard. The wiki policy does not say that a particular view cannot be heard until we first find a contradictory view to balance it. Humanoid 02:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a very good selection of views from pro-thaksin supporters from Bangkok Pundit: http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2006/09/where-did-all-his-supporters-go.html . Humanoid 02:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's why I think there are a lot more of (d) out there. Recent pre-coup opinion polls put the nationwide % of people that would vote for TRT as 50% to 60%. Nobody ever suggested that he might loose his majority, and some even suggested he might win as many seats as 2005. But after the coup, 85% supported the coup. Thus, it stands to believe that unless if people's fundamental views towards Thaksin have changed over night, that there are between 35% (if the 15% of the population that is against the coup is composed completely of Thaksin-supporters) of to 60% (if everybody that supported Thaksin now also supports the coup) of the population who support both Thaksin and the coup. Assume what you will, a purely analytical approach suggests that (d), the pro-Thaksin pro-coup is a significant portion of the electorate.
Now to practical matters, you've suggested a excellent quote that illustrates the views of (c). The complete article should contain illustrations of the views of (a), (b), (c), and (d) if any can be found. As a matter of diplomacy and practiality, I think we should start by adding at least one other alternative view. Why?
Here's a slightly differing analogy of an issue equally controversial: "Views among the public about the invasion of Iraq varied considerably. Miss X, whos husband died in the WTC attacks and was an avid supporter of Bush, noted 'Osama had help from Saddam, and we gotta get them both." If that is all that the article said, the reader might assume that all pro-Bush people hurt by terrorism supported the invasion. That is not true, so we'd have to round it out by saying "But Mr Y, whos son died in the Bali bombings and is a life-long conservative, disagreed with the invasion, 'I want to trust Bush, but I can't.' Dr Z, a New England liberal, noted 'Invading Iraq will make terrorists hate America even more.' However, Mrs A, a California Democrat housewife, noted 'I don't like Bush, but I like Saddam even less. He's mean, and we should take him down...."
I was planning on searching through some interviews to illustrate (a) or (b), but was busy today. I'll have another look at the issue tomorrow morning (that'll be evening, Bangkok time).
-- Patiwat 06:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm suprised that you believe that 84% claim from that dusit poll. That poll is crude and unscientific. No self-respecting peer-reviewed journal would've ever published those results. Here are some of the problems, 1- They don't mention how many people refused to answer the poll. 2- They don't give us the method of data collection. 3- They don't explain how they believe they managed to get a random sample of the population. 4- Bangkok population represents about 10% of thailand's population, but the dusit poll calculates the combined result for the country with the assumption that Bangkok contains 50% of the country's population. 5- Other small discrepencies like for example a rounding error in one of the numbers they printed. Can you see why these points are important? For example, the first point is that they need to mention how many people refused to answer, we already know that many thaksin supporters are afraid of speaking out because they are afraid of getting arrested or "killed". If only 50% of the people asked, accepted to answer the poll's questions, then it is still possible that only 43% of people in thailand support the coup. 61% of voters chose thaksin in the last (april 2006) election. If we are to believe the 84% claim, then it means that a minimum of 74% of pro-thaksin people supported the coup. Even after taking all the preceding points into account, common sense would suggest that most pro-thaksin people would be against the coup, yet according to the poll, a minimum of 74% of thaksin supporters switched sides, and preferred thaksin ousted by a military coup! And that poll was taken even before the junta claimed endorsement by the king. Plus, shortly after that poll, the junta imposed a ban on publishing results of polls. This means that until the junta is gone and gives people the freedom to conduct scientifically acceptable polls, and gives people the freedom to answer polls without fear or intimidation, we are never going to know exactly how many people really supported the coup. After all this, and reading comments from thaksin supporters, are you still surprised that all you can find are those who oppose the coup? Have you found a thaksin supporter who switched sides just after the coup, supporting the claims of the poll? Do you still believe the poll properly represents the views of the 60+ million people living in thailand? Humanoid 12:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Now to reply to your example from iraq. You said: "If that is all that the article said, the reader might assume that all pro-Bush people hurt by terrorism supported the invasion." Only a stupid reader would assume that. And besides, the wiki policy makes it clear to let the readers make their own conclusions. If a dumb reader makes a stupid conclusion, then, for goodness sake, let him. Do you have any idea how many stupid conclusions readers can make from the current article on the coup? Do you have any idea how many additional notes you have to make in order to reduce the amount of dumb conclusions made by readers? You might as well delete every quote you have in the article, because dumb readers might interpret every quote as being the truth. Or maybe delete every statement from the article cause dumb readers might interpret every statement as being the truth. Maybe we should put a disclaimer at the top of the article: "not everything in this article is absolutely true". Humanoid 12:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a wat?

