Talk:2020–2021 Thai protests/Archive 1

Archive 1

Charged

@Sun8908: Two were charged for holding protest signs when Prayut visited Rayong. But they are not part of the following protests. --Horus (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Horus: What about the protest in Chonburi on 22 July listed when "protest saw participants being investigated and treated unlawfully", is there anyone that could be counted as 'charged' or 'arrested' in the protest? It just seems to be arresting or charging but it is unsourced so I just want to question. --SUN8908──Talk 10:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Update

Counter-protests need updating. Does not NPOV on purpose. --Horus (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Monarchy as party of the conflict

Is there any concensus that the monarchy is now a party of the conflict or not? It has been mentioned. Someone edited it in, and now it is removed. --TeruM (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe it is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary sources per Wikipedia rules. It is implied, true, but we should not rewrite history, unless somebody start to say it. --Horus (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Monarchy is part of the ten demands aspect of the protest, now cited in the WP entry (Al Jazeera article), which is now resulting in a) the ban on any mention of the ten demands in the Thai media an b) arrests, so is a party in the conflict. My 2 cents. Johncdraper (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

What's your idea on extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? --Horus (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Monarchy is unlikely to make a direct proclamation at this stage. But, Thai media sites have removed all mention of 10 demands, hence the bad link(s). I accept the Al Jazeera allegations may not be up to extraordinary evidence criterion. What appears clear is that there is a split between the 3 demands and 10-point manifesto protesters and that 'the state' is aggressively targeting the 10-point protestors. IMHO the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence was more valid for the Rama IX regime, though 'The King Never Smiles' suggests interventions. What we know of the political context for Rama X is that he does directly intervene, openly, e.g., on Constitution, Sangha, etc. Thus, Rama X has himself lowered the bar for extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in Thailand. Is it possible to add as party Monarchy? with Al Jazeera citation? Johncdraper (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, people have suspected this already. However, Wikipedia must maintain integrity and summarize only verifiable knowledge. --Horus(talk) 09:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

To add the monarchy as a party, I believe there should be a substantial section of the article discussing it. Then it may be added. --Horus(talk) 09:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Horus Okay, but then we need to prep for that eventuality. We need to make the split between the protesters clear and the differential treatment clear. Can you add this development: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53844232? Johncdraper (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

On differential treatment, you can create a section to say how this protest is different from PDRC's. --Horus (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Background

@Johncdraper: What's your idea on Background section? I think I will write some more on COVID-19, the Monarchy and legal and human rights. Not sure about finding sources, though. --Horus (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I have access to the academic sources. You write it, I'll provide the citations. Johncdraper (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Stay off the page for an hour while I clean up and add citations, pls. Johncdraper (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• มศว คนรุ่นเปลี่ยน ประท้วงการยุบพรรคอนาคตใหม่ 01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Conflcit of interest of editor John Drapper

According to John Drapper's own CV he has contributed to US NED-funded orgs now involved in Thailand's current protests. He has also written several op-eds in opposition to the current Thai government including associating them with "Nazis." Finally, he has co-authored a paper with protest leader Pavin Chachavalpongpun. He is clearly involved in a conflict of interest and his attempts to repeatedly erase evidence of US funding behind protest organizations plus his involvement with these groups and the protests himself should have him locked out of editing this entry further.

Please provide evidence that I have contributed to US NED-funded orgs. Please also cite those op eds. Johncdraper (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

John Draper's CV indicating contributions to US NED-funded Thai fronts Prachatai and Isaan Record: https://www.cola.kku.ac.th/admin/Uploads/2018/8/3a6207f2-d1dc-4db4-8d90-a14e57d5328b.pdf John Draper's paper co-authored with protest leader Pavin C.: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13537113.2019.1639425 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.76.14.250 (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I am letting your latest edits stand. To sum up, your case is that because I wrote for two media outlets which have received foreign funding that are alleged to be part of a global conspiracy against Thailand, and credited Pavin as a fifth author on an academic article on racial discrimination, that I should not be editing this page. Is that correct? Johncdraper (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you John for letting the latest edit stand. My case is that you wrote for US NED-funded fronts involved in current protests and that by repeatedly erasing a verified fact posted on the official website of the US NED itself that these organizations are receiving US government money you have exhibited impropriety related to a conflict of interest. If you disagreed with the format but edited it and allowed the evidence to remain in the article, I would not have raised the issue but you erased it entirely, and did so repeatedly. Your link to Pavin - however remote you claim it is - is still a conflict of interest you should defuse by exhibiting either extra caution and absolute objectivity when editing this post, or voluntarily refraining from editing it altogether. You are an academic, a position of high regard, your decision to let the edit stand reflects this and I hope that your future activity continues to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.76.14.250 (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear editor, you may not know this, but I have also written extensively for The Nation, which as you may know, is on the 'other' side, as you can see from the infobox. See this Google search. I have also written articles for The Nation specifically praising and promoting Thai royalist discourse. See this. I have specifically argued for other countries to adopt the royalist Philosophy of the Sufficiency Economy, here, so that Thailand could get a seat on the UN Security Council (it failed). Is a compromise possible here? The basic problem as the page stands is that the information that is in the Lead Paragraph is not in the body. The context may also be unbalanced. May I suggest the following paragraph for the body?

The Thai Move Institute, which contains members of the People's Democratic Reform Committee, released a diagram of an alleged "people's revolution network" linking student protests to former Future Forward Party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit and former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The pro-regime 'Thailand Vision' Facebook page published its own diagram alleging a global conspiracy against Thailand by people and organizations including George Soros and the Open Society Foundation; Axel Springer and Netflix; the National Endowment for Democracy, which has funded Thai legal rights and independent media organizations included in the diagram (e.g. iLaw, Isaan Record, and Prachatai); the Heinrich Böll Foundation; the Friedrich Ebert Foundation; Amnesty International; Bild; Business Insider; and the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand. On August 31, the United States Embassy in Bangkok formally denied allegations that the US government funded or supported protesters.

Would you agree with this characterization? Johncdraper (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe it should be made clear that all of the above organizations clearly disclosed it already long ago, so it would be fair to both. --Horus (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

In the final edit all you did was move the paragraph to "Oppose" and again delete evidence of the US NED's funding. You also changed "pro-government" to "pro-regime," a term that is politically biased. And no, these groups have not "long ago" disclosed their funding. Many do not disclose it even now and most of the people sharing their content have no idea they are funded by the US government because people like you actively deny and excuse it while working to censor information published to encourage transparency. Also, if we now agree that the US government is indeed funding these groups, how come the US Embassy's statement claiming they aren't isn't highlighted as contradicting confirmed documented evidence it is? Instead, the evidence it is has been deleted. This is again the work of advocates of the protests manipulating this Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.76.14.250 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The NED is a private nonprofit organization. It is not equivalent to the US Embassy or US Government. See this page: https://www.ned.org/about/. Until the Arbitration Committee acts, I am requesting semi-protection for this page. Johncdraper (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: You need not to reason with this crap. The burden of providing proof is his or hers. When that person did not provide proof, revert is reasonable. When any uncompromising conflict arises, inform the administrators. --Horus (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Horus: I am beginning to realize that, having edited both QAnon and WHO Response to COVID-19 pages. The editor alleging the COI must know I am a subject expert on Thai student protests and recent Thai politics. What I am most concerned about, however, is that the global conspiracy theory is part of a discourse trying to characterize the student protesters as traitors. The last time that level of information warfare was used against students in Thailand was the Thammasat University Massacre. Because Wikipedia must accurately reflect the truth without without conspiracy theorists slowing editors down, and because by reflecting the truth Wikipedia does influence the public discourse, including by accurately summarizing the place of the conspiracy theory in the LEDE, and because schoolchildren's lives are at stake, I have requested both page protection and an Arbitration Committee decision. Johncdraper (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Notice of WP:WAR by 119.76.14.250

