Talk:Abhisit Vejjajiva

Involvement in solving the red shirt protest

Excuse me, but it seems that the red-shirt protesters has move the front from the street to here on Wikipedia. Look at the sentence : In a pre-dawn raid on Monday April 13, Thai soldiers in full combat gear used tear gas and fired live rounds and training rounds from automatic weapons to clear protesters from the Din Daeng intersection near the Victory Monument in central Bangkok, injuring at least 70 people.[92] [93] The Army later claimed that live rounds were only fired into the air while training rounds were fired at the crowd. Human Rights Watch later confirmed that live ammunition was fired directly at protesters.[94]

The sentence quite jumped at me. Then, when I go see the citation... What the !@#? The Human rights watch group just says:

Mr Thaksin's "red shirt" followers, who claim the four month old government is illegitimate, "attacked approaching soldiers with guns, Molotov bombs, improvised grenades, slingshots, and rocks", the New York based group said. The group praised the restraint shown by most soldiers but said there were cases where live ammunition was fired directly at protesters.

What the clearly-red-shirt wikipedia writer (whose name starts with a 'P') reported is blatantly false and misleading. Please consider action on this false writer's statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donny TH (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed Patiwat, you have clearly cherry picked the information in that source to skew the reading of the incident. For sure, the army lied about firing live ammunition, but Human Rights Watch's depiction of these "protesters" is completely lost. The article portrayed an image of the army firing on unarmed protesters. Given the source, this is clearly a misrepresentation of the facts.

Much of the material does not belong on this article anyway. We don't need such a level of detail in Vejjajiva's biography.

The "Songkran unrest" section is clearly focused on a pro-red shirt perspective. Sentences such as "At least one UDD protester died from gunshot wounds sustained during the military's attack in Din Daeng, although the Army claimed the wound was not caused by their standard firearm." lead the reader to the assumption that the army is lying, without explicitly saying so. The entire paragraph does not mention one instance of "red shirt" violence apart from the half-hearted effort sentence of "Abhisit aide Satit Wongnontaey claimed that two government supporters were shot dead by red shirted protesters in clashes in Din Daeng".

I understand this is a case in which emotions are heightened but it is simply false to portray the conflict as the government and Army launching an assault on non-violent red-shirts. (You cannot read that section and come out with any other impression). If this POV approach continues to be used I will seek dispute resolution. I'm applying the POV tag now. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've corrected your grammatical errors in the article.
• Stop making personal attacks. I'm not a red shirt, but my political affiliation is NOT relevant to this discussion or this article.
• This is an article about Abhisit. Abhisit has categorically defended the Army in its denial that the military shot live rounds at protesters. Reputable third party observers have effectively called the Army liar, and this reflects on Abhisit's leadership. This is the hardest test of his leadership to date, and this material DOES belong in the biographical article. Patiwat (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have yet to see official confirmation (i.e., not made by a politician) that the 2 Din Daeng deaths were caused by UDD supporters. So far, every media source I've seen seems to quote or use Sathit as their source. Nobody has been charged with murder yet. Strangely, I haven't seen any news about the deaths being formally investigated. Murder is a serious charge, and this article should not be stating that murder has occurred as a matter of fact when all we have is a politicians' accusations. Patiwat (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Again, this is an article about Abhisit. If you have something positive to say about Abhisit and think that it adds to the NPOV of the article, then go ahead and find a reference and put it in the article. But note that "positive about Abhisit" does NOT always equate to "negative about Abhisit's opponents." Patiwat (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's take a deep breath and think about what content should appear in this biographical article.