Patiwat, I think it would do you good to think about something other than Thai politics for a while. The article wat says that a wat is a Buddhist or Hindu temple, but in the next line it says that a wat must have resident Buddhist monks. One of these statements must be wrong. Is a Hindu temple a wat? I don't think so, but I'm sure you will know. Also, if you don't archive this page I will. Adam 04:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Done! It looks ugly without a TOC though. Any idea how to force a TOC?
I'm sure there is a formal definition for what a 'wat' is, but informally, it just means any place of worship. Thus 'wat cheen' is a chinese temple (whether it is a buddhist or taoist temple is not relevant), a 'wat khaek' is a hindu temple, 'wat kris'/'wat krit' is a church. Even the ruins of a wat that doesn't have any monks in it any more is still informally called a wat. The exceptions to this rule are 'misyit'/'masayit' (masjid/mosque) which are never called 'wat'. Most churches outside of Thailand are not referred to as 'wat' but as 'bot' (โบสถ์) which is a term for an ordination hall within the confines of a 'wat'. Thus St. Peter's Cathedral is called Bot Saint Peter. Patiwat 06:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will amend the article to say that strictly speaking a wat is a Buddhist temple and school with resident monks, but in everyday language it is any place of worship except a mosque.

I'm not exactly sure what the strict definition of a wat is, and off the top of my head, I don't know any references, either. There are some 'wat pa' (forest temples) that don't have schools, although I'm not sure whether they are formal 'wat' or not. Patiwat 07:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A TOC appears automatically once a minimum number of entries are made, unless you suppress it. Personally I find them very ugly and I don't have them at my talk page. Adam 06:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
IMO, a TOC looks good as long as there aren't too many items in it, i.e., it isn't more than screen long. Otherwise, its harder to use. Patiwat 07:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bloody May

I see you've started a new article called Bloody May. Are you aware that there was already an article called Black May? Google searches suggest that the most popular name for the event is Black May, not Bloody May, but the original article has very little info compared to the new one you wrote. I suggest that you move over all the info to the Black May page, and redirect users from Bloody May to Black May, and mention both names. Humanoid 12:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't realized that Black May was more popular. I'll merge contents and redirect. Patiwat 16:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sirikitiya → Sirikitiya Jensen vote

Hello Patiwat. Please come and vote about the page move at Talk:Sirikitiya#Requested move. An official move resquest has begun. -- Lerdsuwa 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nitya Pibulsongkram

Is the new Foreign Minister a descendant of Marshal Phibun? Adam 22:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Nit (นิตย์ พิบูลสงคราม) is Marshal Plaek's son. Patiwat 05:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

