User talk:Patiwat/Feb 2006 - 19 Sep 2006

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Patiwat/Feb 2006 - 19 Sep 2006, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Thanks for the edits to Earthsea! Noelle De Guzman (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I made a slight eding in the Thaksin Shinawatra article. The following changes were made:

From - "A Bangkok poll taken 3 weeks after Thaksin's announcement found that Thaksin and TRT were still overwhelming popular in Bangkok, with 54% preferring TRT and 7% preferring the Democrats."

To - "A Bangkok poll taken 3 weeks after Thaksin's announcement found that TRT policies were still overwhelmingly popular in Bangkok, with 54.2% preferring TRT policies versus 7.5% for the Democrats."

You talk about being biased, but you instead write seemingly referenced articles laced with misinformation.

You also say that you support democracy. Thaksin's government, although a democratic one, is a democracy in its worst form, majoritarianism. Right now Thais are like lemmings. I, as a physician, believe in meritocracy. Majority could be wrong.

• Please read the Discussion page for the Thaksin Shinawatra article where I give an explanation of why I wrote it that way. The way you edited the article doesn't make any sense. The data is cited to support the assertation that Thaksin, post-election, still retained high popularity, despite the PAD's attacks. The original data used to support it had issues, and I replaced it with the poll data which you edited. Admittedly, it is not perfect, but it is still better than the original. Patiwat 00:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please don't assume that since you think you are better educated, you are smarter and have better judgement than me, or the "lemming-like" majority of Thailand. The system of power you advocate was overthrown in 1932. And next time, please log your name. In a free society, people should not be ashamed to have political views. Patiwat 00:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Don't you have anything better to do other than vandalize articles (like you did for Panthongtae Shinawatra)? You claim to be a physician, so go heal somebody rather than trying to destroy other people's hard work. Patiwat 00:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism? I believe we are talking about conflict of view. Moreover, what I wrote is not untrue. Also, this is a public webpage and any information written is viewed by others. Your own article is not as neutral as you think. How would you consider my calling Thaksin's recent visits to other head of states "unsolicited" vandalism, while the truth of the matter is:

1. He personally asked various ambassabors to arrange these visits for him, which clearly showed that he was not "invited".

• From various friends who work in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, let me assure you that even if a Thai leader is invited by the leaders of a foreign country, the embassy staff still has to arrange the details of the visit. Embassy staff always deals with visit details, even for personal visits. This is standard for every senior Thai civil servant, politician, and member of the royal family. Patiwat 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

2. His meetings with some of leaders were remarkably brief, showing its insignificance. 3. He stopped to meet Arroyo unannounced, resulting his request for an audience being turned down.

• Fine, even if you never cited a source. But so what? Does this have political significance? I asked this in the Discussion page, and the only responder said it wasn't very relevant. I removed it with a note explaining why I had put it up in the first place. If you think the foreign trip should be mentioned, then go ahead and do it, cite sources, and explain yourself in the Discussion page. Be Bold! Patiwat 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

How could you call my comment about Panthongthae vandalism, while the boy is notorious for his academic incompetence. The reason for this is for speculation about his cheating allegations. Shouldn't it also be noted that the officials who investigated this case are quickly promoted? Also, if you take offense in the article's edition, I wonder whether you have read the previous article prior to the current one that exits? Would the person who wrote it, later found that his article is written anew, consider this edition "vandalism"?

As I was saying, this is a public webpage. I wouldn't be doing what I am doing if that article, when read, show all sides to the story. Instead you give fleeting informations at face value and try to cover them up with selected references which you deemed convenient for your purpose. Sometime truths are only half-truths.

• Wikipedia might be a public website, but it is not a political gossip board. It is an encyclopedia. It is only natural that individual editors have particular points of view. But what appears in the the encyclopedia must be verifiable from reputable sources. Your edits on Phanthongthae were personal attacks didn't cite any sources at all. Under Wikipedia policy, such edits should not only be reverted, but deleted from the edit history. If "The Nation" has an article saying that Phanthongthae is a dumb cheating drug-addict, then go ahead and note that in the article. But if this is something you discuss over coffee or in Phanthip.com then, it shouldn't be repeated in the encyclopedia. You cite many "facts", e.g., Phanthongthae's investigators were all promoted. Be bold and back it up. Patiwat 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note, I'm not a fan of Phanthongthae either. My cousin studied with him in Triam and has some horrible stories to tell. But they do not belong on Wikipedia. Patiwat 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not arbitrarily alter articles and have been a contributor to wikipedia for many years (in different areas, mostly classical studies and history - I am not that much of a political person by any means). I did not say that the present articles are untrue. I am just saying that they do not tell the entire story.

I do acknowledge that your writings have merits. But the present article, when read, can be perceived as biased. People who are involved in certain things are subconsciouly opined one way or the other. To achieve the best, I believe that an article deserves various contributions whether it may or may not be to one's liking.

Also, the fact that I am saying I am a physician is to state what I was taught. If a patient comes for a visit, it doesn't matter what the public consensus of the diagnosis is. You could be in a minority, buy you still could be correct.

I really wish this Thaksin thing would never be an issue, for it already creates too much conflict in the society. I think I will refrain from editing the articles pertaining to him and his family, since it seems to trouble you. I also appreciate your deletion of some of the contested parts of article.

Sigh, I will repeat it again. This Thaksin ordeal has already created too much conflict.

