Wikipedia

Talk:2010 Thai military crackdown/Archive 1

< Talk:2010 Thai military crackdown
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Removal of infobox

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed the military conflict infobox for the reasons mentioned in the above section. To repeat: it suggests that this is a battle between two warring factions, while in actuality the main event involved a crackdown on demonstrations which later turned into widespread riots. Given the evolving nature of the event, I think the generic Template:Infobox historical event would serve best, if one is needed. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

APC?

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

as troops and APC's gathered around the protest site - is an APC a person like a troop, perhaps a police officer?
the army launched an all-out assault using APCs and defeated the Red Shirt defences - is an APC a piece of anti riot or military equipment? Assuming that APC is a TLA is might be helpful to expand it (as is currently done for (UDD) or link to an explanatory article about APCs or both. Thanks. 164.55.254.106 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's an Armoured personnel carrier John of Reading (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I added a wiki link. arnoha (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Page was BOLDly moved by Mgiganteus1 to "May 2010 Thai military crackdown"

Battle of Bangkok → May 2010 Bangkok unrest — No where in the mainstream media is "Battle of Bangkok" used to refer to the recent series of events, and the name (as well as the infobox) is misleading in that it suggests that it is a battle between two warring factions, while in actuality the main event involved a crackdown on demonstrations which later turned into widespread riots. Suggest moving the page to May 2010 Bangkok unrest or another descriptive title until a widely used name is established. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Support, as long as there's no scope overlap with other articles. I removed a false, weaselly citation of the name from the lead. --an odd name 19:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support:

The conflict as described in the article can be called an uprising, or a military crackdown, but not a battle. It still has not taken on the form of widespread urban warfare. Only the overly dramatic would call it a "battle". See 2005 civil unrest in France as an example of a non-sensationalist title. - Takeaway (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Battle is indeed deceptively, but I don't think "unrest" is a good title either, since the incident is the culmination of long standing unrest. How about May 2010 Thai military crackdown? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and do it quickly. — AjaxSmack 03:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My report

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the village pump of the Dutch wikipedia I reported the events in BKK as they unfolded. By putting messages on twitter and links to newsstories on there. See if you can find useful bits there. Waerth (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

International Reaction

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

This section discuss the making of a list of condolences and concerns that content is nature predictable and non-encyclopedic. Other type of international reactions where responses and actions differ may be encyclopedic. --Kslotte (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have revert back to put "International Reaction" in the page. This conflict is ongoing and being closely watch from an international community. I don't have enough time to find all the reaction from leaders, but I encourage other to add to this list. I'm very sure not everybody is giving their "condolence". Any dispute is welcome here on the discussion page-61.19.246.52 (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed (61.19.246.52 did a revert) the section since it mainly violates WP:MEMORIAL. This has been discussed before for events involving deaths. --Kslotte (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe that this is a mere "memorial" for event involving death. Military crackdown on May 19 is part of a larger complex political unrest in Thailand. Protesters call for UN intervention and ASEAN leaders have express grave concern over the matter. It's being debated whether a direct foreign sanction would benefits the country; thus I feel that International Reaction has a merit for this article. Please refer to (arguably) similar event at International reactions to the 2006 Thai coup d'état --61.19.246.52 (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
2006 reactions as reason is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. That article also violates some policies and that is why it is sugested on the talk page to make it into prose.
The section is also WP:RECENTISM, Wikipedia:FLAGCRUFT and non-encyclopedic. It's a list of concerns and condolences that does not belong here. This article also place where Wikipedia policy apply. --Kslotte (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Please kindly response to my argument. Other non-encyclopedic issue and Recent Event doesn't fit within these strict discussion. I dispute to put International Reaction back into the article based on it's merits. I believe that this events impact on an International level and, thus, reaction should be included. I do not agree that it's merely a list of condolence. Although "current list" seems that way, I encourage other editor to add the reaction from other leaders (EU, ASEAN country, Montenegro, etc..) --61.19.246.52 (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
61.19.246.52 says "I believe", Wikipedia is made up on policies and guidelines. They are meant to follow. For example see Talk:International_response_to_the_2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash that have been up for deletion once and will probably be up for deletion soon again since it violates several policies. The issue with the Polish crash is that much work has been put on to create the article and that for has much opinions that it should be kept. The only reason keeping is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. So, before this gets out of control the section should be deleted. The more people start to add countries the more angry they will get when it deleted according to policy.
61.19.246.52, do you have arguments that WP:MEMORIAL, WP:RECENTISM, WP:RECENTISM, Wikipedia:FLAGCRUFT and non-encyclopedic should not be followed here. These are policies not my opinion. --Kslotte (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I did wrap up the information into one sentence: Many organizations and countries has expressed their concerns about the situation. --Kslotte (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality of references