I have flagged an edit war on this user's Talk page and am referring this matter to the Arbitration Committee. Johncdraper (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I changed it first. You are the one who changed it back each and every time, offering a different excuse each time and backpedaling as more evidence was brought up regarding your conflict of interest. A trained academic who engages in COI is one who does it very deliberately. I didn't expect ethical behavior from you to begin with and abusing Wikipedia's checks and balances is par for the course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.76.14.250 (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I have now referred this matter to the Arbitration Committee. from:Wikipedia <wiki@wikimedia.org> reply-to:Johncdraperdate:Sep 7, 2020, 6:15 PMsubject:Copy of your message to Arbitration Committee: Trying to Avoid an Edit War... Johncdraper (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I got this back from the Requests for Protection page: Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. 12:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC). So, we warn [User talk:119.76.14.250#top|talk] for edit war if he/she repeats it and use the three-strike rule. Johncdraper (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary of the Opposition in the Lead Para

We need to put back in a summary of the opposition in the LEDE. I suggest:

State opposition to the protests has included the filing of charges and arrests, together with intimidation. In addition, pro-government vigilante groups have alleged a global conspiracy against Thailand.

or something similar Johncdraper (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Who remove it though? I didn't catch. --Horus (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

This got lost in the edit wars a few days back. We need it back in for a balanced LEDE. Add: The edit warrer deleted it Johncdraper (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Fascist Nature of Rubbish Collection Organization

@Horus: The RCO is a fascist online vigilante group, at least according to this article, published in the Austrian Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, a peer-reviewed international journal (Austrian academic journals tend to be very careful about the use of the word 'fascist', and that they published this is sufficient justification for use of the term): Schaffar, W. (2016). New Social Media and Politics in Thailand: the Emergence of Fascist VigilanteGroups on Facebook. ASEAS - Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 9(2), 215-234. https://doi.org/10.14764/10.ASEAS-2016.2-3. Please put the term back in, with this cite. Johncdraper (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead. I just did not agree with inserting claims of US government involvement without source. --Horus (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have referred myself and the other editor to the Arbitration Committee (AC) and do not want to edit the page (except for ce) until the AC has decided what to do. Can you do it? Johncdraper (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I will try to put that up today because I prefer to read through it first. It's good to see an actual peer-reviewed article here though. Milktea2020 (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The term fascism and regime used by Horus/Draper exhibits their obvious bias, and now they're fishing for an excuse to maintain their language. Horus claiming "IO" is a term used exclusively by the Thai opposition and its supporters regarding anything they disagree with. The US NED website openly lists organizations YOU included in this article as centrally involved in the protests. YOU mentioned iLaw. iLaw is funded by the US government via NED and it says so on NED's website I linked to, and even on iLaw's own website: https://ilaw.or.th/about (scroll down for English). If there were core groups protesting in the US funded by Moscow that wouldn't be included in a Wikipedia article on the subject? I cited it - the US NED website itself with the groups listed there. Why is this being repeatedly deleted except for the fact there is bias involved and authors are attempting to manage public perception regarding the protests? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.18.239 (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem is yes you cited NED, but the NED page you cited showed no relationship with the groups that was involved in the protests. iLaw was not in that NED page you cited. Furthermore, NED is a private nonprofit organization so it is not part of US government. You will need a stronger proof than that to say US is supporting the movements. Milktea2020 (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I just laid out all the evidence iLaw is funded by the US NED including iLaw's OWN WEBSITE. You are vandalizing the entry and erasing facts because you are part of the protest. your "nickname" "Milktea2020" references a group involved in supporting the protests. I suggest you be locked out of this entry for COI and overt bias. Here is the iLaw link again. Scoll down for English. Their own website admits they are funded by the US NED https://www.ilaw.or.th/about and the US NED lists iLaw as "Internet Law Reform Dialogue" on their official website: https://www.ned.org/region/asia/thailand-2019/ The fact that iLaw and Assembly of the Poor both use different names for public use and for receiving NED money should tell you how aware they are their taking US money is wrong and is something they want to hide. This is also why people with anti-government user names "Milktea" are interested in deleting evidence of it. But also, again, if you go to iLaw's official website: https://ilaw.or.th/about they themselves admit iLaw stands for "Internet Law Reform Dialogue" which is how NED lists iLaw on their Thailand page: https://www.ned.org/region/asia/thailand-2019/ If you switch it back again, you are doing so to erase evidence in support of political bias. iLaw is funded by the US government. That is an indisputable fact. If you don't like that fact, contact iLaw and please stop defacing Wikipedia. This is the second time I've posted this evidence specifically for "Milktea2020" who either read it and is lying or isn't fairly considering evidence before vandalizing the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.87.238.166 (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, keep doing what you are doing and make yourself look bad. One more time and I think semi-protection is justified, especially when this kind of behavior is showing. --Horus (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that NED is a private non-profit organization, meaning is not part of the US government. I don't understand why you failed to understand this. This means the claim you are trying to make that US is supporting the movements is completely invalid. If you want to say iLaw was funded by NED then why don't you cite iLaw too for clarification!? Why you reverse everything!? Not to mention that you make a lot of typos in the page, completely unprofessional. You can just add in the information and citation about how iLaw was supported by NED and it won't be a problem yet you don't even do it. Not to mention the Khaosod English you cited did not say that NED funding was shown in its website, meaning you put citation at a wrong spot. So many things are wrong with what you wrote down and you don't care to make it look better. All you did is reverse and reverse while I have been updating this Wiki page on many other parts. Regardless, I will edit it back. You can expand from that by saying NED is indeed backing some organizations that participated in the movements but DON'T SAY THAT US GOVERNMENT IS SUPPORTING THE MOVEMENTS unless you have evidence that the state itself is backing the movement. NED is not part of US government. And stop with the ad hominem please. You should refrain from personal attack and instead respond with reasons. Milktea2020 (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Horus/Milktea2020, first you said the US NED wasn't funding any of the groups despite all the evidence provided, now you backpedal admitting the US NED are funding the groups but are trying to claim the US government has no involvement. The NED on their own website and in their Wikipedia entry explains they are funded directly by the US government and NED activities are organized by the US Embassy in Thailand. US Ambassador Glyn Davies regularly organized NED events in Bangkok including those aimed at creating "youth" movements involved directly in Thailand's internal political affairs which even the US Embassy's own website admits. Here is an example in 2017: https://th.usembassy.gov/generation-democracy-summit/ See the giant NED logo and the US Ambassador from the US Embassy who now claims they aren't involved all in the picture on the US Embassy's official website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.94.0 (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