I do apologize for your troubles and wish it never have come to this. I harbor you no ill will and wish you the very best.

P.S.

1. Also, misgivings on my parts. I have never noticed the discussion page until you point it out. I am totally at fault here and if I have any comments in future I would be inclined to use that page.

2. I have retired my older computer and, with it, lost logins and passwords I have saved. You are certainly right about not loggin in.

• I take your suggestions in good faith and do not harbor any ill will either. I have suggested an alternative edit regarding the post-election poll in the Discussion page. Please give your input. Patiwat 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not refrain from making edits! I value your point of view, and it increases the value and credibility of Wikipedia. Just make sure the edits are factual and referenced with reputable sources. It is tricky to do this on such a controversial topic, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Patiwat 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Put four tildes (the curly sign on the left of the "1" button on the keyboard) after your edits to automatically sign your name and date on your edits.

• As a rule, I don't discuss politics with friends - there is too much potential for having arguments! :-) I have a feeling that if we met outside of Wikipedia, and didn't discuss politics, we would become friends as well. I'm a history buff as well, especially in Thai art history and European political history. Patiwat 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Patiwat, althugh we seem to have some differences of opinion, I am actually very pleased to find someone here who is bilingual in English and Thai and in interested in politics. As well as editing at Wikipedia, I maintain the world's most extensive online database of election statistics, Adam Carr's Election Archive. I have had a lot of difficulty getting decent election stats for Thailand, partly because I don't speak or read Thai, but partly also because the ECT have been completely unresponsive to my efforts to get information from them. When I was last in Bkk I tried to get them to show me their maps of the election districts, which I offered to copy or photograph myself, but they seemed to think these were state secrets and wouldn't let me see them. Their website is impossible to navigate and so far as I can tell they have never produced detailed stats of the 2005 election. I have had to rely on the partial stats published at the Nation website. For this election they are starting to put some figures at their website, but again no maps, and also no enrolment figures so that I can see what proportion of the enrolled voters are voting for the TRT candidates. I wonder if you could tell me if you know of any source for

• detailed stats from the 2005 election
• constituency maps for either 2005 or 2006 (I gather the boundaries have changed)
• electoral enrolment stats by constituency for 2006

Regards, Adam 12:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I may agree with you about that, but my current interest is psephological rather than political. Could I ask you to look at the ECT website and tell me what is written on the large purple panel which is now blocking access to their partial election statistics? Could you also clarify for me that TRT have won all 400 constituency seats, apart from the 38 seats in the south where they failed to get 20%, and Nonthaburi 3 where all candidates were disqualified? Adam 13:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That big purple thing says "New candidates can apply in the following 39 constituencies (including 1 and 3 in Nonthaburi)". From which I'd conclude that TRT has at least 361 constituency seats and about 90 party list seats, which would give them the largest parliamentary majority in Thai history. Unless if the Democrats play dirty again and boycott the by-elections too, in which case the elections and the parliament are a total waste. Might as well let the Constitutional Court pick the next PM.

The unofficial results are at http://www.ect.go.th/thai/report_mp49.htm I'm too lazy to click on the button for every province - I wish they'd just publish the consolidated results as an Excel file or a something. If you're good with perl, you could probably do it with a short script. Or an OSX Automator script. Or Teleport Pro. The format is http://www.ect.go.th/thai/report_mp49/PROVINCENAMEX.htm when X is the sub-page (in cases where there are many sub-districts. Let me know what you find out.Patiwat 13:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The problem with the ECT figures is that they give only the TRT vote and not the "No votes" or the total number of registered voters in each constituency. The Nation is giving better figures, but they are not as complete. The one good thing about the ECT website is their collection of newscutting pdfs in the box at the right-hand side of the page. Trawling through that gives me these figures. Probably tomorrow's papers will have better ones. Adam 13:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now located a better source of results here, and have summarised them here. Could I ask you to look at the mcot website, and tell what the third table down on the left (the one above the photo of the unhappy looking man), represents? Kopkhunkrap. Adam 06:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The table with the drop-down box summarizes unofficial voting results for people who did NOT vote. The choices in the drop-down box are 1) Bangkok 2) North 3) Northeast 4) South. The columns in the table are 1) order - not district 2) District 3) Did not vote 4) Abstained 5) Invalid 6) Total. But 6-3-4-5!=TRT because of votes for other parties. If you want to see the breakdown by party, look at the 2nd table. The map chart might be useful - it shows the distribution of votes by party by region/province in percentage to the 1st decimal. However, it isn't so clear whether the denominator is.Patiwat 13:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but I still have a problem. If I use the drop-down box to look at the South, for example, I see in the first column 1, 2, 3 and 4. What do these refer to? In the next column I see Songkhla districts 3, 1, 5 and 6. How do I see all the other districts in the South? Is the little blue triangle in the top right meant to be a scroll-down button? If so it not working for me. Adam 03:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The results are incomplete. Only 4 districts are shown. I don't know why. The triangle doesn't work for me either. Patiwat 06:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps you could contact MCOT and ask them to fix it. Alternatively you could contact the ECT and ask them to post some decent statistics at their site instead of all the fancy graphics - it is their job after all. Cheers, Adam 06:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the use... Nobody cares about the election results or what the majority of Thai people think. The boycot was a spike in the tires of democracy.Patiwat 07:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well I care, but then I'm an eccentric falang psepholgist, not a Thai.
  • You're spinning your wheels. Just wait for the 30 day deadline, when the EC will be legally required to declare final official results.Patiwat 08:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• I think Thaksin is a crook and a demagogue, but I agree that it is a bad day for democracy when a government polls 61% of the vote and is then forced to resign by an unelected king and the Bangkok mob.Patiwat 08:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No argument. [rant mode] Thaksin, for all his serious faults, was the first Thai populist Prime Minister. If you look at what passes for Democrat policy, it seems as if he will be the only populist Prime Minister. He was the first politician who ran with a clear agenda and campaign promises, and measured his success by his ability to deliver those promises. He made some difficult political compromises in his career - effectiveness vs. cleanliness in drugs, reform vs. patronage in school decentralization, national champ vs. hypercompetition in electricity - but he was vindicated the ballot box. For these "innovations", he deserves better than the slander that the hypocrite Sondhi is throwing at him and the dirty-tricks that the Democrats are using to bring him down[/rant mode].Patiwat 08:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• It is very noticeable at both Nation and the Post that Bangkok public opinion is the only opinion that matters. The assumption seems to be that the North and N-East voted for Thaksin because they're peasants, so that doesn't count. Even in Bangkok though, there are 10 million people and only a few hundred thousand actually attended the anti-Thaksin rallies. Adam 07:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, they know very well who their readers are. Thais are like that, they give a lot of weight to education and social class. Patiwat 08:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb your serene bubble, but if the Democrats sue the EC and boycott the by-elections, then we might not final results in 30 days, either :-) Patiwat 09:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Patiwat, nice to see you online here again. When you have a movement, could you have a look at the new material on the ECT website, and tell me what this and this represent? I am hoping it is lists of provinces showing enrolment, turnout, invalid voting, abstention voting and voting for parties - perhaps you can confirm this. Kopkhunkrap, Adam 07:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

