Talk:Public disapproval and protest of the 2006 Thailand coup d'état

As public opinion against the coup mounts, coverage of that protest will require increasingly more space. The main article on the coup is getting quite large. Full quotes of key statements against the coup should be placed on this article; summaries should be placed on the main coup article. Patiwat 21:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am affraid we are just moving the debate from one page to another. This information still contains the same bias as were previously discussed. What is the reasoning leading to put Anand Panyarachun reaction here as someone who disagree? Roger jg 03:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conformity of the reporting and use of this witness with the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view has been discussed at lenght in the talk page of 2006 Thailand coup d'état. The main objections to this witness as (1) expressing disaproval and (2) being used as a representative of the disaproval of all common people are:

1. POV: interpretation of the woman's reactions has being that of disaproval
2. Undue weight: use of her reaction as being representative of all the poor, Issan and the North
3. Unproper referencing of the support of the poor and northern people for Thaksin
4. Fair view, fairness of tone and balancing reporting^[1].; This report does not present the view of Surin Pitsuwan, a former foreign minister, presented in the same article used as reference for this witness. "We understand that to some extent we have failed to address the problems of the poor, and we need to do a better job," said Surin Pitsuwan, a former foreign minister and leading member of the opposition Democrat Party. "The problem is that in Thailand, Thaksin created a class of people dependent on state handouts. We need to teach these people that there are no such things as free gifts in a real democracy and that it does them more harm than good to live off the largess of corrupt leaders." or of Korbsak Sabhavasu the Democrat Party treasurer who said 3 days before the coup, : "How is it possible for us to take part in democracy when the people don't even know who we are?" said Korbsak Sabhavasu, the Democrat Party treasurer. "The poor and the farmers, they do not read Bangkok newspapers. They watch television, and all they see is Thaksin. That is not democracy. That is manipulation." ^[2]
5. without proper warning, this section could mislead readers to think that the benefit aquired by the poor are now being challenged by the junta, which is not the case ^[3]

As the one disputing the NPOV, I would like to make it clear that I do not challenge the witness, her feelings, or the source, neither do I challenge that some people disapprove of the coup. I however believe that the use of this witness and the interprtation of her reaction are misleading and not representing fairly and accurately the reaction of the "Common People" a concept in itself that is not defined in the present article.

Let the facts speak for themselves

Please, for clarity, do not comment within this section. Roger jg 05:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text

The Washington Post ^[1] suggested that respect for Thaksin is widely shared amongst the rural farmers and urban poor across the country's north and north-east. One example quoted was a street vendor in Khlong Toei "I don't care what they say about Thaksin, he was the first one who ever cared about us,". She concluded with "Now that he's been chased out, the poor have lost their closest friend."

I have tried to address the issue you brought up. As I have stated elsewhere, I don't personally believe my first example suggested the WP author only believed there was respect because of that one person. However since you claim that my example suggested the WP author only believed there was respect because of that one person, I have tried to improve the sentence to prevent that perception. I don't really like the construct of the paragraph that well, but it's better then your blatant POV claim that it's a fact the rural farmers and urban poor support Thaksin. However I still don't see the need for the quote at all. Nil Einne 20:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this article is in respose to humanoid Roger jg 02:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this article is in response to the fact that most public views about the coup will only be made after protections of free speech are guaranteed. The main article is growing very long.Patiwat 06:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this article should be merged with Public support for the 2006 Thailand coup d'état. I originally started both of these articles without thinking too much, but now have second thoughts

• A reader reading through the messages and activities of both articles would get a much more balanced perspective than a reader that only read through one of the articles.
• I don't think that the combined articles will grow so long as to warrant splitting later on. After the appointment of the civilian government, I believe that support and criticism of the coup will instead be directed towards the civilian government.
• The new article would be called something neutral, maybe Public reactions to the 2006 Thailand coup d'état

I have placed this notice on the talk pages of both the support and the protest article. Since the protest article seems much more active, I'd suggest that any debate occur in this article. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Patiwat 10:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. —Nightstallion (?) 11:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If no objections pop up over the next 24 hours, I'll execute the merger. Patiwat 00:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]