Talk:Policies of the Surayud government

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Why this article exists

The government of Surayud Chulanont has many policies of note. Key policies are covered in the biographical article, but a more comprehensive listing is also neccesary. There is a Thaksin Shinawatra article as well as a Policies of the Thaksin government article - I therefore think that there should be a Policies of the Surayud government article. This article has plenty of sources, just look for yourself. Patiwat 18:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the speedy tag, it is no longer appropriate as some sources are cited. However, some of the sources appear to be quite partisan, such as The Nation (please see WP:V and WP:RS for cautions on using partisan sources.) This still looks quite a bit like a POV fork, so I've left an NPOV dispute tag on the article-surely, counterbalancing views are available, those would need to be added to satisfy WP:NPOV. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Nation is the dominant source because it is the only english language newspaper in Thailand that maintains static web-pages (so that a 5 year old article will still have the same URL as it did when it it was first published). That being said, I don't see how you can state that it is a partisan source - if anything, it tends to have a strongly independent editorial stance. It originally praised the Surayud government, but has lately become more critical, especially over the past month or two. Patiwat 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That may be my personal bit-I love The Nation, and read it all the time, but I've certainly found it to be a bit of a partisan source. That being said, though, I'm sure that at minimum the government itself has published reports or similar that attempt to justify its actions. Citing only criticism without citing rebuttals or the like is POV. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think The Nation is more schizo than partisan. Witness Chang Noi vs. Thepchai, Sutthichai, or Thanong. Patiwat 19:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How is this article POV?

What particularly in the article is POV?

• If anybody has been praising the government over how its handled the new constitution, I haven't seen it in any newspapers or articles.
• The treatment of Thaksin Shinawatra is very factual. Thaksin haters will read it and say, "right on!" while Thaksin sympathisers will read it and say, "those guys are mean."
• The telecommunications section is likewise very factual. People against anti-privatization, in favor of strong TOT/CAT finances, and in favor of an MCOT that isn't so profit oriented will cheer what the government did, and people with different perspectives will boo it. But the facts as stated are neutral.
• Same with culture. The government banned alchoholic ads and bar dancing. No commentary. If you like beer ads and bar dancing, you'll boo what the government did; if you are against them you'll cheer Surayud on. But the facts are right there without any commentary one way or another.
• I don't see how stating that the universal healthcare program was made free is POV. The Budget Bureau's criticism is noted. But any reasonable citizen would clearly see that a free program is better than a paid program, so it balances out. As for breaking the drug patents, MSF cheered the move, but drug companies were against it. Presenting the facts (without either the cheers or the boos) is NPOV.
• Energy-related stuff is extremely factual. No commentary or POV - just the facts. And the facts here are very neutral. You can boo them or cheer them depending on your political stance.
• I haven't seen a single article defending Surayud for his "Tom Yum Koong" accusations about the South Thailand insurgency.
• Education is likewise very neutral and factual, and contains no independent commentary.
• Regarding the economy, has anybody been defending the government over its capital controls debacle? If there is, please put it in, because I haven't seen any. Regarding the FBA, Pridiyathorn's self-defense is noted, as well as criticisms from the foreign business community.
• Has anybody been defending the government over its torture of citizens, censorship of websites and television, and other human rights abuses? I seriously haven't seen anything except scorn for these policies.

To summarize, most of the information in the article is strictly factual and neutral. When there is commentary, it tries to include both sides of the argument. When public commentary has been one-sided, that's reflected in the article. Patiwat 19:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The article should not include only public commentary, it should include also the government's side (even if that's patently ridiculous). Surely, the government has stated something in defense of its actions. Also, "junta" is generally rather inflammatory language-if this is an article about a government, call it a government. I'm afraid this still looks pretty POV to me-even if what's here is true, only one side appears to be presented. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)