He must be a fine old age, since Plaek would be 110 by now. Does he share his father's political views? Adam 07:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Plaek died in the 1960's, I believe, not long after he was banished by Sarit and the palace. Plaek's political views were very complex. When I was at Thammasat, I followed the standard "progressive" line that Plaek, Sarit, and Thanom were the bad guys, and that Pridi, Puay, and Sanya were the good guys. I thought of him as a collaborationist fascist military dictator, a twisted hybrid of Franco, Salazar, and Tojo.
But as my understanding of the role of the palace in political history increased, I came to think that his nationalist policies combined the best and worst aspects of the concept. Despite the many conflicts he had with Pridi, he was more of a friend of Pridi than the palace was. In hindsight, I believe his policy of limiting the power of the palace was a wise one. Especially since 50 years of unchecked power has basically crippled Thailand's political development, to the extend that we see today. Patiwat 08:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I agree with you about the last bit, but I think I will stick with the progressive line that Plaek was a fascist, or at least saw fascism as model of westernisation most appropriate to Siam at the time (particularly since it legitimised his strong-man rule), while Pridi favoured the british liberal or social-democratic model. in the long run i think Pridi was right and Plaek was wrong. And as i understand it was the military regimes of the 1950s that built up the current cult of the King which now has such a grip on Thai politics. Which reminds me that i must get back to my Cult of Thai monarchy article. Adam 08:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but there were two military regimes during the 1950's. First was the Plaek regime, which seized power in 1952, which was as much an anti-palace coup as it was an anti-Pridi coup. The junta replaced the pro-palace 1949 constitution with the anti-palace 1932 constitution. Plaek severely reduced the power of the King and delegated him to playing a ceremonial role. When Thais see images of the King playing in a jazz band, on a sail boat, or doing other playboy pursuits, those pictures nearly all came from the Plaek regime. The second military regime of the 1950's started in 1957, when Sarit - with the support of the palace - overthrew Plaek. Sarit used the King to build the cult of the "development king," which fit well with his agenda for the nation. When you see pictures of the King touring the provinces in a military uniform, you're seeing pictures from the Sarit era. So each regime played a role in developing differing aspects of the cult.
Sanya Thammasak during the period from 1973-1976 built up the image of the democracy-promoting King. And Prem during the 1980's built the image of the dam-building farmer-helping genius-of-environmental-engineering King. See an interesting discusson on the New Mandala blog for some details that might be insightful on what happens when the King's environmental abatement schemes don't turn out as planned. Patiwat 09:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Economist says that TRT will crumble away without Thaksin, and describes Abhisit as "well-liked but ineffectual" and the Democrats' performance as "lamentable." It predicts a return to weak parties and crony politics after the next election. Adam 09:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I see two potential scenarios:
1) The military drafts a constitution that, relative to the 1997 Constitution, establishes a weaker executive and legislature. Less than 2/5's of the Parliament is needed for a vote of no confidence. MPs will be allowed to shift parties whenever they like. The Senate becomes directly appointed by the junta. The judiciary alone appoints members to the Constitutional Court, NCCC, Office of the Auditor General, and the Electoral Commission. Active military officials will be allowed to be members of the Senate. The draft constitution passes a referendum without any controversy. Elections occur and a shaky coalition government results. The military junta stays discretely in the background. The government is in a perpetual state of imbalance, as MPs are bought and sold like whores. Some time later, maybe 5-10-15 years, Thailand sees a major transition that it hasn't seen for the past 60 years, and a few years after that, a belated process of constitutional reform occurs.
2) Similar to above, but the process leading to the referendum is controversial. The junta intervenes one time too many. The Surayud government annoys the PAD, and they come out protesting, this time against the junta. Weird shit happens, and violence erupts. The military looses a lot of legitimacy. The King steps in to calm people down and smack people on the wrist. He is hailed as the supreme enforcer of harmony. But what happens after that, I have no idea.
Based on the bloody record of every coup for the past 30 years, I believe that 2) will occur. But I have no idea what the final outcome will be.
- Patiwat 10:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that this will be the last coup-reform-coup cycle in which R9 will be around to be the accepted umpire. I can't imagine R10 playing nearly the same role. Adam 10:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks for restoring good edit in Thaksin Shinawatra

No problem. It was worth it to get rid of the rest of the stuff, which wasn't simple vandalism, but definitely extreme POV. I'm a bit chagrined I didn't catch that essay etc. for 5 days.

Thank you for your generous "meat" contributions to the article too. Your user page indicates many of your edits belong to Thaksin's article. TransUtopian 10:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thai culture poster.PNG

Couldn't you have asked for my permission first before uploading the picture onto Wikipedia? I know, I know, the picture doesn't belong to me but to the public, blah blah blah, but I was the dude who did the book-searching (scrounging about in badly-lit second hand bookstores is not what I'd call fun) and the scanning. P. Klykoom

  • Sorry if I didn't ask for your permission. Your work in finding such an old image is much appreciated. If you give me some details (your name, bookstore you got the image from, scanning details) I will definately include it in the image description.

[edit] New airport

The article says: "The name Suvarnabhumi (pronounced su-wan-na-poom) was chosen by HM King Bhumibol Adulyadej which means "the golden land", specifically referring to the continental Indochina." I asked: Why on earth would the King name the airport after Indochina? Thailand is not part of Indochina. Can someone produce a source for this assertion? No-one has responded. Perhaps you can fix this if you agree with me that it doesn't make much sense.