• SHOULD: Thaksin's accusations that Privy Councilor members Surayud Chulanont and Chanchai Likhitjittha conspired with the military to give Abhisit the Premiership, and Abhisit's denials.
• SHOULD: How the Pattaya security forces responded to Abhisit's orders to defend the ASEAN conference, and the cancellation of said conference.
• SHOULD: Abhisit's declaration of a state of emergency in Chonburi, and criticisms of the state of emergency.
• SHOULD: The general situation in Bangkok as tensions escalated. Abhisit's response (his declaration of another state of emergency, his declaration that protesters were "national enemies", his censorship decrees)
• SHOULD: What Abhisit ordered the Army to do, and what the Army actually did. Abhisit's response to what the Army did. Abhisit's response to criticisms of what the Army did. Abhisit's acts of censorship, and criticism therin. The outcome, and the revocation of Thaksin's passport (the Council of State has declared that this is a political decision, not a bureaucratic one).
• SHOULD: The final toll. Injuries, and breakdown. Claimed deaths, and criticisms and rebuttals of said claims. Economic damages.
• WHO KNOWS: Sondhi's "assassination." Abhisit hasn't made any noteworthy statements about this very important incident yet. But things might escalate, given that Sondhi's son has made veiled accusations that some cliques in Abhisit's government of being behind it. Patiwat (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My principal concern is that this material should be summarised. Is there not an article which relates to the 2009 Bangkok riots or similar? There are plenty of sources to write this and the points most pertinent to Vejjajiva can be summarised here with a link the the main article in the form of a hatnote.

Please note Patiwat that I never implied that Abhisit was the greatest guy ever. Nevertheless, you must realise the implications of placing the following information on the article:

• "Sondhi Limthongkul, leader of the Peoples Alliance for Democracy, was shot early in the morning of 17 April 2009. Gunmen firing M-16 rifles sprayed Sondhi’s car, wounding Sondhi and seriously wounding his driver.[106]"

Mentioning it in this place suggests that Abhisit is somehow involved which has no verifiable basis. I think this is more a case of misplaced information than anything else. You seem very eager to contribute Patiwat and I'd be delighted to see you move and expand this information at 2009 Bangkok riots or similar, while summarising the most Abhisit-related points about it here. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• You want to make that article, go ahead. But I'd rather not start the argument about whether to call what happened riots, unrest, violence, revolution, civil war or whatever, given that the media doesn't seem to have come up with a well-accepted name for the incidents yet. And trust me, anything other than "unrest" WILL spark disagreement.
• I'm fine with removing any references any to the Sondhi shooting until Abhisit makes a notable statement or until the PAD comes out with firmer accusations.Patiwat (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think 2009 Bangkok protests could convey the meaning and situation without any POV: there clearly were protests, no one is doubting that. I can see your point regarding what consists or doesn't consist of a "riot". I've had those kind of arguments before and they bore me to tears. I have no intention of starting the article because it's a topic I know little about and brief stubs can quickly become thousands of unreferenced words on topics such as this. I think it's a valid article if anyone decides to take it up. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 23:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• The protests that led to the 2008 airport seizures didn't warrant their own article and they occurred over weeks and had even larger political and economic repercussions. I therefore don't think the recent incidents warrant their own article. Besides, the two are closely linked: the perceived "double standard" was a major source of UDD frustration and anger.
• But even if the recent incidents did warrant their own article, I would NOT call it the "2009 Bangkok riots". Because that ignores what happened in Pattaya. And because given the way the situation ended (with military force and a non-reconciliatory approach), there will almost surely be further anti-government protests this year. Patiwat (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As a continuation of this discussion, I think it's important to note that someone keeps posting references to "soldiers disguised as red shirts" in this article (in reference to the 10 April incident in Bangkok) while providing sources that say nothing of the sort. The closest reference in any of the sources provided comes from a single source which suggests that there were "soldiers in disguise" who were shot that day. No other source references this at all, and that source is a small personal interest news article which mentions the issue as a throw-away line, and does not say that the disguises were red shirts. It is commonly suspected that the so-called "black shirts" are disaffected Thai military or factions thereof, providing security to the Red Shirts, and who attacked the riot police/soldiers on the 10th of April. Such individuals almost certainly do not answer in any way to Abhisit, as this article implies. 71.57.71.46 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

Someone deleted two notes of trivia in the "Trivia" section. The first noted that Abhisit was an avid football fan. The second noted that Abhisit liked rock music, namely R.E.M.]. These are both taken from Abhisit's personal biography page. I'd argue that in a wikipedia biographical article, trivia like this serves some purpose, namely shedding light on Abhisit's personal character and demographics. While many older Thai politicians gain patronage from sponsoring Muay Thai matches and like to karaoke to Suntharaphorn and other 50's singers, Abhisit is relatively young, and his hobbies and interests reflect that youth. Patiwat 20:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If matters are considered important, they should go in the body of the article. "Trivia" is by definition trivial and therefore unencyclopaedic. Adam 04:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry

How many generations do people of Chinese ancestry have to live in Thailand before they stop being "Thai-Chinese"? Most of the Thai upper and middle classes have some Chinese ancestry, since the two communities have freely intermarried in urban areas for more than a century. I think it is inherently racist, and intentionally so, to tag people as "Thai-Chinese" when they are fouth-generation Thais, and thoroughly Thai in culture and upbringing. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently there are those who think these things stay important for centuries. But whatever they were, the early Vejjajivas were fantastically long-lived, or amazingly slow breeders: from the 18th Century to 1964 in three generations! If the first Vejjajiva became prominent in 1799 at the age of 20, he, his son and grandson were all fathering kids at an average age of 62. Unless the family somehow turned Chinese after they became prominent...David K (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on whether a given individual (or generation) is trying to hide ancestry, or flaunt it, or decides to make a claim to it, or can or can't live up to its standards. When flaunted, or just claimed, it is as much about ancestral memes as it is about genes. The Thai Chinese that I know flaunt it, otherwise, I wouldn't know that they're Thai Chinese (unless I see them eating: Thai Chinese table manners differ markedly.) Having never been to China, I don't know how the Chinese regard them (but suspect it is directly proportional to how much money they have, rather than their pedigree.) Racism works entirely differently in Asia than it does in societies in a snit about racism. Here, it amounts to maneuvers for economic advantage. What is it about where you are? Pawyilee (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Thai Royal Family is founded by a Chinese. 86.136.143.199 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments below. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 16:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the Chinese who settle down in other countries do not assimiliate/intergrate well, but rather stick to their own roots. If they live in new country - especially if they're born in new country - they should live like local people. Yet they don't. So it is fair to call them Chinese. This applies to Chinese in Malaysia, Indonesia or the Philippines too. They are the ones who cause other people to call them Chinese. Bunio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.129.8.205 (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Image

If anyone wants an image for this article there is one at the Irish Wikipedia[1] RoyalMate1 23:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And Thai Wikipedia. But one's about to be deleted whilde the other claims GDFL. Pawyilee (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Both images are marked for deletion. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 16:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of Abhisit

... พวกเธอจะรู้อะไรกับกลการเมืองพวกที่ถืออถิสิทธิ๋อยู่เหนือกฏหมายมันจ้างมา ... You all should know that in politics those upholding privilege are above the law. --Pawyilee (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the statement that "Abhisit" means "privilege" in Thai since it comes from a highly anti-Abhisit website. Can someone confirm or refute this statement? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I would rather say the meaning of a person's first name is irrelevant information in a biography. Let's leave it to the geomancers. −woodstone (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

From on-line dictionaries:

http://www.thai-language.com/dict/

• 1.อภิสิทธิ์ noun privilege; monopoly; exclusive right
• 2.อภิสิทธิ์ชน noun a privileged person
• 3.อภิสิทธิ์ชน noun the privileged class

http://www.thai2english.com/dictionary/22000.html

• อภิสิทธิ์ [N] privilege ; prerogative

http://rirs3.royin.go.th/dictionary.asp

• อภิ คําประกอบหน้าศัพท์ที่มาจากภาษาบาลีและสันสกฤต มีความหมายว่า ยิ่ง, วิเศษ, เหนือ, เช่น อภิรมย์ = ยินดียิ่ง, อภิญญาณ = ความรู้วิเศษ, อภิมนุษย์ = มนุษย์ที่เหนือ มนุษย์ทั้งหลาย. (ป.)
• สิทธิ, สิทธิ์ [สิดทิ, สิด] น. อำนาจอันชอบธรรม เช่น บุคคลมีสิทธิและ หน้าที่ตามรัฐธรรมนูญ เขามีสิทธิ์ในที่ดินแปลงนี้. (ป., ส.); (กฎ) อํานาจที่จะกระทําการใด ๆ ได้อย่างอิสระ โดยได้รับการรับรองจากกฎหมาย. (อ. right).