From http://www.ect.go.th/thai/score1.html, the columns are

• No.
• Province
• No. eligible voters
• Valid ballots
• %
• Invalid ballots
• %
• Abstain
• %
• Total
• % of eligible voters

Same thing for http://www.ect.go.th/thai/list_con.html Patiwat 08:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Now what I need is the same sets of figures for each constituency. I will wait and see what they post next, maintaining my serentity as I wait. Meantime, it is cold and wet here and I am looking forward to being in steamy Bkk again. Adam 08:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You might also want to take a peak at http://sanpaworn.vissaventure.com/log, who also looks at the election results, but from a political perspective that I don't think you'll agree with. Meantime, it is 45 degrees F here in cold, rainy, windy San Francisco. This sucks. Patiwat 08:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is helpful too, thanks. Please advise me of anything else you find. I am keen to find a list of candidate names in English, otherwise I am going to have to pay someone to translate them all for me. What are you doing in San Francisco? (I meant to ask you, by the way, how you can be a native speaker of both Thai and English. Are you a Thai-American or vice versa?) Adam 09:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother paying. 1) It will not be correct, since pronunciation of Thai names can be tricky even for native speakers. 2) Whatever latin transliteration you use will almost certainly be inconsistent with that which the MP prefers. Just wait until Parliament convenes (if ever) and the names of the MPs are officially published. Patiwat 04:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I was born in Thailand but moved to the US when my parents fled the persecution of the military dictatorship. Returned back to Thailand to finish college, worked here for many years, and went to graduate school in the US. Now deciding where to continue my career. Patiwat 04:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I want all the candidates, not just those elected. Last year the Nation published the full results in English, but this time (understandably) they are not bothering. I don't mind putting a few k baht in the way of a needy Thai student to do some translating for me. Adam 06:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that message. I am doing Hungarian elections at present to I will wait and see what happens in Thailand. But even if there are new elections, I will still want to have full stats for 2 April eventually. Is there likely to be a deal involving departure of Thaksin (and presumably demise of TRT without him), fresh elections and a return to politics as normal? Adam 04:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• The "deal" was that if Thaksin left, the PAD would stop protesting. Well, Thaksin announced he was not going to accept the Premiership, which can be interpretted both ways. The PAD decided not to stop, the King stepped in, and we have the current mess. Patiwat 06:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just caught your comment about Leonowens. Thanks for seconding my motion. I can see that you are engaged in Thai issues. Leonowens was a controversial person, but the article is nothing but a vanity piece, and that's being charitable. Its days are numbered. — J M Rice 02:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting to the original article is outrageous. The person doing this clearly has no concept of NPOV. I've restored my edits and posted a warning on Talk. I hope this doesn't turn into a revert war. — J M Rice 12:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just a note to tell you that I commented on your latest post, and made a suggstion, on my talk page. — J M Rice 23:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I see the article is reverted again, but compared to the original it's far imrpoved, don't you think? At least it's something you can work with. Remember, though, one person's "debunking" is another's polemic. Cheers! J M Rice 17:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This may interest you. What is the explanation for everything south of Bangkok, both east and west, being anti-Thaksin? It is interesting to see that the Muslim "deep south" is actually less anti-Thaksin than areas further north - the highest abstention was in Chumphon. Adam 03:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Democrat strongholds. The South has been a Democrat power base for decades. Except for the border provinces, which loyalties have been somewhat more dynamic. Gen. Chavalit's New Aspiration Party courted lots of local Muslim politicians and was quite strong there for a time, and things have been quite in flux recently. So if Muslims hate Thaksin, then why aren't they abstaining more? Well, the Democrats are great at complaining, but they don't really have a strategy for how to solve the problems of the border provinces either... Short-term rubber prices (natural rubber is a key economic crop in South Thailand) might also be a contributing factor, but I haven't been keeping track. Patiwat 06:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes but why is the south a Democrat stronghold?