124.122.94.0 It is normal protocol for Embassies to host events involving organizations that are based in their home countries, especially if they receive funding from them. For example, Thai Embassies overseas provide funding for events where you will find Thai business organizations, like Thai Airways, which have received or receive funding through the government, through grants. Yet, you have a degree of separation. That degree of separation is this: Just because a private nonprofit has received government funding does not make it equivalent to the government. Now, let me explain another way. Your view of the world implies this: The American government directly funds the Thai police AND the Thai military. It gives them millions, sometimes tens of millions, sometimes even more than that, almost every year. That's only one degree of separation away. According to your logic, the Thai military, which dominates the present administration, is now equivalent to the US government. In other words, your argument, if correct, would mean Thai government = US government. Do you now understand the problem you have? Following WP:Do not feed the trolls, I suggest any further forum-like rants be deleted from this Talk page.Johncdraper (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@124.122.94.0 Quit your lies and read carefully now. I did not contest that NED support the group (don't put your words in my mouth P.S. current evidence only show support of iLaw, so where are the others?). I contested that the group is US government funded. Again you always brought up anecdotal evidence. If there are any claims that NED is US government funded, even on your beloved Nation, Manager, Naewna, then go on and add it. And as you did not stop your behavior, semi-protection request is underway. Cheers, --Horus (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper I think you need not to explain this. Truth or not, if it is not stated elsewhere in the real world, one cannot insert it in Wikipedia. This person brought up anectodal "evidence" so we can simply shoot it down. --Horus (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper NED is US government funded. It takes US government money and gives it to groups engaged in the internal political affairs of foreign countries. It also organizes events through the US embassy with the US ambassador running the event to interfere in Thailand's internal political affairs. US embassy and consulate staff regularly meet with these US NED-funded groups. If Russia was doing this it would be immediately labeled meddling and interference and there would be a whole section on it for this article. Because of Western bias and the personal bias of you and Horus, blatant US meddling in Thailand's internal affairs including funding organizations involved in current anti-government protests is being excused, covered up and evidence of it repeatedly deleted. Horus wants to know where the evidence is of other protest groups being funded by the US NED is? This means Horus didn't even look at the links I provided including NED's own official page in the talk before deleting evidence from the article again. Thai Lawyers for Human Rights whose lawyer Anon Nampa is a core protest leader is funded by the US NED. Prachatai who daily promotes and defends the protests is US NED funded. Prachatai's director is also literally a "fellow" at the US NED: https://www.ned.org/fellows/ms-chiranuch-premchaiporn/ . Assembly of the Poor (listed as Thai Poor Act on the US NED website) who brings large groups of people to protests to fill out the crowd is US NED funded. It is all listed right on NED's official website. The evidence is all there, you don't want to see it and you don't want anyone else to see it. Again, if this was Russia doing it there would be no question about whether or not it is meddling. This is a case of demonstrated bias by Draper and Horus who should not be involved in this article if they cannot demonstrate objectivity.

Dear whoever you are. We have already fixed this. See below section. Now, to be perfectly clear, the next time you use this Talk as a forum for a rant, I will delete your comment. As for your personal attacks on me, please note that I have written for every major English language news outlet in Thailand. I have written far more lead op ed articles for the Centre Right and Right media than I have for the Left. Additionally, in my columns, I have supported Thai monarchy-backed government policy. Just take five minutes to think of what that implies. Johncdraper (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"Fascist" is a contentious label, and should be avoided when describing subjects as a matter of fact, per WP:LABEL. It's fine to say that a group has been described as fascist by whom, with citations, but avoid plainly saying that the group is a fascist organisation without further explanation. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Paul_012 Okay, I have now tried to copy-edit this as per your suggestion. Does it now read okay? If so, I'll amend related pages accordingly. Johncdraper (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's better per WP:LABEL, though maybe some rephrasing could help improve readability. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Paul_012 Okay, I tried again. Cheers. Johncdraper (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose section will need some editing

Hello! I'm a new user so bear with me please. I wrote this just to clarify my position on this conflicting page.

I signed up for Wikipedia today because I want to update various Wikis that this 2020 protests can be included it. I decided to check this page a bit to see if the information is consistent but I found the first paragraph of the Oppose section to be in need of a lot of editing due to many inconsistent citations. The person who either wrote or edited this section seems to wanting to claim that the US government is interfering with the protests but the provided references showed no evidence of that at all. Reference 126 that linked to National Endowment for Democracy was since 2019 and I honestly cannot find iLaw in it. Reference 126 that was linked to Khaosod English did not claim that the funding was displayed on NED website. In fact, after checking the reference 125 that was linked to Thai Move Institute, iLaw was not even in the chart. The only organization that NED was linked with is Amnesty, and the reference to NED did not show that Amnesty was being funded by NED. I truly need to ask the person who was working on this page to put a consistent citations on this section please or I will need to edit it myself. This is so the information on this page is correct since it is a very hot issue right now, and clearly clarified information is really needed. Milktea2020 (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Milktea2020 We are dealing with an edit war right now, and I have called in the Arbitration Committee. The relevant WP user policy is WP:Bold and WP:Do it yourself. So, please do it yourself. I have referred myself to the Arbitration Committee and will not post to this page until settled. But, I will fix grammar and spelling. So, DIY, please. Johncdraper (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It will take some work but I will gladly do it myself. Milktea2020 (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

iLaw lists NED as a sponsor on its own website: https://ilaw.or.th/about (scroll down for English). It is listed on NED's website as "Internet Law Reform Dialogue." Thai Lawyers for Human Rights is funded through Union for Civil Liberty listed on the NED Thai page: https://www.ned.org/region/asia/thailand-2019/

You can see TLHR's logo on UCL's webpage here (it is a union, so those logos are the orgs that are in the union): http://ucl.or.th/ (scroll to the bottom). TLHR was funded by the US government under its own name in 2014 archived on Wayback Machine here: https://web.archive.org/web/20160702142854/https://www.ned.org/region/asia/thailand-2014/ Anon Nampa is a lawyer for TLHR and is considered a core leader. TLHR openly uses its platform to advertise for the protests, times, dates, venues and provides free legal council for protesters.

All these orgs and others including Prachatai were listed in the chart by ThaiVision.

Your name "MilkTea2020" is overtly bias as this is the group supporting protests in Thailand/Hong Kong so wouldn't it be a huge conflict of interest for you to start editing an article about a protest you yourself are involved in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.18.239 (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

If the protest groups getting US government money aren't US government-funded, how are pro-government groups "state-sponsored?" Where is the documented evidence of this? Also, the term "ultra-royalist" is politically loaded. They are royalists. "Ultra-royalist" is a term the opposition uses to make them seem unreasonable and like extremists. They have so far rallied peacefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.94.0 (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Did you even read? Ref 145–149. --Horus (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The reason the term "ultra-nationalist" is used is because there are several sources that back up its use, including academic source. When you say the pro-government are "so far rallied peacefully", please let me remind you that a 60-years old man in red shirt was violently assaulted by protesters from Thai Pakdee a short while back. Milktea2020 (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Milktea2020 Stay on target re the terminology. Ultranationalist (far right) and ultraroyalist are different, though can obviously overlap. I am starting new sections on the Talk page to justify each term. Let's just make it easy for the Admin now overseeing this page to do his/her/gender neutral term's job. Johncdraper (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah that is my mistake. I did meant to say ultra-royalist but I guess my brain does not work right at that moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milktea2020 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

About the whole US government supporting the movements thing. I think rather than saying "US government-funded" it should be either "partially funded by US government" or "largely funded by US government" because saying "US government-funded" seems to suggest that the US government is funding the whole organization. Perhaps one thing to add in this paragraph is the insufficient of evidence on how does this is suggesting that this is a global conspiracy to overthrow Thai monarchy, with references of course.Milktea2020 (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Ultraroyalist Nature of Online Vigilante Groups