Pawyilee (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

From my wife: บเป็นอย่าง

My opinion: Were he Thai, then, in all likelihood, a fortuneteller bestowed it upon him, not his parents. Even though he is not Thai, it is still likely—in my opinion, of course. As for the geomancers, I'd rather that they puzzle out why it sounds like opposite, in English. Pawyilee (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "Were he Thai"? He is a Thai citizen, his parents are Thai, his grandparents were Thai. As I have asked before, how many generations do people have to live in Thailand before they become Thai? In any other country this would be regarded as gross racism. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you? This is not any other country, and I don't think you could support that claim, anyhow—certainly not anywhere in Asia or Africa. As for how many generations, that depends entirely upon how well they conserve their memes, not their genes. And as for PM Abhisit, he is Thai via a pseudo-relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation or loyalty, but only because a fascist dictator imposed on Siam the name of a race (classification of human beings). As for my wife's comment of บเป็นอย่าง, it clearly identifies her as not of the Thai people, but of the Isan (Lao). She said it last night when she was sleepy, but this morning she's wide awake and says what sounds to an English-tuned ear like, "Chan my! chope opposite, kowjy my?" As she didn't put nayoke or any other titular reference before opposite to change this noun into a name, that translates to: "I don't like privilege, understand?" Pawyilee (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Aphisit or [abhisiddhi] Error: {{Transliteration}}: unrecognized language / script code: iast (help) does mean privilege, but as woodstone says, the place for such discussion is not in a biographical article. You don't see discussion on Saint George the dragon slayer on the George W. Bush page.

The Saint-George meme has no relevance to GWB, nor to Georgia (the U.S. State), but it is relevant to Georgia (the country.) Besides, it is not customary to refer to an American by his given, but his family name. The relevant meme in his case is the Flaming Bush that lured a nation into be-wilderness. Pawyilee (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Bhumibol is translated in the article on King Bhumibol. Why not here? Patiwat (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

And on the bickering about Thainess, it seems that we are discussing different things. In Thailand such descriptions refer first and foremost to nationality, with ethnicity coming second. A Thai national of Chinese ethnicity would refer to him/herself as คนไทยเชื้อสายจีน, a "Thai person of Chinese descent", and most likely not as คนจีน or "Chinese person", which would imply that he/she does not have Thai citizenship. Your wife may have Lao ancestry and practice the customs of the Lao people, but the mainstream school of thought in Thailand would still identify her by her Thai nationality. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 16:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, she's not a citizen of Thailand, but a subject of the King of the Kingdom of Thailand, though I know few speak that strictly, anymore (though some still did when I was a child 60-some years ago.) And she's Isan/Lao in the same sense that Nang Ai Kham was "the genuine article": her father was Kom, and my wife's grandfather was of the Gomena's of Gujarat. Both he and his father were still alive when she was a child. Bu-tuat went home to die in his homeland, but Bu took the family name Phasuk from his employer, became a Buddhist and a subject of the King. I don't know how that was done, and despair of ever finding out. But the Gomena clan is not Chinese, nor well-know in Thailand, so it's not worth her effort to preserve Gomena memes. As for your reference to mainstream, she's not in it--maybe you should check out the Nang Ai Kham link for the meme of nagas run amok. Pawyilee (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge that, for Thais, there is an important distinction between Thai ethnicity and Thai nationality. Persons of Thai nationality are not necessarily of Thai ethnicity. In a country like Australia (where I live) there is no such distinction, because there is no "Australian ethnicity." For readers of the Thai Wikipedia, this distinction may be self-evident. But for readers of the English Wikipedia, it is not, and needs to be explained. If someone in Australia refered to Penny Wong, for example, as being "Australian-Chinese" in an article, this would be regarded as very racist unless it had some relevance to the topic of the article. Calling Abhisit a "Thai-Chinese" when his family have lived in Thailand for four generations appears racist to most English-speaking readers. If this expression is to be used it needs some explanation of how Thais view ethnicity and nationality. But I also question its relevance given that most of the Thai upper class have some Chinese descent. I don't think anyone refers to the current King as a "Thai-Chinese", although the mother of Rama I was part-Chinese. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, racism has been given a bad rap, but the alternative to the good/evil conundrum is "useful" vs. "not presently useful (but may prove useful, again." [Ref: Mockumentary introducing] The Gods Must Be Crazy. Ever since seeing that movie, the concept has been an essential part of the way I view the world, especially its humans; but, the topic is Meaning of Abhisit.