  • Sorry - I don't know. Has been that way since the 70's at least, and has been completely dominant since the 90's (when a Southern Democrat became PM twice). Patiwat 20:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I detest "trivia". If matters are of importance, they should be included in the article. If they are not, they should be deleted. I don't care about trivia on trivial topics, like movie stars, but I delete it on sight on serious articles. Adam 23:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is another question I have been trying to get an answer to ever since I first visited Bangkok: What is the etymological or historical connection between the aristocratic title Chao Phraya and the name of the Chao Phraya River? Was it named for a particularly person with the rank of Chao Phraya? Was that always the river's name or has it been renamed since Bangkok became the capital? Does the name suggest that it is the "prince of rivers" or some such attribute? Several people have assured me that there is no connection, but I don't believe this. Adam 02:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Good question, but I don't have a definite answer. The river has been an economic artery for hundreds of years though, since the Ayuthaya-era. I'm not sure what it was called back then, although no other alternative name comes to mind. The name Chao Phraya doesn't really sound right to me. Rivers have been critical to Thailand's agriculture civilization for millenia, and the names of the rivers tend to be simple and "Thai", e.g., Khwae, Nan, Yom, Ping, Khong. Chao Phraya sounds too fancy to have been a local name. I'm not in Thailand right now, and can't ask anybody conveniently. When I get back I'll try asking. Patiwat 04:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell which election this map pertains to, and whether these are still the current constituency boundaries? Adam 06:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a map of election constituencies, but I don't know if it is up to date or official. Why don't you try emailing the authoer (his email is at the bottom). Patiwat 20:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Patiwat, some time ago I wrote this article: Sang Phathanothai. To my surprise nobody has made any edits yet. I would like someone to check it. You seem to be well aware about Thailand's history. If you can make any factual corrections you know about, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Anagnorisis 00:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't have sources at hand right now, so I hesitate to make any major edits. I would note, however, that point of view of the 4th paragraph is, in my opinion, too forgiving of Pibulsonggram, who handed over Thailand to the Japanese. The topic remains controversial today. Patiwat 02:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Yes, about being forgiving of Pibulsonggram, I am sure you will able to gauge that better than me. Please edit the language in any manner you deem appropriate. The main source I used (the book written by Sang's daughter) was probably (and obviously) biased positively towards him. Anagnorisis 16:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi Patiwat, I am in Norway at present but I am following what is going on in Muang Thai. Have not the judges been very clever? As I understand it, they have not actually annulled the 2 April elections, which would have amounted to a constitutional coup, but they have annulled each of the individual elections on technical grounds, so that the whole election can be run again (after the King's jubilee), technically as a series of by-elections. Very shrewd, and also a good outcome, in my view. The constitution is preserved, the Opposition saves face, the people get to choose a new legislature, the King is spared embarrassment. Questions: will Thaksin come back? Will TRT fall apart without him? Adam 04:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The newspapers I've read haven't actually gone into the details, which is frustrating. For instance, was the blame on the EC, or on Thaksin? And does this practically set a minimum time limit for opposition parties to prepare for the election (one of the controversial facts was that the election came too close to the dissolving of parliament)? And practically, how can camera-phone vote buying be prevented without turning the voting tables around?

As for the Opposition saving face, my personal view is that their hypocracy is absurd. They boycott the original election claiming that the dissolution of Parliament was illegitimate. But after the election results in a verification of Thaksin's weakened state, they decide to contest? Even though it is still illegitimate? Bull$hit!

As for Thaksin, I'm not a fan of him. But the opposition/PAD has no legit right to ban him from politics. As long as the TRT has populist policies, and as long as the Democrats don't have a clear policy of their own, I'll still prefer TRT.

But the most troublesome thing though, is that the fundamental constitutional issue remains: whether Parliament can or can not reconvene without a full house. Lets say that a particular party, powerful in only 1 province, decides to boycott the election. Nobody gets 20% of the vote. That province effectively does not have an MP, and has to do multiple rounds of by-elections. But with only 499 seats, Parliament can not reconvene. Basically, what is to prevent some other party from repeating what the Democrats did in this election, thus stalling the democratic process indefinitely? Patiwat 07:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Given that the new elections will not happen till after the Jubilee, the Opposition should have plenty of time to campaign.
• I think the decision of the Opposition to contest the new polls should be welcomed and not too much made of their hypocrisy. The important thing is to get normal politics and legality re-established as soon as possible.
• I agree that a constitutional provision which gives the voters in one constituency the power to sabotage the entire political process is dangerous and absurd and must be changed.
• You didn't answer either of my questions: Will Thaksin come back? If not, will TRT still win?