Thailand's leading expert on online vigilante groups, Dr. Janjira Sombatpoonsiri, describes such groups as 'ultraroyalist' in edited publications. See for example, here:. Local mainstream English language Centre-Right media also uses the term, e.g., here, as does the international media, e.g., here. This is to distinguish between the average Thai citizen, who is a royalist, and extreme royalist vigilante groups and the discourses they adopt and promote. This is well attested to in the sources and is beyond dispute. Add: For further characterizations of the groups or specific groups as ultra-royalist in the Thai Centre-Right media, see here and a Google search of the Bangkok Post site, which turns up 1,170 uses of the term here. Johncdraper (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Completely unrelated to the topic but I wanted to say thank you for citing Ajarn Janjira. Took a class with her last year and she is definitely the person to be cited on this topic. Milktea2020 (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, her book on humor in Serbian protests is quite well known in the subject of nonviolent protest. However, in the future, avoid forum-like comments on this Talk page - take them to User Talk pages, pls. ;-> Johncdraper (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Ultra-royalist is a purely political term used by the opposition. Just because a "professor" (who supports the protests) says it is a real term doesn't mean it is true. It just means they are engaged in politically bias activity when they should be maintaining objective impartiality and their use of the term as a protest supporter only further proves the point that "ultra-royalist" is not an academic term. Milktea2020 now just admitted they are taking classes by "professors" who are supporting the protests and has already exhibited one-sided bias in virtually all their posts. The name "Milktea2020" references the Milk Tea Alliance which is involved in the protests. Wikipedia entries should not be edited by people who are directly involved in the stated subject matter. Milktea2020 is obviously a protester. This is like Donald Trump editing his own Wikipedia entry or one about his political campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.94.0 (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you will need more evidence other than your own word to say Ajarn Janjira is supporting the protest. The work was published since 2018 and has no relations with the current movements. In fact, in the class I said I took she highly encourage students to listen to story from both sides. Plus, the cited work is peer-reviewed and was published alongside many other works, so it is as reliable as it gets. And really stop with this ad hominem. I never attack you personally and I don't understand why you keep doing it. Milktea2020 (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

124.122.94.0 Engage with the sources. Now, what did you say about how the Bangkok Post, on the Centre-Right, characterizes the groups? Nothing. Even The Nation, which is Right, characterizes them as 'ultraroyalist'. See here. What do you say about the fact that even the Right media characterizes them as ultra-royalists? I am betting, nothing. You simply resort to ad hominem attacks on other Wikipedia editors or respected Thai professionals with solid academic credentials, citing no sources. Johncdraper (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

References

State-sponsored Nature of Ultraroyalist Vigilante Groups

Major-General Maj Gen Rienthong Nanna, the head of the RCO, is a Royal Thai Government-appointed special advisor. This is well-known and has been commented on in the mainstream Thai Centre-Right media. See here. Maj Gen Rienthong has himself been known to claim state sponsorship for the RCO, see here.

Sorry, "claims" are not the same as documented evidence. If the protest groups aren't US government sponsored even though they are literally listed on the US government-funded NED's official website as receiving US government money (including the amounts they receive) then some claim does not equate to "state sponsorship" of RCO. This double standard for criteria also demonstrates obvious political bias and suggest everyone involved in repeatedly deleting documented evidence regarding US NED protest funding while posting "claims" about pro-government group funding be scrutinized or banned from further defacing this Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.94.0 (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, did you see the refs below? Did you even care to read? --Horus (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

124.122.94.0. To win this one, you need to prove the source is wrong. That Maj Gen Rienthong was appointed Special Advisor to the Royal Thai Government is an established fact. The Bangkok Post source is not a column, but an editorial. Maj Gen Rienthong is, in reality, "Special Advisor for Ways to Reduce the Social and Economic Impact of Covid-19". In this Royal Thai Government role, he is very active: "he is calling on authorities and state infiltrators to use Big Brother surveillance technologies and hidden cameras to identify those attending student rallies". State-sponsored is a common term to explain this kind of relationship. Now, we could say, "RCO, headed by Maj Gen Rienthong, who is a Special Advisor to the Royal Thai government for Ways to Reduce the Social and Economic Impact of Covid-19, etc. etc., etc., but 'state sponsored' seems to be an accurate summary. Unless you can get Maj Gen Rienthong to say in public he's resigned (can you?), 'state sponsored' should stand. Johncdraper (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

sorry Horus, you can't use semantics and minutia to claim the protests are not US government funded despite all the core organizations involved receiving US government money via the US NED (https://www.ned.org/region/asia/thailand-2019/), then cite hearsay without any documents showing amounts and claim "state sponsorship" of pro-government groups. If you want to use such low criteria for the latter, you must include "US government-funded" at least for iLaw, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights and mention Anon Nampa belongs to TLHR, as well as Prachatai, Isaan Record and Assembly of the Poor (listed as Thai Poor Act). I am even willing to let what you said stand, and even your use of the highly political term "ultra-royalist" if you can simply let a documented fact stand regarding US government/NED funding. Otherwise this is blatant, malicious bias and you need to be banned from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.14.146 (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, this is very low criteria for claiming pro-government groups are "state sponsored." Yet you are claiming core protest organizations like iLaw and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights are not "state sponsored" by the US even though they get US government money from the US NED (https://www.ned.org/region/asia/thailand-2019/). The US NED simply disperses US government money and is held accountable by US Congressional and US State Department oversight with their activities in Thailand organized through the US Embassy by the US Ambassador and both embassy and consulate staff. This is all admitted on both the NED's official website and through announcements of NED events led by the US ambassador announced on the US Embassy, Bangkok's official website. If this was Russia doing this in the US it would absolutely be considered state sponsorship AND political interference. You are clearly bias and have fully demonstrated it now by using two completely different thresholds/criteria to label something "state sponsored," dismissing documented amounts for named anti-government groups funded by the US government, and citing mere claims and affiliations with no document or amount for a specific group to place the label on pro-government groups. I suggest this is malicious bias and you need to be removed from editing this article. There is also, again, the fact that you have written for at least 2 US NED funded groups in Thailand, according to your own CV: https://www.cola.kku.ac.th/admin/Uploads/2018/8/3a6207f2-d1dc-4db4-8d90-a14e57d5328b.pdf (Prachatai and Isaan Record, both of which are fully anti-government). You claim you are an academic so you cannot plead ignorance on not knowing what a COI is or that if a COI exists you should defuse it or excuse yourself from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.14.146 (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Status of NED

Description of NED in its Wikipedia article

"Some have described it as a non governmental organization while others have described it as a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization. It is funded primarily through an annual allocation by the U.S. Congress"

Horus NED is "funded primarily through an annual allocation from the U.S. Congress... It was created by The Democracy Program as a bipartisan, private, non-profit corporation, and in turn acts as a grant-making foundation." Sourced from National Endowment for Democracy. It definitely is largely funded by the US Congress, which here means the US government. What's important is the degrees of separation. Johncdraper (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You see, we have to strictly adhere to the source. If the source says US congress, then US congress it is. --Horus (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but then that should go back in as "primarily US Congress-funded...", right? Johncdraper (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I have already changed to the characterization described in its Wikipedia page "It is a non profit organization, although it received grant awarded through the United States Information Agency (USIA)." --Horus (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

That's way out of date. USIA was dissolved in 1999. I just edited the NED page to change that, with a citation. Please check and update. Johncdraper (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Changed to US congress. --Horus (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Added "US government-funded." NED is funded through annual appropriations from US Congress according to its official website ( https://www.ned.org/about/ ) which states: "Funded largely by the U.S. Congress..." It is also admittedly overseen by the US government: " subject to multiple layers of oversight by the US Congress, the Department of State..." This makes it US government-funded. Repeated attempts to omit this are owed to now established bias by users Horus and Johncdraper who have at first attempted to deny NED funded these groups, to denying NED was funded at all by the US government, to now using semantics to word it dishonestly to deflect away from the NED being US government funded. They are now also deleting sections in Talk to hide discussion of these facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.94.0 (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