Not a geomancer but an astrologer would have been consulted, if his parents followed tradition, and his parents may have been high enough up in elite society to have consulted the same palace that awarded their family name. The most important consideration is that the initial consonant อ is consonant with the weekday of birth. I've been told "Abhisit" is an abominable transliteration, though NOT as abominable as that of the family name, but the Palace has its own rules, which override others. The same source says "Abhisit" is a fairly common given name, given that so many babies are born on the consonant day of the week, but, this being Southeast Asia, it is customary to use other names bestowed later, by parents, playmates, friends, enemies and the occasional king. Everything about PM Abhisit marks him as one of the elite of the elite (except his nickname "Mark," which likely follows post-Hobbesian English custom as a sound signifying naught but a place-holder). But we really need a native Thai editor to join this discussion of what place "Abhisit" holds among his friends. We've already commented on the place it holds among his enemies. Currently in Bangkok where my wife insists we discuss the topic sub voce, if not subsiste sermonem statim. Pawyilee (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I corrected my gross error on the award of PM Abhisit's family name, thanks to Paul. Now, who can check the Chinese-language reference for "PM Abhisit, himself a fourth-generation Thai Chinese, is of this lineage," to see if it supports the claim: I can't read it. 23

As to the meaning of his given name, I'm not pleased with the way it reads now:

(PM Abhisit's given name should be preceded by an honorific, as otherwise it reverts to a noun signifying privilege; monopoly, exclusive right; elite.)[24][25] PM Abhisit has two sisters: child psychiatrist Alisa Wacharasindhu and author Ngarmpun Vejjajiva.[26]

I'd like to move the parenthetical comment to the end of the section, remove the parentheses, and expand it to establish his name's "auspicious" beginning:

Thai people don't just pick names at random or ones that sound nice or have good meanings. Most of them would consult an astrologer or monk in order to choose a name that is auspicious and would bring the child plenty of good luck in their life. Thai people believe so much in auspicious names, that if they feel that their name hasn't brought them enough good luck they will change it! ( ref, which has lots of questions, but very few answers!)

Then go on explain how it is used in the current political environment by his enemies. Can't be done without references! (Thaksin's article needs a somewhat similar entry on his childhood play-name that has his enemies lampooning him as a cat!) Pawyilee (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Mark's given name sounds a bit like "Opposite," but it sounds even more like the rarely used English adjective "Apposite," which means "strikingly appropriate, applicable, or fitting; well put." Makes me wonder if the Vejjajiva's astrologer knew that. --Pawyilee (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Family name

The Thai-language article is more interested in the origin of his family's Thai name:

สกุล "เวชชาชีวะ" หรือ "Vejjajiva" เป็นนามสกุลพระราชทานสมัย รัชกาลที่ 6 ลำดับที่ 4,881 จากนามสกุลพระราชทานสมัย ร.6 ที่พระราชทาน รวมทั้งสิ้น 6,423 นามสกุล โดยพระราชทานให้กับรองอำมาตย์ตรีหลง (หลง เวชชาชีวะ) แพทย์ประจำจังหวัดลพบุรี กับ นายจิ๊นแสง (บิดา) นายเป๋ง (ปู่) และนายก่อ (ปู่ทวด) เนื่องจากเป็นต้นตระกูลเป็นแพทย์จึงมีคำว่า "เวช" [Doctor, physician] อยู่ในนามสกุลด้วย Source

Pawyilee (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Stuck it in footnote #8 Pawyilee (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It didn't look right where I first stuck it, so I moved it under Family as follows:

.... During the reign of Rama VI, three generations of Yuan-clan Lopburi provincial physicians were given palace-name number 4,881 (of 6,423) "Vejjajiva"—"Vej" (TH "เวช") signifying physician: Mr. Chen Saeng (TH นายจิ๊นแสง) (father,) Mr. Peng (TH นายเป๋ง) (grandfather) and Mr. Ko (TH นายก่อ) (great-grandfather.) [22:same source as Thai article, above] PM Abhisit, himself a fourth-generation Thai Chinese, is of this lineage. [23:somebody entered this ref; I haven't read it] (His given name should be preceded by an honorific or followed by his family name, as otherwise it reverts to a noun signifying privilege; monopoly; exclusive right.)[24:thai-language.com/dict/ entry, above][25:On-line Royal Institute Dictionary 1995 entries, above]