Adam 06:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Re Thaksin, in the medium term, he will definitely be back. My guess is that in the short-term (Round 2) he will both contest as well as be ready for the premiership. That way, he can fully claims a mandate when he wins. Maybe less of a majority than before, but I'd be shocked if TRT got less than half the seats. As for the, EC, let them commit seppuku and let the Courts embarrass themselves by trying to run the election, which is blatantly unconstitutional. Patiwat 09:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What was the alternative? Allow the 2 April results to stand and have a one-party parliament for the next four years? Not a good outcome. Adam 12:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• True, that would be horrible, but TRT had promised constitutional reform and a new election within a year. Notice right now that constitutional reform seems to be lacking in the Democrat campaign agenda? Patiwat 20:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't say I am following the debate that closely at present. I will get back up to speed when I get home. Do you know of Vitit Muntarbhorn? A most impressive man, I met him yesterday. I will write an article about him when I get home. Adam 04:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• He is a fine man. I almost worked with him a long long time ago. Hasn't been in the news much this past decade. Patiwat 07:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He's about. Adam 09:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• I wish him luck. Those North Koreans are a bit crazy. Last year, when I was working for the UN World Food Program, they kicked the WFP out - while their people were still starving! Not even due to any political mistake on anybody's part or anything. Weird... Patiwat 11:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That was pure politics on their part. After the famine in which maybe a million people died (another triumph of socialist agriculture), the DPRK was forced to beg for international aid, which involved allowing international agencies such as WFP into the country. They really hated that, because it threatened to expose the DPRK people to outside influence and the truth about the horrors of the DPRK's real situation. So as soon as the food situation was even slightly improved, they tried to turn the clock back, kick out the agencies and go back to the state procurements and rationing system they had before the famine. They were greatly helped in this by the current weak and selfish administration in South Korea, which has agreed to give them huge amounts of unmonitored food aid, thus undermining any possibility using the famine as a lever to get some political reform. So Khun Vitit's chances of success are greatly reduced. Adam 15:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Patiwat, re your comment on mine on succession, I'd prefer just to make some comments and let someone else decide whether they should be edited into the main text pages. Perhaps that's not in the full participatory spirit of wikipedia, but that's what I prefer. You and others have done a pretty good job already keeping the Bhumibol and other articles straight. 158.50.77.1 14:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I have suggested a rewording in the Discussion page. As I based the rewording on your explanation, I would greatly appreciate any comments you might have. Patiwat 11:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Appreciate your handling the succession stuff. I didn't get into the 1925 law because there is some mystery which the reference to Gothom suggests. The law, designed by King Vajiravudh, originally specifically said women cannot succeed. That suggests why the constitution had to be amended to allow the king to unilaterally change the 1925 law. But I could not find out whether in fact it has been changed to allow for a woman successor -- so that it doesn't contradict the constitution. It is an interesting legal question: which is the final word the constitution or the succession law predating it? But if they have been harmonized already then there is no problem. Phand 15:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I will be in Bkk July 1 to 9. Any chance you will be there then? Adam 12:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Not sure. Will let you know though - we should grab some beers! Patiwat 06:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages - you are a fount of useful information. I see the ECT has given up on posting new results from the April election, now that it has been annulled, so I guess I will never get complete results. I am hoping when I am in Bkk next month I will be able to get a set of current constituency maps from them, although I had no success last time. Adam 03:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Patiwat, no hard feelings! I never intended to attack you personally. And ideological convictions most certainly never played a role in my arguments.

My criticism was always directed against the article's quality alone. In case of any offence taken, please accept my apologies.

If you want to discuss the issue in person, feel free to contact me via Email or on my User Talk page. Best regards, Herrk 12:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Herrk

No offense was taken. I'm grateful to be a part of the English-language press in Thailand and to have the time and resources at hand to make the English-language Wikipedia a better place. I know for sure that the The Nation's offical style on Maha Chakri Sirindhorn is HRH Princess, though I imagine sometimes the "crown" does creep in, as you've noted. Again, I'm just grateful to have other editors like yourself to collaborate with. - Wisekwai 09:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This article has got totally out of hand, and I intend cutting it to about half its present length, by cutting out reams of unencyclopaedic euologisation and further reams of stuff about recent Thai politics which are only slightly relevant to Bhumibol's biography. I realise some of this text is yours, and I apologise if you don't like it being cut, but this article like all others must conform to Wikipedia standards of NPOV and relevance, and at present it doesn't. Adam 09:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits so far seem to be prety reasonable. The King's role in the current political crisis is debatable, and I tended to focus on the facts rather than interpret too much. But the article still seems pretty neutral. Patiwat 14:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The main problem was not so much neutrality as volume, although the whole "The King and His Adoring People" section had to go. Adam 01:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments last tuesday and sorry for late reply. I read you comments and thought that this topic had the involvement about the King also. Will it be better to publish another picture instead of the old picture? I think that the picture should be the photograph of overall protesters, to illustrate more clearly about the topic. I think the others who read this topic and see the old one, they might be confused that how did the picture of the woman who wear the yellow clothes involved. I think it will be more suitable to publish instead. However, thank you for your comments again! Worapon B. 2:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

File:PICT4863.JPG

Hi Patiwat. I am now in steamy Bkk, hiking around taking pictures of statues and monuments (my favourite passtime and a good way to lose weight in this climate). If you are here, let me know. The city is covered in election placards. Is this people getting in early for October, or are there local elections going on here? Adam 09:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