124.122.94.0 I have not deleted any sections on this Talk page, only restructured them to help show your replies. See Talk page view history function - almost no red bytes, only green. Johncdraper (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Refer to your acceptance of the US-government funded version. Please see the description in its Wikipedia article. --Horus (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Horus: Would you explain why you pinged me in this discussion? To my knowledge I've never edited this article or talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I saw [accepted by (your name)] in one of the revisions, which is now changed to someone else. My apologies. It seems I don't understand the process myself. --Horus (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Horus: Read WP:PC. Accepting a pending change is not an endorsement of the edit. It is simply a verification that vandalism did not occur. A content dispute is not vandalism, so the edit was properly accepted. Sundayclose (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the uncivil comment above and the interpretation of consensus. The consensus is to say "funded by US congress" not to say "US government funded". While they may mean the same thing, one is more neutral than the other. US government funded implies that it is just a company owned by the state while funded by US congress means otherwise. Please remember to assume good faith. Thank you. Aasim 06:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

there is bias from Horus, Milktea2020 (whose user name is literally a reference to an anti-government protest group) and Johncdraper who admits he has contributed to US NED-funded orgs in Thailand. US Congress is the US government. NED also receives its Congressional appropriations through the US State Department and is subject to both Congressional and US State Department oversight. The label "Congress-funded" does not accurately describe just how deeply linked to the ENTIRE US government NED is. You are deliberately playing games of semantics and minutia to protest the image of the protests. If the protests don't want to be portrayed as US government-funded they should not be taking US government funding. They are and that is a fact and Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia that reflects facts, not opinions spun with semantics and minutia. Worse still this same criteria and semantics is not reflected in the discussion about pro-government groups who are labeled "state sponsored" based admittedly on anti-government op-eds and hearsay. If this was Russia funding groups in another country we would not be having this conversation which is further evidence that bias, not genuine objectivity is at play in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.14.146 (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

More images are needed

I see that there are very few images on the actual protests in this Wikipedia page, especially on the 16 August protest. If you are Thai or read the Wiki, you will know it is huge. I recently got my hands on some images from that day, taken by the person who attend the protest who gave me permission to upload it here. I am a new user, and I cannot edit without review. I truly need to ask those who can review to approve my edit so the pictures of the protest can be placed in this Wikipedia place. My first upload was rejected, yet I received no reason for why it was rejected. As I said I am a new user so if I did anything wrong please inform me so I can make it right. Milktea2020 (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Strong agree. One picture of August 16, which was indeed a large protest, works for me. Johncdraper (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I decided to pull off the pending I just made and waiting for consensus. I would also like to put on another picture of August 10 protest at Thammasat Rangsit campus that I received from the same source. The details of that protest is already in the Wiki. Milktea2020 (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Milktea2020 I think you can do it. There seems do be no dispute over pictures of events, just the words. Try again. Johncdraper (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Milktea2020: I think more image from different rallies would be beneficial. However, we could select new images which would best describe the rally on that one particular date. --Horus (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions. I chose these 3 pictures out of several for August 16 protest for discussion.

16 august protest 1

16 August protest 2

16 august protest 3

I chose 1 at first because I think it depicted the solidarity of the movement while Democracy Monument can still be seen. The second one got a better shot at the Democracy Monument while showing how much people are participating in the movement. The last one also depicts a large crowds, but a shot at Democracy Monument is not very clear. Milktea2020 (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Picture 1 looks most representative of the protesters and what they are protesting about. Johncdraper (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I have these 2 for the August 10 protest.

File:10 August rangsit 1.jpg

A protest at Thammasat Rangsit campus on 10 August 2020

File:10 August Rangsit 2.jpg

A protest at Thammasat Rangsit campus on 10 August 2020 (nighttime)

I really like the first one because of the message on the screen saying "let us bring justice to those who where forced to disappeared." The second one though was taken at a nighttime and I find it somewhat appealing. I should note that the person who sent me these pics try to choose the pics that does not have a clear shot on anyone faces due to possible repercussion from the state. Milktea2020 (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The August 2 one with message could work. The caption would be 'The message on the screen states: "Let us bring justice for those who were forcibly disappeared"'. Johncdraper (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I decided to use "let us call for 'justice' for those who were forcibly disappeared" instead because it is a slightly more accurate. I will try to get some pictures of the upcoming big protest on September 19 as well. Milktea2020 (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

16 August rally I personally would like a drone pic of people at the Democracy Monument, if possible. --Horus (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I would like it as well but I am genuinely confused with the copyright thing. I assumed that I cannot upload a picture unless I received a permission from the owner or had taken the picture myself. I believe though, that since it was the movement who took that picture, they would not mind if we put it up here (I think the person who took it was charged for flying a drone near the palace). Another picture I personally want here is Thailand Vision diagram, the one that has George Soros on top. I doubt they would appreciate us putting it here though. Milktea2020 (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Milktea2020 Yes, the photo really has to be from you or someone who has given you permission. Because a student movement is decentralized, it cannot own copyright: copyright belongs to the individual. What you can do is be a reporter for Wikinews! You can then go as a reporter and report on future protests for Wikipedia. I'd help you with the text, selecting photos, etc. If we were lucky, we could get the story on the front page of Wikipedia! Johncdraper (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Following the Money on the Funding