Revert or edit as you please. Oh, and I tinkered with the entry on his prep school, too, to read: ...he transferred to [[Scaitcliffe School|Bishospsgate_School]],[17:Formerly a preparatory boys school, Scaitcliffe merged in 1996 with Virginia Water girls preparatory school to form Bishopsgate School for boys and girls on the site of the former boys school.] then completed his secondary education at Eton College. Pawyilee (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone translate รองอำมาตย์ตรีหลง from ๔๘๘๑/เวชชาชีวะ/Vejjajiva/remarks?[2] Pawyilee (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

รองอำมาตย์ตรี was a pre-1932 civil official rank, equivalent to the military sub-Lieutenant. หลง, of course, is the person's given name. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 18:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification on the rank and personal name; I'll try to correct my mistakes at Family, but if I screw up again, would you please fix it? Pawyilee (talk) 12:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

More on the name: UDD is demonstrating against Khone Ammat, though their article no longer reflects that, but here we see a Rong Ammat 3rd Class (รองอำมาตย์ตรี) was the first to bear the palace name Vejjajiva. Tsk Tsk. Meanwhile, his article no longer reflects that Abhisit means privilege in the sense of a royal monopoly. Who would think his ammat ancestors thought of that when he was given his official name? And who gave him the name Mark? --Pawyilee (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The apple didn't fall far from the tree. His father's name:

• อรรถสิทธิ์
• อรรถ, อรรถ [อัด, อัดถะ] น. เนื้อความ เช่น แปลโดยอรรถ, คําที่ยังไม่ได้ แปลความหมาย เช่น คําอรรถ. (ส. อรฺถ; ป. อตฺถ).

1. content; gist
2. usefulness; advantage
3. need; want

• สิทธิ, สิทธิ์[สิดทิ, สิด] น. อำนาจอันชอบธรรม เช่น บุคคลมีสิทธิและ หน้าที่ตามรัฐธรรมนูญ เขามีสิทธิ์ในที่ดินแปลงนี้. (ป., ส.); (กฎ) อํานาจที่จะกระทําการใด ๆ ได้อย่างอิสระ โดยได้รับ การรับรองจากกฎหมาย. (อ. right).

--Pawyilee (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Odd revert

In this edit I seem to have reverted to a former version which does not exist. I've no idea how this happened as I'm pretty sure I just clicked the undo button (hence the edit summary). I'm reverting to Patiwat's version before the IP additions just to be on the safe side. I'm pretty sure I did not do any further editing. Perhaps this was a bug in the system? Very strange. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 11:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, that lead could use a trim anyway. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 11:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sondhi Limthongkul assassination attempt

Sondhi's son has accused Deputy Prime Minister and senior Democrat Party figure Sanan Kachornprasart of being behind the assassination attempt. Thaksin isn't so specific, but implies that the government is killing people who know too much. Meanwhile, Abhisit's foreign minister is claiming Thaksin is behind it. This matter can now be included in the article, Abhisit being Sanan and Kasit's boss, after all. Patiwat (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Gossip, name calling and unsubstaintiated conspiracy theories do not belong in an encyclepdia Ddave2425 (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)ddave2425

The new user dave is not expressing this well, but I agree that the assassination attempt is pretty tangential. All that connects these two topics are veiled implications from rival factions. The only thing that need be noted is if an official claimed that Vejjajiva was connected with this. If no one stated this accusation then removal of the information is a wise option. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 04:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources logged under the line relating to the assassination attempt include any reference to either of these accusations. God knows I've just read them all. Harlequin115 (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the section, per this discussion. There's nothing concrete here, as written it's only loosely connected to Abhisit, and posting unfounded and vague accusations on something this serious sets a bad precedent. Using quotes with phrases like "I have the impression" and "it is said that" -- with no additional supporting detail -- should be reason enough to delete the section. Same goes with the claim that Thaksin is behind it (as supported by the defamation suit he just filed against Newin in a case very similar to this.) Jeditor17 (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this section of the article should be deleted. The supported articles fails to mention official accusation on Abhisit nor have a concrete evidence linking with the assassination attempt.nogia123 (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination

I strongly disagree with a GA nomination and am very doubtful of an "A" wikiproject rating (reverted now). The article has numerous problems. The "Sondhi Limthongkul assassination attempt" is just one example - Various people blamed the government without a proven basis: how is this relevant? The final paragraph of the lead is but a little hint of the POV and recentism that belies this article. Citation and discussion of pre-2006 life is pretty poor and contains over arching and leading comments (e.g. "Abhisit has occasionally been criticized for relying on his good looks to support his career.") Early political career is summed up in these simplistic sentences: "In 2001, Abhisit made a bid for party leadership, taking on a seasoned politician Banyat Bantadtan. Abhisit lost. However, Banyat led the Democrats to an overwhelming defeat by Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party in the 2005 legislative elections. Banyat resigned and Abhisit was chosen to replace him." What happened in that five year interim following these events?

Furthermore, I highly doubt the veracity of the ownership of this picture. I shall delete if from commons unless it is released under a commons compatible license. This is so far from GA and A class it's quite a premature nomination. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 05:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of expression

The Democrat Party, and especially Abhisit, have long stated that they support freedom of expression. It would be great to have a section on how they've helped improve freedom of expression in Thailand, especially given the harsh censorship and deregulation of the Thaksin era. But since Abhisit has only been in power for a few months, there have been few actual incidents where he has done anything with regards to this matter. When Abhisit has a few more "at bats", it would be good to have an article section on this. In the meantime, here are some citations that might be used to create such a section (please feel free to add the list, and ensure lots of different POVs). Patiwat (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• http://nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/30100921/Govt-to-launch-media-war-countering-red-shirts
• http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/04/national/national_30101893.php
• http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/04/17/politics/politics_30100670.php
• http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/26/politics/politics_30098873.php
• http://nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/30098829/Constitution-Court-files-libel-complaint-against-P
• http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1237295203&grpid=01&catid=17
• http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=15253
• http://cpj.org/2009/03/assault-intensifies-against-thai-online-news-media.php
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7928159.stm

14 March

Surely the current protests need an article of its own, and not bunched in the middle of this article like this. Sodacan (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Done at 2010 Thai political protests. --Pawyilee (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A hoax?

This article is obviously not a hoax. It is a biographical article on the current Prime Minister of Thailand, a man who is in the Thai and international news almost daily. Why would anybody think this were a hoax? Patiwat (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

When did he move to Thailand

Does anybody know when Mark first visited Thailand, and when he moved here to live? --Pawyilee (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

His Thai language article says he was here in 1986, age 22:

อภิสิทธิ์ยืนยันว่าขณะที่สมัครเข้า รร.จปร. ตนมีเอกสาร สด.๙ ที่ได้รับประมาณกลางปี พ.ศ. 2529 หลังสำเร็จการศึกษาระดับปริญญาตรีและกลับมาถึงประเทศไทย และมีรายชื่อได้รับการผ่อนผันฯ เพื่อเรียนต่อปริญญาโท ช่วงปี พ.ศ. 2530 ถึง พ.ศ. 2532 ตามบัญชีของ ก.พ. ที่จัดทำตั้งแต่ปลายปี พ.ศ. 2529 การสมัครเข้า รร.จปร. [โรงเรียนนายร้อยพระจุลจอมเกล้า] ของตนจึงเป็นการสมัครโดยมีคุณสมบัติครบถ้วน หลังจากสมัครเข้า รร.จปร. ได้ผ่านการฝึกทหารคล้ายการฝึก รด. จนครบตามหลักสูตรจึงได้รับพระราชทานยศร้อยตรี ในการขอติดยศร้อยตรีนั้นตนได้ทำเอกสาร สด.๙ หายจึงได้ไปขอออกใบแทน แต่ในการสมัครเข้า รร.จปร. ได้ใช้ สด.๙ ตัวจริงสมัคร แล้วเอกสารมีการสูญหายในภายหลัง ในการอภิปรายครั้งนี้อภิสิทธิ์ได้แสดง สำเนาบัญชีรายชื่อผู้ได้รับการยกเว้นผ่อนผันฯ และ สำเนา สด.๙ ฉบับแรกของตน ต่อที่ประชุมสภาผู้แทนราษฎรด้วย[33] --Pawyilee (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bueng Kal