District (One level below Province) elections. The administration of this election was the EC's rationale for their refusal to comply to the court's unconstitutional demand to resign. Patiwat 14:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. I have upgraded Victory Monument (Bangkok). More on Democracy Monument tomorrow. Also October 1973 memorial. Adam 16:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have upgraded Democracy Monument, Bangkok. Comments welcome. About a third of everybody in Bkk is wearing yellow tops with the Royal Jubilee crest on them. What a weird country this is sometimes. Adam 16:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Reasonably sound. Have corrected some minor errors in transliteration. Regarding the "wing-like" structures, I recall reading somewhere that the architectural inspiration for the structures were actually airplane wings - airplanes being the most modern technology in people's minds during the 30's. Patiwat 17:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor question though, in your description of "The panel titled "Personification of the People" (Figure 5 below), shows a soldier protecting the Thai people while they go about their civilian pursuits." This seems to emphasize the military nature of the panel. Is this the official interpretation, or your own? I never thought of that panel as a soldier protecting the Thai people, as much as soliders as a distinct class of society. The way modern Chinese monuments have a soldier, party cadre, farmer, and worker grouped together. You'll notice that the panel as a whole looks distinctly socialist, even containing a farmer with a sickle and a blacksmith with a hammer. In short, it looks "socialist", rather than "militarist". Patiwat 17:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My comments on the panels are largely based on Ka F Wong. I don't know what value you place on his opinions. He has an MA in Thai Studies from Chulalongkorn so I assume he is reliable. As to that panel, I thought the symbolism was plain. The soldier stands in the centre, holding a weapon, while others around him pursue civilian pursuits. It seemed clear to me that he is protecting them, he is the virtuous military state that enables the life of the nation to flourish etc. As to the "socialist heroic" style, it's no coincidence that the sculptor was Italian. That "heroic" style in public art had its genesis in fascist Italy, and was later copied by Stalinist Russia, Maoist China etc etc etc. I don't think it should be taken as indicating the precise nature of the regime. Phibun's ideology drew heavily on fascism, and although fascism in turn had its roots in socialism, there wasn't much socialist content left by the 1930s.

On another matter, I have been using Wong's book as a guidebook to royal statuary in Bkk. I have now visited Rama I at the Rama I Bridge, the equestrian Rama V at Royal Plaza, the gold Rama IV at Wat Bowonivet and Rama VIII at Wat Suthat. I had already visited Rama VI in Lumphini Park and Rama VII at the National Assembly. Still on my list in King Taksin's statue over the river. All of these statues are being actively worshipped - vis this photo of a woman praying in front of Rama V. I presume (correct me if I'm wrong), that Thais do not worship the kings literally as gods, but rather in the same way they worship Buddha, as a hypostasis: a representation which possesses supernatural qualities and through which they can communicate with the supernatural world. I am thinking of an article on the Cult of Thai Royalty, discussing both its religious and political dimension, and examining to what extent the royal cult has been deliberately manufactured by earlier regimes to bolster their own legitimacy. I was very struck by the absence of the monarchy from the iconography at the Democracy Monument. Phibun's objective was to promote a cult of the military as the embodiment of the nation and guardians of democracy. The royal cult seems to have been a product of the Sarit-Thanom years, and no douvt it served its purpose at that time. But since 1973, and particularly since 1992, the military has totally lost credibility in that regard, and the royal cult that they themselves created has overtaken them, so that the monarchy has now come to be seen as the repository of national virtue and the protector of democracy - hence the anti-Thaksin forces wrapping themselves literally in the royal banner. This may also explain the Crown Prince's unpopularity - he is seen as a professional soldier rather than as royalty. Your comments welcome.

Your comments on the royalty are right on the money. Frank discussion of this topic is fairly rare in Thailand, even in academic circles. Especially these days, when all sides are using the King as a political weapon. As for a Cult of Thai Royalty, it is a good idea, but I'm not sure how much real research has been published in the area (I'm eagerly awaiting Paul Handley's biography). Patiwat 15:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Adam, regarding your comments on the "heroic" style in public art, I did a bit of searching on Wikipedia, and it seems that Socialist realism and Heroic realism had their roots in Soviet Russia, and only later on became adopted by Italin Communists and Fascists. Patiwat 12:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Finally, could you translate these for me? Thanks and regards Adam 07:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is this from? The first section of the first poem is quite beautiful. Very straight forward. The work of a young person I'd guess? Here's a first cut translation - I think I can do better.

Man must be free
As the sun shines brightly forth
Humanity will endure, and can not be reduced
Freedom will not be estinguished from man

Manut tong mee seriphap
Dut tawan pleng plab prakai chai
Khwam pen khon man khong mai khlong khlai
Seriphap mai tai pai chak khon

Man must be free - such resolute will is embedded in those words! The entire poem flows with a ripe cadence; you can feel the confidence of the author in the truth of his words. In that second sentence, the sound of the words "pleng plab prakai chai" conveys the the sparkle and radiance of the sun - a fitting image for the essential freedom of man. The 3rd sentence has a very distinct rhythm to it - both in meter and rhyme.

The second section isn't nearly as good, in my opinion. I'll translate it later.

They are the plaques at the October 1973 Memorial just down the road from the Democracy Monument. I assumed they were dedications of some sort, not poetry. Maybe they are poems by students from that time. Adam 06:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a very very rough translation of the subsequent verses:

Not free to the power of lust (Kiles, a Buddhist term similar to Tanha, meaning craving, lust, or worldly desire)
Free to deny wickedness
Free to thrust away individual lust
Free to be removed from defilement

Freedom must be fought for
Like a pidgeon bravely crossing the sky (?)
The heroism of the dignified people
The inherent honor of being human (?)

