Talk:Sondhi Limthongkul/Archives/2015

Untitled

I have a few articles over on Wikinews that mention Sondhi, they may be of use in fleshing out the article, and there might be one worth using with the {{wikinews}} template.

• Wikinews:Sondhi may face legal action from Thai Rak Thai party
• Wikinews:Sondhi continues using Thailand Weekly show to attack PM
• Wikinews:Thai PM sues media critic for one billion Baht
• Wikinews:Thai PM sues newspaper for 500 million baht

--Brianmc 17:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Lack of any content on Sondhi prior to 2003

The article as it is lacks any details about Sondhi prior to 2003. This is very poor for a biographical article. I shall reformat and add some information about his business history and political views during the 90s and the early Thaksin administration. Patiwat 12:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" References to the Monarchy in Muang Thai Rai Sapdha?

Patiwat has noted in the opening paragraph that Sondhi's program on Channel 9 was cancelled due to "inappropriate references to the monarchy". While this is indeed the reason given by Channel 9 for cancelling the program, there is some debate as to what extent the references were "inappropriate". For the sake of balance, I propose amending this to read: "He was also the host of a popular anti-government talkshow which was eventually suspended due to allegations that the program made inappropriate references to the monarchy".

I never noticed this earlier, but a sentence in the "Origins of the anti-Thaksin period" section also makes reference to the same episode. It currently reads: "In September 2005, the MCOT (broadcaster of Channel 9), after discussions with King Bhumibol Adulyadej's principal private secretary, Asa Sarasin, cancelled Sondhi's Muangthai Rai Sapda show for inappropriate references to the monarchy.[7]" While this sentence is properly referenced, I'm afraid it may give readers the impression that the cancellation of the show was sanctioned by HM the King. It is not clear in the article cited whether MCOT executives discussed cancelling Sondhi's program during their meeting with Asa (the HM's Principal Private Secretary) or not. Overall, it seems that HM's involvment in this episode is still unclear. For the sake of caution, I personally would remove the reference to Asa in the sentence, and rewrite it to read "In September 2005, MCOT (broadcaster of Channel 9), in response to allegations that Sondhi's Muangthai Rai Sapda talk show made inapporpriate references to the monarchy, cancelled the program." Regards, Tettyan 03:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As there have been no objections so far, I have gone ahead and made the changes. If anyone still has comments about my changes, please discuss them here. Regards, Tettyan 02:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The article's headline was "Ch 9 drops Sondhi for royal references" and the body of the article noted: "The last straw for the TV station was last Friday's programme, during which Sondhi said the appointment of a senior monk to perform caretaker tasks on behalf of the Supreme Patriarch was against royal powers, Rewat said. Rewat said MCOT executives on Tuesday met His Majesty's principal private secretary, Asa Sarasin, and other senior officials from the Palace to discuss the matter." I thought that made it pretty clear that the MCOT, after discussions with King Bhumibol Adulyadej's principal private secretary, Asa Sarasin, cancelled Sondhi's Muangthai Rai Sapda show for inappropriate references to the monarchy. Patiwat 14:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I did reread the article. It's pretty straightforward, telling the story from Rewat's perspective. We don't know the story told from the perspective of the palace's representatives. We don't know exactly what was said in the meeting, other than Rewat's statement that "the [Royal] officials told MCOT that Sondhi had not been given permission by the Palace to talk about the matter". Nor does it appear that the official government censors were involved. As far as the general public knows, MCOT acted on its own authority to cancel the program. Furthermore, there is no evidence as to whether the palace took a position on cancelling the program. Anyways, what concerns me is that the sentence, phrased the way it was, implies that the Palace endorsed MCOT's decision to cancel Sondhi's program. We may never know whether that was the case or not. In any case, I don't think there is a compelling reason to draw the Palace into this matter unless their position is clear. In general, that's a rule I try to observe: too many people throughout this crisis have attempted to claim the support of HM or other politically neutral institutions to further their cause. There's already enough wild speculation out there about whether the Palace is taking sides in this conflict, and the last thing we should want to do here is unnecessarily add fuel to that fire. I realize you may find this explanation to be inadequate, but we can take comfort in the fact that The Nation's links usually don't expire, so users are free to read the linked article for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Regards, Tettyan 17:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tettyan's input. The Nation's article only state that the cancellation occured after the meeting of MCOT executive and Asa Sarasin. It didnot implicitly state any action was requested from him. Since there is no concreate information available, I believe its a good idea to write the article strictly from current information. We can leave the reader draw their own conclusion. underexpose 00:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments are reasonable and so is your edit. Personally, I think censorship of all forms is reprehensible. But in Thailand, censorship for comments regarding the King and censorship for political comments are judged differently by society - the first is viewed as just, while the second is viewed as unjust. The cancellation of Thailand Weekly is often portrayed in the media as being Thaksin vs. Sondhi using censorship as an unjust tool to silence criticism of the government - while in fact, the technical reason was due to his comments about the royalty (even though Thaksin was undoubtably glad when Thailand Weekly went off the air - even though it returned with greater force via satellite and webcast). The edit so far makes this subtlety fairly clear. Patiwat 22:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Patiwat, after extensively discussing the editing of this section several months ago and agreeing on wording, you've gone ahead and changed this section to reflect your POV. Yes, you have done this under the guise of adding additional information, but the POV of the section has clearly been altered. For instance, you say "Sondhi reportedly made repeated disrespectful on-air references to King Bhumibol Adulyadej". Well, the fact is Sondhi made comments in the context of accusing THAKSIN of disloyalty to the monarchy in handling of the Supreme Patriarch appointment. You certainly could make a case for Sondhi's alleged disloyalty, but this is a highly controversial and contentious issue, and your interpretation is by no means widely accepted as universal or factual. Was Somdet Phra Buddhacharya's appointment really supported by the King, or was he forced upon the palace? If so, did Thaksin trample on what some traditionally hold to be royal prerogatives? Or is the entire issue a red herring used by Sondhi for his political benefit? The facts are still very sketchy, and from what I know, we're not likely to know the whole truth anytime soon. Wikipedia entries are to be as fact-based as possible, and if there are opinions or facts that are still very unclear, they have no place here. Finally, you re-inserted the insinuation that the cancelletion of Sondhi's TV program on MCOT was sanctioned by the palace ("After discussions with King's principal private secretary, Arsa Sarasin, MCOT executives cancelled the program"). If you decline to modify your edits to confrom with NPOV, I will tag this section for disputed neutrality. Tettyan 00:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No one has answered my objection so far. I have reverted the relevant section for the time-being. I welcome anyone who's willing to discuss this issue to leave comments here. Tettyan 03:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Khom Chad Luek front page, 31 December 2006.jpg

Image:Khom Chad Luek front page, 31 December 2006.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So what happened next?

The article leaves us hanging. Where is Khun Sondhi today? How can such a detailed, vibrant entry in Wikipedia ... just stop a few years back?

Why is this criminal out of jail while others suffer for equal crimes? Money buys all in this gov't

Why is it that this criminal is out of jail? What glorious powers let him go free when so many other men linger behind bars. With his constant criminal cases for abusing others, it is truly a wonder why the supposed anti-corrupt government in power 2014-present) let this corrupt soul buy his way out. Jail him or I expect the current military-crony-appointed government will crash soon and the whole hord of corrupt slim among them will be forced into exile in China, the home of most of their forefathers. Save Thailand. 180.183.10.208 (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)