124.122.94.0 I personally would be fine with following your degree of separation rule for funding, pointing out the US govt largely funds the NED, which partly funds Prachatai. No problem. But, because of WP:NPOV and WP:Balance, we would have to do that for every organization, equally, for all the funders, not just NED, and for both sides. So, for example, I'm pretty sure the Isaan Record has received funding from a foundation funded in turn by another government. We would need to spell all that out. Then, we add in who funds Amnesty International, Bild, the Freidrich Ebert Foundation, etc, etc.. And then, we add in who funds Thai Move, Thai Vision, the RCO, etc. Basically, every party in the infobox or in the global conspiracy allegation. To make it easier for people to see, we then put a diagram on this Talk page showing everyone who funds anyone who has any connection to each side, until we can get consensus to put it on the main page. To be honest, my main worry would be if the pro side came out with a bigger diagram, or if the oppose side came out with their own diagram. So, Milktea2020 here, who you allege, based only on a name, is a protester, could just ask his/her/its pals to put their own diagram in front of the press. They would probably put on the diagram the government agencies taking them on, which I guess would be the whole government, as well as the secret military police, i.e., Internal Security Operations Command, the Royal Thai Police and the Royal Thai military, etc., and it probably means putting the King on the diagram, because he controls his own military units. Whew. It could be a really big, dynamic challenge just following all the money connected to all the allegations. I don't think I could lay it all out without help. Still, with your help, I'm happy to try this for both sides, if you are absolutely sure that that is the right thing to do. But, is there a possibility that we would not be doing the conspiracy theorists' jobs for them? Frankly, my time is money, and I think me donating my free time to spelling out all the global conspiracy allegations means at least someone should pay us if we do indeed put all that together on a diagram, especially if I threw in some nice graphics. But then we'd have to put ourselves on the diagram. D'oh! Still, I'm happy to do this if you are. Johncdraper (talk) 07:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I am a student, but I am not a protester and have no involvement with their leadership. The problem with what you are suggesting is organizations like NED and NGOs are much more transparent than Thai government, since they said clearly who they are funding or receiving funds from. While it is possible that government are involved in funding Thailand Vision and Thai Pakdee (Thai Pakdee leader Dr. Warong is part of the government coalition!), I don't think the movements will want to create a conspiracy theory diagram based on superficial connections like how Thailand Vision did it. Milktea2020 (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is a joke. It's technically called Reductio ad absurdum. It's a key concept used in Buddhist philosophical discussions between schools of thought and is worth looking up ;<) Johncdraper (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I know Johncdraper that transparency and balance in an encyclopedia article is a joke to you but the US NED is how the US government disperses money to organizations involved in political interference around the globe. The amounts given to Thai protest groups is listed on their official website. Yet you have dishonestly tried to cover that up, use semantics, and minutia to conceal US government funding the protests, and then claim pro-government organizations are funded based on hearsay with no documentation at all. This is unethical, bias, and you're continued deleting of facts amounts to defacing this Wikipedia article. Milktea2020, are you or are you not attending or supporting the protests? If the answer is yes you are, you have no business contributing to an article about them. It is a conflict of interest. Only uninvolved third parties capable of objectivity and impariality should be contributing. Johncdraper, Horus, and you have all shown extreme, even malicious, repeated bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.14.146 (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you should give more credit to the transparency of NED since NED is disclosing where their funds went to. Do you think Thai government who is using information operation to fake their endorsement on social media and sowing social division would do the same? You are asking for "documentation" when Thai never provided one, while NED have. You claim to be "uninvolved third parties" and calling others "bias" while you insisted Thai Pakdee has received no support from Thai government despite the fact that Dr. Warong, an MP in the government coalition, is leading the group. This is an even more direct contribution to Thai Pakdee than NED to the movements, since NED supported the NGOs but not the movements itself, while Dr. Warong is there in the flesh. Considering how your definition of evidence is reserved for "documentation" and peer-reviewed journals and news article are not, I think the person who is repeatedly being bias here is you. I am marveled at how a person who continuously rejected academically-accepted references but is critical towards Thai government is claiming to have no "conflict of interest" here. Milktea2020 (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Milktea2020: cc @Johncdraper: Please do not response to him further. The person is not gonna change. And the fact that semi-protection is in place show that it is indeed disruptive editing and our method is acceptable. --Horus (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

it actually shows that your bias is acceptable at Wikipedia which is no big surprise. But despite the lot of you squatting here day and night trying to erase and spin facts most Thais (85%) now suspect/know the protests are US government funded (https://www.thairath.co.th/news/politic/1929052). Truth will out, even if Wikipedia tries to stop it. Milktea2020 is trying to claim there is no need to mention the protest groups as being US government funded because? Because the US NED is transparent about funding them? If they were transparent how come more people don't know this? And if they are transparent how come the US Embassy just lied and said the US isn't funding any groups and even you are attempting to claim they are and aren't getting US government money? You're contradicting yourselves. And Milktea2020's user name is literally a reference to anti-government groups. That Wikipedia allows someone clearly bias to deface articles says it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.16.230 (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding information operations + improving support and analysis section

I think this page can always need improvement. I will list some I want to add here for discussion and consensus:

1. Adding the involvement of army's information operation (IO) that was being used to create social division and disinformation while faking online support for government. This I think, should be add into the 'Underlying causes' section.

2. The support section will need some improvement too. I added political parties and some celebrities who have shown support to the government earlier and I want to add more. There are numbers of Thai celebrities who endorsed the protest that I have yet to add but plan to.

3. The analysis section is kind of lacking right now. It is too soon for a peer-reviewed journals but Thai academics have been giving out their brief analysis to the media still. There are two analysis that I want to put up: first is by political scientist Kanokrat Lertchoosakul whose analysis was mentioned in BBC Thailand and detailed in this ThaiPBS video. Her analysis involved with the increase in political and historical awareness of Thai students that resulted from their first-hand experience in daily lives. Another one is a short comment from professor emeritus Charnvit Kasetsiri at the end of this following BBC article that said Thai nationalism is changing from 'Royal Nationalism' into 'Popular Nationalism' where the King is no longer at the center of nationalism.

Please let me know what you think about these changes. Milktea2020 (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Horus I see you deleted part of my edit, though not all. If you meant to delete all of my previous edit on IO I think you should voice out your opinion here first, but that's okay. My view is information operation scandal was part of the concurrent development that eventually led to the protest movements especially during its first stage. When the opposition revealed the existence of IO to the public, many entered IO line group and starting to attack the group there. This should count as a form of online activism. Milktea2020 (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Milktea2020: Hopefully you'll understand that I don't deny about IO, but it is not the cause of this protest. Maybe you can post it in the state reaction. And as I didn't think it's controversial, I did not consult you first. Please don't take it personally. --Horus (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Horus No worries. After the QR code goes live IO became a big talk of the town among my friends who are students like me, making me know that what Manager article have said is genuine. It is also the biggest scandal at that time since it confirmed that Thai government is actively faking their online support. That is why I think it is controversial, and is adding up to the grievances of those who are now protesters. I would argue it is bigger than LGBT discrimination, although not as controversial as forced disappearance. Milktea2020 (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

If you had more info about IO, you can split it to a separate article specifically about Thai IO, which would be interesting to read. --Horus (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Horus That would be really nice. I think it should be placed between underlying causes and concurrent development. Milktea2020 (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

So you think it’s the cause of the protest and not the reaction? Hmmm. Again I did not said it isn’t verifiable, but it should be placed elsewhere. Horus (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

To say it is a reaction would be strange because it occurred before any significant protest events. There is always some form of resistance against Thai government last year but nothing major like what is going on this year, partly I think because Thai government had caused so many scenes this year, and one is the information operation scandal. Milktea2020 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You can write about IO and then the its history such as Thai authority employed IO against the protesters, the existence of which had been debated in the parliament before ... Again it's your opinion that IO scandal was one of the cause of the protest. It's not directly related. --Horus (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Number of Protesters on 19-20 September

The figure is definitely 20-30,000, according to AFP and AP. The Aljazeera source is a prediction, not an estimate. The exact words are "Police estimate up to 50,000 people could show up at Saturday’s protest, but student leaders believe there could be up to 100,000." Paraphrase = "Police estimate up to 50,000 people will go to Saturday’s protest, but student leaders believe there will be 100,000. Add: the source is a prediction, not an actual estimate during the protest, on which sources estimate actual figure at 20-30,000. Johncdraper (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but did you remember 16 August figure, when the police estimated 10,000 and independent sources give 20,000? So the police figure can be used in the context of "lower estimate". And 20,000–30,000 is definitely too low for the evening, where some estimated as high as 200,000. --Horus (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Horus Horus, not on this occasion it can't. Check the Wikipedia definitions of a prediction and an estimate. One talks about the future, the other about the present. WP uses independent, reliable sources. That's AP and AFP. There is great risk in including higher, unsubstantiated figures. Johncdraper (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Why? The police figure is also governmental estimate. And I don't know why you fixated with 20,000–30,000. I have asked for an updated source since the first day. --Horus (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Horus It is not my estimate. It is Benarnews citing AFP (20,000) and AP (30,000) estimates of protesters on the actual day. Show me a source with one higher estimate that is not a prediction but an estimate on the actual day. If you cannot, you have to revert. Johncdraper (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Horus Add: The police figure in the source is a prediction, not an estimate. It has no relevance for the figure on the actual day. Johncdraper (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