Freedom must be honored
Together, eliminate sin and evil
Removed from destruction, distant from fear
Removed from darkness, towards true freedom

The second poem uses a different poetic form. This is a bad translation:
My son, you told me that you knew
Which made you fight nonviolently (ahimsa)
Your father and I have waited
For a long time

The Son flower blooms in the morning
Oh, the Khat Khao flower blooms in the evening
Removed from the temple to wander (as a monk would at the end of Buddhist lent)
At the monument

The Khunthong bird can not be found
There is only the Constitution
Your father and I mourn
But are proud of our son

Note: "Khun thong bird" was the name of a very sad song from that era about a young man who disappears in the events of 1973 (or maybe 1976; not sure). My mother cries when the song is played - she was in her early 20's at the time. But these are not the lyrics to that song.

OK thanks for that. I thought they were plaques with information about the memorial, but I will just say they are plaques with (I assume) contemporary poetry about the events of 1973. I got home from Bkk this morning, to horrible Melbourne winter, with the usual heavy cold caused by constant stepping back and forth between Bkk heat and freezing hotel air-con. More articles soon. Adam 11:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Not sure it it was contemporary poetry or or modern poetry. Also, only the second poem is related to 1973 - the first poem is in praise of freedom in general, and has absolutely no references to any particular events. For your cold, try a Suntory Dekavit C, a caffeine-free vitamin drink that I fell in love with in a recent trip to Japan. Should be available at Japanese/Asian groceries. Patiwat 11:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Adam. I was going to post this on your Talk page, but see that it is currently protected. I'd like to ask your advise on a matter, given that you've been much more active on controversial Wikipedia articles than I have.

I've recently been reported for vandalism concerning the Censorship in Thailand article. I believe, of course, that all of my edits have been in good faith. But this is one of those frustrating articles that is edited by only two people, and both of them seem to have a different perspective on things.

The other editor suggested taking a time-out for several weeks - I countersuggested that we try to work things out rather than resort to self-censorship. I thought things were going well, then, wham, I get hit with a vandalism report and the article becomes protected (I had stopped editing the article since things heated up, so I don't mind the protection).

I've read the guidelines of Vandalism, and re-read the Civility guidelines and all that. You've probably been through this before - how do you deal with such things? Patiwat 14:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Adam, thanks a bunch for your note. Always good to get external validation that my anti-social tendencies haven't gotten too far out of control. :-) Although I'm still not sure how to resolve things going forward. Patiwat 14:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome, Patiwat. I notice that you and alpha60 have some different oppinion regarding many topics. I'll try not to introduce any disputed content for the time being.

I gave up on the April election after it was annulled, so I don't have any consituency level figures. Since the elections were not contested by the opposition the only useful data would be the TRT vote versus the abstention vote, but the ECT never produced this data at constituency level. So all I have is the abstention vote by province, which I think I showed you. I doubt in any case that the figures would be very useful for comparing with a contested local government election. Adam 06:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I used the map at Ethnologue. Obviously any line on a map is going to be rather arbitrary - do you think it is wrong? Adam 02:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Just wanted to make sure that map had a source. I'll append the source info to the image. Ethnologue is authoritative enough for me, however, I have slight issues with using language as a proxy for ethnicity. For instance, my family is from that area, and even though we're Chinese, some of my relatives spoke Yawi (the local Malay dialect) as their first language. Patiwat 05:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there images we can substitute for the apparent illegal garuda in the Bhumipol article? Lv answer on Bhumipol's talk page in GA section. Rlevse 18:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've listed Bhumipol for FAC. If we get into a revert war over the Royal family box (which is a template), we can just make our own template.Rlevse 10:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting into a revert war over the family info box. I haven't even touched it. Thanks for your edits so far. Patiwat 18:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean you reverting it (notice I said 'we'), I meant someone not in agreement with us, sorry for the misunderstanding. On another note, the FAC is off to a good start, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bhumibol Adulyadej/archive1. Rlevse 18:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone put a [citation needed] tag in the intro. I'll look for a cite, but you may have a better idea of where to find one. Someone will object if it's there before and we haven't found a cite for it at that time.Rlevse 10:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I found one, plus a wiki link on censorship. The ref may not be the best, please have a look. Thanks.Rlevse 11:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Pls see question on FAC about a modern image of him. I've had lots of trouble finding one that is not copyrighted.Rlevse 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The palace tightly controls what images of him are made public. I personally took a photo of him during the cremation ceremonies for his mother, but the picture was a bit blurry and a side profile. I think the AP/BBC photo is adequite. Patiwat 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Some anonymous editor just cut parts of the article. I almost reverted them, but decided you're more knowledgeable in this subject (Bhumibol) than I am. Could you take a look and see if the removal was warranted? If you revert it, you have support from me.Rlevse 01:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Another guy just cut a huge chunk, what are your thougths on reverting? Rlevse 12:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User Silence took care of this and I thanked him. Rlevse 15:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the latest editor is a sock puppett of one of the anonymous uses as the edits are almost exactly the same and the account was just created (see his contribs). I agree with your edits.Rlevse 03:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead and revert. This is quite annoying. I personally don't mind that he's adding "King" as a prefix; what really grinds me is his refusal to aknowledge much of the King's political role. Patiwat 03:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Patiwat. I appreciate your concern with regards to the copyright of the images Prince-Rangsit1.jpg, Rangsit2.jpg and Rangsit-Mountbatten.jpg. You are right that I am the not the creator of the image Prince-Rangsit1.jpg (no I’m not 95 years old), I have thus replaced the Licensing from (GFDL-self) to (GFDL). I have opted GFDL status for the images, since they belong to our family, and we possess the original copies. Perhaps I should mention that some photos have also appeared in the book, First Trip abroad 1899 (2005) of which my immediate family member is the copy right holder.