Also, is the thai name Suvarnabhumi cognate with the Lao name Suvanna Phuma, the former Prime Minister? Adam 06:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • See the Suwannaphum article. Not sure about the Laos prince, but probably so. The ancient/quasi-legendary kingdom was located somewhere in Southeast Asia. It has nothing to do with the French colonial entity of Indochina. Like the kingdom of Srivijaya, people dispute where exactly it was located, and some say that it is located within the borders of the former Indochina. The modern Thais, of course, claim that it was somewhere in Thailand. Patiwat 06:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I will be ariving at the new airport on December 27 and will see how golden it really is. What reports have you had so far? Adam 07:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Haven't been there yet, but the Finance Minister is really angry that it doesn't have enough toilets. Ordered some duty-free space to be converted to toilet space. Patiwat 07:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creator of banknotes and stamps?

Patiwat, You are correct. I have improperly tagged the stamps and paper money scans I made. I've only recently begun making image contributions, and am not as versed on the correct tagging as I should be. I've endeavored to improve that, but haven't gone back to some of the images I uploaded a couple/few months ago. Thanks for the reminder. Maybe I can knock that out tonight.

Unrelated, I truly like the South Thailand insurgency work you've done. - Thaimoss 18:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. You did good work on the Phutthaloetla Naphalai as well. I saw that ship close up many times at Satthahip harbor. Patiwat 22:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anand Panyarchum

 Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! You recently added an external link to personal site in an article. It has been removed because the link pointed to a non-encyclopedic source. Please refer to Wikipedia's policy on external links for more information.
--Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 06:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference was to a newspaper article that just happened to be reprinted on a Tripod page. The complete citation details (name of newspaper, title of article, date of publication) are included. Patiwat 06:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CNS

Hi Pat, I added a section on people's reaction to the CNS in the Council for National Security article. Not fully happy with it but I though we needed to catch up with the latest (and I have been very busy these days...) Regards

Here's my thoughts:
  • We have to distinguish Surayud Chulanont and his government with the CNS. Public opinion to Surayud is captured in the Surayud Chulanont#Popularity section. That poll that you noted in the CNS article didn't really ask anything about the CNS - it was all about the Surayud government.
  • There has been much more criticism against the CNS that just the 10 December protests. Many many academics have criticized the CNS for their Interim Constitution and the powers it grants them over the next constitution. There has also been much criticism over censorship and the appointment of junta leaders to state enterprise directorships. It might be a good idea to 1) mention specific criticisms in specific sections, e.g., note criticisms about the junta constitution in the constitution article, 2) note general reactions in a section called "General popularity and public opinion", and 3) shortly summarize specific criticisms in both the intro to the CNS article as well as the "General popularity and public opinion" section.
Which is almost what you've done already. Just need to do some more editing. Your thoughts? Patiwat 06:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did You Vandalize The C++ Page?

Ok, if you did what has happened to the C++ page, I'm reporting you so better make things clear (Yes, that sounded hostile because it is hostile) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.176.2.143 (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

  • Who the hell are you, an anonymous user, to be making accusations? Does that sound hostile? because it was. Check the article history page - it's obvious I never did any vandalism. Chill out and get a damn account before you go off being hostile. Patiwat 16:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khun Chang Khun Phaen

Thanks for the editing and advice. I've taken the two images off the page. I can't find out how to delete them.

I've recast the "Origins" section to make it clear that KCKP creates sepha as a genre.

I've converted those two sections into sub-sections, but called them "Characteristics" rather than "Criticism", which seems more accurate

All the works in the References section are mentioned in the text or footnotes. All the citations in the References section are in a standard and academically recognized style. I've cleaned up the mentions in the text so they seem less like citations. Chrispasuk 20:45 Tokyo time, 14 Dec 2006

[edit] =Hi

Are you intending to be in Bkk during January? Adam 01:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. Patiwat 02:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ?Sepha? Khun Chang Khun Phaen

Agree utterly. I put it up under this title because the (blank) page was already there with an invitation to fill it. I would much prefer it to be just KCKP. If you can move it, I'll redo the 'Origins and Sepha' section to suit the new title. Thanks again. Chrispasuk 11:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/t/User_talk%7EPatiwat_0f72.html"