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Following some of the references leads to material that does not support, or is irrelevant to, the text where the reference occurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.218.87 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"The redshirt leaders started telling the public that the foreign media, such as CNN, BBC, Reuters, and many others, cannot be trusted as they are biased, prompting a backlash of the international from their followers". What does this mean? It doesn't parse. Were "their followers" backlashing against "the international," or were the internationals amongst "their followers" backlashing against the redshirt leaders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oktal (talk • contribs) 14:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"Seh Daeng" shot on Thursday, May 13

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

As the article is written now, one would think that "Seh Daeng" was shot on the 14th. - Takeaway (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Rewrote the section to correct the date of "Seh Daeng" being shot. - Takeaway (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Should this be 2010 Thai military crackdowns (plural)?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There were multiple crackdowns on the UDD protesters, on 10 April and 13-19 May. The title should be "crackdowns" not "crackdown". Patiwat (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No relevant photos

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There seems to be a lack of relevant photos on this article. The article is about the military crackdown. There are no photos of soldiers. And no photos of soldiers cracking down. Instead, the article starts off with the photo of a burnt truck, and has lots of photos of fires. There are tons of great photos of soldiers cracking down from the agencies, but aren't there any free ones that we can put in the article? Patiwat (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

All-out assault?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article claims on the 19th a professional, well armed military force made an all out assault on a poorly armed demonstration, yet only 5 died. I think 'all-out' is a little over the top for what actually happened. If that were the case there would either have been a mass capitulation/capture, or a massacre. Five dead is not a massacre, and well some surrendered or were detained, obviously enough weren't if they have started rioting and burning down buildings. 142.166.142.79 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC) More than 5 people were killed on the May 19th. For example Bangkok Post May 28 headline "Temple Deaths likely to dominate debate" referring to the fatal shooting of 6 people at Wat Pathumwanaram alone, including red cross nurse. And there were other deaths. Fatality count needs to be fact checked (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)(BaronessCougar)

Article lacks information on Army's strategy and evolution of the actual fighting during the crack down.

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could the article be improved by explaining what were the tactics of the Thai army - surround the main Rachprasong Protest site, cut off electricty and water, force a reduction in protestor numbers and so in theory reduce the risk of casualties before a final push? And how the fighting actually evolved in Bangkok. Although the Army succeeded in isolating the orginal protest site, by Thursday evening after the shooting of Seah Daeng, spontaneous protests erupted on the outskirts of the Military cordone, Thai-Belgium Bridge Cnr. Rama IV. Rd. Din Daeng. By Friday the Army had pushed forward their positions along Rama IV Rd to Occupy Suan Lum Night Bazaar, and Thai Belgium Bridge area, in reply protestors had build barricades up Rama IV to Bon Kai to the Klong Toey districts on Rama IV Rd. The most intense and sustained fighting was along Rama IV Rd (main highway in Bangkok) And this lasted until May 19th when the Army pushed into Rachaprasong main protest site. It is this second front/group of protestors who set fire to the Electricty Building and Channel 3 TV Building on Rama IV. The large fires and smoke broadcast on TV was mostly from Bon Kai Rama IV Rd, not the Rachaprasong main protest Site. BaronessCougar (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have wp:RELIABLE SOURCES then you can do it yourself ! Though as a you are a new editor I would suggest that you perhaps discuss your text here before you insert it. Remember, it has to be wp:Encyclopaedic, wp:NPOV, etc. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The present infobox misleading

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

-Regarding casualties, the infobox, as it is now, is too simplistic for this conflict. It lumps all the non-military casualties in to one group, that of "red shirt" casualties. While the majority of these casualties probably were "red shirts" protesters and rioters, a few were (non-aligned) rescue workers and innocent bystanders.
-Mentioning Khattiya Sawasdipol so prominently as one of the red-shirt leaders during the military crackdown is, although tempting due to his "colourful" personage, false as he was killed right at the beginning of the whole crackdown.
I would suggest to remove Kathhiya Sawasdipol's name from the infobox, and to try to ascertain how many casualties were non-aligned rescue workers and innocent bystanders and have these figure in the section of the infobox together with the 1 journalist who had died during the crackdown. Are there any reliable figures for non-"red shirt" casualties? - Takeaway (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  • That's because a "military conflict" infobox is used, and the crackdown was not a military conflict. The military conflict infobox is used for wars and large-scale/long-term insurrections and the like, where there is a clear distinction between combatant and civilian. This is not a war and not a major insurrection. The official death figures from the Erawan Center make no such distinction between "protester" and "bystander" - it lumps all of them together as "civilians." Rather than debate losses from both "sides", a new infobox should be used. Patiwat (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Also note that for some strange reason, Seh Daeng's death isn't included in the official Erawan Center casualties list. Patiwat (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I would agree to that. Perhaps Template:Infobox_civilian_attack should be used instead?--K kc chan (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2010 Thai military crackdown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Thai_military_crackdown/Archive_1&oldid=1155447646"