regards Maharaj Devraj 16:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• That's great - thanks a lot for making such images of historical value available under free license. It would very good if you could append the images' source information with the information that you just noted to me. I'm sure that some people would be interested in reading the book as well - so some info like publisher and ISBN would also be very useful. Cheers! Patiwat 21:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion, I'll certainly follow through with them. Apart from that with regards to the photos of King Bhumibol, I will try to upload an appropriate photo by tomorrow and I'll let you know once that is done. However, I must confer the fact that the book does not contain any recent photos of the King, as most are in fact from the early years of his reign, or the time before his coronation!

Ok, so I've got (Image:Mahidols-1938.jpg) uploaded for now. As I said, its not the most recent photo.. but certainly is an interesting one! -Devraj

• Excellent photograph! This is a wonderful contribution to Wikipedia. I'll include it on the articles on Bhumibol, Ananda Mahidol, as well as the Savang Vadhana article. Patiwat 20:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• • The earlier the photos, the greater the historical value. I (and I'm sure other editors and readers) really appreciate this! Cheers! Patiwat 17:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Patiwat, hope you don't mind that I am removing my Thai name from your discussion page, since I actually prefer a bit of privacy with my work in wikipedia. I'll be doing the same in the discussion page of King Bhumibol, hope you understand. Thanks, Maharaj Devraj

• Sure thing. Sorry if I used your name on the Bhumibol article discussion page without your permission. Cheers! Patiwat 17:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have a url for the formatted ref I made for your firearm ref, please add it. I can't find a URL.Rlevse 23:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for helping me with this - I was having some trouble using the "news" citation template. The primary source was an ancient copy of the Bangkok Post (dated 25 January 1949 - article headline and author unknown) that Paul Handley cites in page 70 of his book. The Post never got around to digitizing editions that old, so No, I don't have a URL. Patiwat 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

AH, then it should be a book cite. Also, the news cite requires a url, that's why I put a ? in as a place holder.Rlevse 00:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that for academic articles (as this should hold for Wikipedia articles as well) when a book sites a primary source, the article should cite the primary source, not the book. This case is a bit weird, since the primary source is so old, so it might be useful for readers/researchers if they saw the details of the book as well. Is there a way to put two references in one footnote? Patiwat 03:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

File:Thairoyalty.jpg

I've gone over the article for consistent naming. I left some alone, as when it referred to a title, the office of the king, or things like "the King and Queen". Please look it over for consistency now. On another note, I'm only slightly surprised at the vandalism and non-objectivity of those editors causing problems.Rlevse 11:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Great job with the edits, Rlevse. I am not surprised, just saddened, at the vandals. Patiwat 18:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! All your hard work on this resulted in it making FA! Rlevse 11:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read Help:Moving a page, when you move a page you might consider "move" instead of "copy over" to keep the "history" of it. --Manop - TH 22:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. But the Move Page wouldn't work since there already was a page under Sirikitiya Jensen, which there has been around for some time. I'll be placing this on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page. Patiwat 01:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The article Thanong Pho-arn has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This happened because the article seems to be about a person or group of persons but it does not indicate how or why that person or group is notable. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. You might also want to read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 04:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

To Patiwat, for his outstanding and tireless efforts in making Thailand-related articles better, especially in helping get Bhumibol Adulyadej to featured status. Rlevse 14:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations indeed. You can now rightly put the userbox below in your user page. Cheers. Anagnorisis 18:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it in Peer Review, but it will probably benefit from another reviewer's opinion, so I won't comment on it unless it sits around for a while (since some reviewers scan through for requests that have had no responses). Cheers, Yomangani^talk 10:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you already went to the talk page of Ajahn Chah also, I felt the same about Kiaw versus Somdet Kiaw. As far as I am aware, people do not call him Kiaw, which would be disrespectful. Somdet Kiaw also makes clear which Kiaw is meant, I would think there are a few Kiaws in Thailand. Greetings, Sacca 10:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but nobody calls the King's name without honorifics either. But that doesn't mean that the article titiel should include the honorific. This has been debated to death on the various Discussion pages of the royals, and it ended up being the consensus that honorifics should not be included. As for disambiguation, it might be proper in this case to either include his full name or the name of his temple, e.g., Kiaw of Wat Saket. This would make it equivalent to the naming of the European royals where there is more than one royal named Elizabeth (thus, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom). Patiwat 10:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually do use kings' names without honorifics - but maybe Thais wouldn't do that with the Thai king. It does seem to be a bit different from kings. Nat Krause wants to do the naming conventions different for asian situation, and I support that. Greetings, Sacca 14:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, it is controversial and a dozen arguments have been identified for both sides of the debate. But about 90% of Thai-related articles on the English Wikipedia toe the "no honorifics" line. The Thai language Wikipedia does ues honorifics though. IMO, it makes article names very unwieldy. And in a paper encyclopedia, directory, or library you wouldn't expect to see individuals listed with honorifics. Patiwat 18:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

But just mentioning Somdet does not list all his honorifics - I am sure he has a long list of official names. It does seem to be a kind of compromise. And it aids clarity. Greetings, Sacca 03:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)