[1] gives 81,700. Hello? Did you also actively try to find sources? More people joined the rally in the evening. Hopefully you understand that the figure can be fluctuating. --Horus (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

[2] 30,000–100,000. --Horus (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy with the Diplomat estimate. I understand attendance fluctuates. The problem is probably max crowd size versus total attendance over time. You could cite Tass and change the figure to 81,700. I will check the translation of the Tass source. But WP:Reliability: "In the 2019 RfC, editors argued that the reliability of TASS varies based on the subject matter. Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but also agree that there are deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues." Johncdraper (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I also quite agree with Diplomat's estimate. No need to bother anyone with Russian translation. --Horus (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Horus Yeah, me too. Between Google Translate and my Russian, Tass is just citing an activist on the stage. Like I said, it's the problem of max crowd size at any one time versus total attendance over two days. Johncdraper (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Cutting the Page Down

This may be a good time to remove non-important content. So, we were listing everything that was happening. But, I'm not sure that the paint event and Phumiwat Raengkasiwit are that important to the 'big picture' that an encyclopedia should capture. I'm not following the Thai sources on this, but they seem relatively minor. There may alo be items on the Support side that could be removed. Johncdraper (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Instead of removing content, it's better to move some part to new articles. Timeline of the protest and reaction are good places to start. (Same practice as 2019–20 Hong Kong protests) --Horus (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The paint event sparks a considerable negative reactions, and some considered an act of hurling paints at others to be violent which is interesting. --Horus (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions

@Johncdraper: 1. Does the lead sentence "The ongoing 2020 Thai protests are a series of protests against the government of Prayut Chan-o-cha" need editing to include recent demands? 2. Should the crowd size at important rally be added in the infobox? And on 19 Sep rally, there are some estimates as high as 200k, can you find some? --Horus (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

3. Are there enough sources directly stated the Monarchy as the parties to the conflict? --Horus (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Horus:You can try updating the LEDE yourself. I'll check it. For crowd sizes, independent estimates of 20-30,000 seem fine. You can do protest sizes in infoboxes. See 2020 Belarusian protests. There's nothing in the English sources yet stating Rama X has personally acted, i.e., which we would meet the high bar we set for making him a party in the infobox. Johncdraper (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Horus: @Milktea2020: What the page really needs is a picture of the student-installed plaque before it disappears! Johncdraper (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The plaque is already distributed digitally. But it needs permission to be posted on Wikipedia. --Horus (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Horus: What about one of the creative derivations? Someone must have released a version that is CCby4.0 or share-alike or equivalent? Johncdraper (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I will see if I can find any contact. --Horus (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Even if a derivative version was freely licensed, the licence would be invalid unless the original creator granted permission for the work to be licensed as such. (See WP:DERIVATIVE for details.) Best would be to ask someone who managed to take pictures of the actual plaque to release a photo under a CC licence. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Paul 012: By derivative, here I mean one of the cartoon versions, or 'meme' versions that have now sprung up. See the Khaosod English article. At least one of the hundreds of images out there must have been created by someone who released it into the public domain. Johncdraper (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Understood. But those meme versions, even if re-drawn from scratch, would still be derivative works of the original design, and in a copyright sense, the rights of the original creator would extend into such works as well, so they cannot be legally licensed unless allowed by the original creator. A version that appears totally unlike the original might be okay, but that would defeat the purpose. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: @Horus: Sorry I was a bit late. It seems like nobody I know who attended the latest protest have taken the picture of the plaque because no one was there at early morning in September 20, when the plague was put down. I still have pictures for you all to choose though. How many pictures do yo think should be uploaded for September 19-20 protest? If I have to pick one I can't decide between the third and the fourth one while the second picture perhaps can be used for different section. Milktea2020 (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Demonstration at Sanam Luang in Thailand on September 19.

Images of victims of forced disappearance in Thailand at September 19 demonstration.

Demonstrators gathered at Sanam Luang on September 19 protest.

Evening of the demonstration at Sanam Luang on September 19.

I picked evening photo because it was the peak of the protest. --Horus (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Any ideas for candidates to replace ones in the infobox montage? --Horus (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

After thinking through it I like the third one more because it caught a clear picture of the size of September 19 protest, even though it is not at its peak. @Johncdraper: Since the vote is tie I would love your opinion on this one. Milktea2020 (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

IMHO I like the fourth photo because I like evening photos, but it shows too much of the sky, so I would go for the third photo. Johncdraper (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It's okay if you have different opinions, change pic and give reasons. Wikipedia does not settle by voting of majority. --Horus (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it's always better to have a lot of opinion on this kind of things. I like evening photo too though. Btw why was the picture of 27 August protest being removed? Milktea2020 (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s for layout purpose. The pic was moved to August timeline article. Horus (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2020

2403:6200:8813:AF44:B407:DC58:234D:1454 (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done. No request made. Johncdraper (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Prayut's "slip of tongue"?

@Johncdraper: Is the line don't be careless with life, because you can die at any time; don't challenge the god of death significant enough? --Horus (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Horus: Can be characterised as "a death threat". Johncdraper (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I mean is it notable to include in the text? --Horus (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

ITN

I've nominated the article for ITN; see Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Thai protests. Friday's police action is a major development. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Pictures of 14 October protest

@Johncdraper: @Horus: I have a LOT of pictures for yesterday protest. As always, I will be uploading good ones for you all to choose. Since there are so many though, do you have preferences for any specific point of the protest? I have pictures from the protest at Democracy Monument all the way to the Government House, but before the stage was setting up so no pictures of key people speech. Regretfully, I do not have pictures of the King convoy and luckily, I do not have pictures of the crackdown at 5 am today. Milktea2020 (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You can upload all to Commons, and anyone who are interested can choose from there. --Horus (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

In case you can find the best video depicting the royal motorcade pass though the protesters, please let me know. Also the free-use map of the planned route and the actual route. --Horus (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Milktea2020: I think a picture of this event is necessary. Once okay in Wikimedia Commons, WP:BOLD it. Always remember WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss). But, try to get it right first time. Choose carefully. Johncdraper (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: @Horus: I have over 100 pictures for 14 October protest so uploading all would be unrealistic since it took some work to upload pictures up on Wikimedia Commons too. In that case I will pick some of each at my own discretion. I have a very nice picture for October 15 protest that I will put on this page too. For 16 October (which is today) I have some pictures but I do not think it is possible for one to take a photo while police are firing tear gas at your face. I will try my best to get some. Milktea2020 (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Milktea2020: Please upload as many as you can. And maybe ask anyone you know to upload their files as well. These files will be seen worldwide via Google search. --Horus (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I sorted it all out now and I manage to upload only 5. Most of the pictures are quite random but many have captured the face of a protester which I think is quite dangerous to upload. You should be able to find it under 2020 Thai protest tag. I personally really like the nighttime one at Government House. I will pull all the contracts I have to get a picture of police violent actions against protesters, which I think will take a few days. Milktea2020 (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Milktea2020: you can censor the protesters (cover their eyes, blur their faces, etc.) Also I can't find your images, maybe you should sort them in commons:Category:Demonstrations and protests in Thailand in 2020. --Horus (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Horus: I put it all under Category:2020 Thai protests. Here is the link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:2020_Thai_protests

So far, I have received one picture of a student protester who was hit by the chemical that police were using to "reclaiming the area" from protesters (most likely tear gas). I might be able to get a better one though. Milktea2020 (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

We should make the protesters parties list "Khana Ratsadorn 2563" before the other parties?

If you guys can remember, ever since the Sanam Luang protest, all the different protest groups used the umbrella term "Khana Ratsadorn 2563." Should we list them first and then have a list of the different other groups? Copelonian (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Added. It may be a successor of Free People, but I'm not sure. --Horus (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the Thammasat group used it too Copelonian (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Pictures from Voice TV

I have received a permission from Voice TV to use images they have uploaded on their site on Wikipedia. Any pictures related to the protest from the sites that are being run by Voice TV can now be used. --Milktea2020 (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Milktea2020: "can be used in Wikipedia" is not suitable for uploading, because the aim is to allow only free images so it can be distributed elsewhere. If only allowed in Wikipedia, you might claim fair use instead. --Horus (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think I framed what I said too narrowly that how it was meant. Yes, the images from Voice TV that I upload will be free to use. The permission was given by CEO of Voice himself. There are no formal email or anything though, but you will not see copyright claim from Voice on this. Milktea2020 (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I just realized that you need a formal email to upload these images on Wikimedia Commons. That will take time but I’ll see what I can do. Remove the image that I upload for now. Milktea2020 (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Milktea2020: you don't need to delete the image while waiting for the permission to be received, you can tag the file on Commons with {{subst:OP}} to show that it's pending. The declaration of consent email needs to be sent from Voice to Commons OTRS – to be "free" for Wikipedia, the copyright owner has to agree that anyone can reuse or alter the image, even commercially. You can find a template on the OTRS page. A personal email isn't enough. Jr8825 • Talk 13:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I just realized I cannot remove the image by myself too. I will ask if it is possible to do but from what I’ve read like a complicated process that I do not wish to bother them with, considering they probably have their hands full with the current situation. Milktea2020 (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Extraordinary parliamentary session

The article needs to be updated At the end of the 3rd paragraph, and also in "concessions" in the infobox, and also in the 3rd last sentence under header Reactions > State response and arrests:

"Extraordinary parliamentary session scheduled for 26–27 October."

Has already passed, it's November 6.  AltoStev ^Talk 02:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed it from the lead as nothing significant materialized from them. It remains in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Explaination

@Bagumba: Since I failed to save with an edit summary, I would like to explain here that I moved the portion of text regarding Vajiralongkorn to the article. It is detailed, and not necessary to understand the cause of these protests. Good research nonetheless. Cheers, --Horus (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Horus: In regards to your removal, I think it's necessary to understand the king's history with Germany, which dates back to before his reign. One of the main complaints is that he is not in Thailand, so readers need to understand why, especially when his dad was almost never out of the country. He also needed to amend the constitution to remove the previous requirement that he name a regent in his absence. I'm open to suggestions to trim of your concern is that it is detailed. All of this information has been in the press through coverage of the protests; it is not tangential original research.—Bagumba (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

If you think the matter worth mentioning, it still should follow the simple line as the protester thought the idea that King stays in Germany (and that there is no regency) is inappropriate, etc. The other details are still seem overly detailed. --Horus (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not just one protester who has brought up Germany. Germany's foreign minister said a few weeks ago that "We have made it clear that politics concerning Thailand should not be conducted from German soil".[3] Some background is needed as to where that concern is coming from and why the protesters recently demonstrated at the German embassy.—Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

What do you suggest the text should be then, as to not overly detailed? --Horus (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I've re-introduced the German background while paring some of the details about his possible state activity in the country. Feel free to copyedit. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Can we list "reform of the monarchy" as a goal? Copelonian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"erroneously removed"

@Bagumba: Do you have good reasons for restoring the protesters' demand that have already covered in the infobox [4]? New constitution, demand the reform of the monarchy: they're all there (as well as in the article body prior to that line). Hopefully you can explain this and not just attack the others. --Horus (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Horus: MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that the purpose of an infobox is to "summarize (and not supplant) key facts". It's not a replacement for prose. and that restored text was more detailed than the high-level (as intended) points in the infobox. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You are still not addressing my point that they are already covered before that line: the three demands in the Protests under Three Demands section, and demand to reform the monarchy under Further demands of monarchy reform and subsequent protests section. --Horus (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You had earlier wrote "the article body prior to that line". I had presumed you meant the few lines prior, not entire sections earlier. After taking another look at "Summary of Demands on Reform of the Monarchy", perhaps that was the "infobox" you were referring to, not the actual one at the top of the page. With that clarification, I can see how it might be redudant. I will self-revert. Thanks for discussing this.—Bagumba (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

translate this section from the thai version?

I think we should make a translated version of the "2020 thai protests" template. https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B9%81%E0%B8%A1%E0%B9%88%E0%B9%81%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%9A:%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%97%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%87%E0%B9%84%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%A263 Copelonian (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 16 November 2020‎ (UTC)

The English version does not have that many articles. If there would be a template right now, it would be links to Timeline articles. --Horus (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Inbox list of universities

I dont see any good reason for a list of all the Thai universities, ended with etc. Looks like a violation of WP:NOTDIR. Thoughts? The display gets folded on the PC, but on the phone it looks horrendous. Are all of these parties even WP:DUE? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Maybe separate into Participants in the 2020 Thai protests article, like Belligerents in the Syrian Civil War (when it's long enough)? --Horus (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed from the infobox, which should be a quick summary (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). It's also misleading under "Protesters and organisations", when these seems like protest locations, where some of their students likely participated, not that the whole university (including faculty) is necessarily supporting it. No opinion on whether it's moved into the article or not.—Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of supporting parties

@27.55.74.142: To avoid my reverts breaching WP:3RR I am opening a discussion here, There are well-sourced references to the content you are trying to remove, do you have a reason? SuperiorWalrus^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: Probably no good reasons. There were attempts to remove it in Thai Wikipedia also. --Horus (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Should we add the opposition as a supporter of the protest?

The infobox has the prayut govt. and the monarchy as a supporter of pro govt. demonstrators, should we add the opposition as a supporter of the protesters too? Copelonian (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Some pro-gov groups have been listed already. --Horus (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• MSU Emblem.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding 2021 to the title

@2x2leax: I saw that you moved this page from "2020 Thai protests" to " 2020–2021 Thai protests"[5] As far as I know there hasn't been any protests in 2021 yet (and had stopped well before New Year), and will probably be a lull for a while with the latest COVID outbreak. If there were to be protests in 2021, it's also not an automatic given that it should continue in the same article. Let me know your thoughts. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that 2021 should not be in the title yet and reverted the undiscussed move per WP:RMUM. @2x2leax: Feel free to open a requested move if you think otherwise. Thanks. Majavah (talk!) 11:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I've added events in 2021. But I wait for the consensus first before renaming. --Horus (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Given the recent developments, I think it would be most natural to continue in this article and would support renaming. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed.—Bagumba (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Riot categories

Edits like this keep adding riot categories to this page, which then are removed. Please discuss the rationale and establish consensus. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

These IPs (assuming there are more than one person operating) do not seem willing to talk. Are there any international media characterizing the protests as riots, though? --Horus (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware. The gov't rolling out the riot police doesn't make it a riot.—Bagumba (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

In the Thai source provided by IP guy, it seem they think throwing rocks and damaging police cars fit the definition of riots. Just so I can give you some insight into their thinking. --Horus (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Political Refugee Activists/ Outside of Thailand Leaders

Somsak Jeamteerasakul, Pavin Chachavalpongpun, Faiyen, Andrew MacGregor Marshall These are an example that needs to be included. They have had quite an influence on protesters. Especially Somsak's 8 articles, Pavin's Royalistmarketplace, Faiyen's live streaming --Wake it up (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)