I don't think that section should be in this article at all. The province was proposal was submitted by the province government of Nong Khai in January, and submitted to cabinet by the Ministry of Interior. And in fact the proposal dates back to 1992. Except being the PM at the time that the province was approved he had nothing to do with it, or should we mention every single administrative act done by his government here? And according to this forum post, a summary of a Thai newspaper article, Abhisit was against the province and only accepted by insistence of the Minister of Interior. And the whole numerology is patent nonsense, especially as there are just 75 province (Bangkok is not a province, but a special administrative area), so Thailand would reach the unlucky number with creation of this province. Of course Thais are very superstitious and there are probably some who'd believe this, one really has to prove that Abhisit himself believes it to make it fit into the article. I'd even think this numerology shouldn't be included in the article on the province. andy (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that this kind of stuff should not be included in an article, but that it should be preserved on its talk page. As for this article in particular, proving what a Prime Mister believes would be fruitless, though there's a quotation worth the searching from Germany's Iron Chancellor that how a Prime Minister conducts himself with respect to beliefs of the populace is of Prime Importance. --Pawyilee (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Suvarnabhumi Airport was proposed for decades, but finally went forward under Thaksin, and it features in Thaksin's article. Besides, Abhisit Vejjajiva's Cabinet approved the creation of the province. Abhisit did not have to approve it. He could have said that the creation of a new province is a major matter (it is), and the reasons are insufficient. Instead, he gave it the green light. He's the boss, the Prime Minister, the buck stops with him, etc. Furthermore, it's not valid to say that information that you think is "nonsense" shouldn't appear in Wikipedia. Patiwat (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there ANY proof that this numerologic nonsense was mentioned at all in the cabinet meeting? There are enough good reasons for the province like the distances in Nong Khai, the high approval within the province etc, but this section sounds like the numbers were the only reason, so to anybody who does not believe in superstition it makes him sound like an idiot. If anywhere, this numerology might be relevant in the province article, and since I think it was topic just one day I doubt it is relevant enough for inclusion there. Besides - there are 75 changwat plus Bangkok as a special administrative area, so Bueng Kan is the 76th province and thus it'd be the unlucky one. andy (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thailand does not hold the patent on nonsense. --Pawyilee (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Abhisit appointed to Bhumjaithai to run the Interior Ministry; it ran the study, gave its reasoning, and Abhisit approved it. If Abhisit really did oppose the motion and the reasoning, but approved it nevertheless, this should also be noted in the article.
• I believe the creation of a new province is noteworthy. The article on Dwight Eisenhower, for instance, notes the statehood of Alaska and Hawaii, and the article on Teddy Roosevelt notes the statehood of Oklahoma. Could probably tone down the numerology arithmetic though. Patiwat (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

/* NPOV write */

This article is opinionated and biased, the whole thing needs trimming and NPOV writing by an uninvolved editor. Off2riorob (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Would be very helpful if you could point to specifics. The recent blatant NPOV stuff has been removed in the recent edit war which placed the article under protection. Patiwat (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There are clearly, two very strongly opposing groups of editors that have created this article. If one group is happy then it is bias to their side. Involved users all clearly sit strongly on one side of the fence or other. Articles needs a Neutral informative educational rewrite. As for specifics, it is unreadable to most users and I don't imagine in its present state that anyone even gets past the lede. I also see the article has basically been written by you - which if you hold strong feelings against the living subject will be likely reflected in the content of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• There's this thing called WikiProject Thailand. I'm a member. Members contribute to important articles about Thailand. I've contributed to many articles about Thailand, not just this one - I'm committed to having good articles on important Thai topics. Members are committed to the typical Wikipedia standards: NPOV, citations, etc. Besides the overly long intro (I agree that it's too long), what exactly is unreadable? Patiwat (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree -- this article is very opinionated, and extremely difficult to read/understand for someone not well-versed in Thai politics. I've started working on a neutral re-write that will hopefully clear up some of the confusion and NPOV issues. At least at first, I think it best if we restructure the article, with particular emphasis on grouping similar sections in a more organized fashion. This should make it easier for future line-item edits. Obviously, this page has been the subject of a lot of past edit wars, so at least for right now, I don't plan to delete any content -- even if it's objectionable. I figure that can come with time. Instead, I'll focus on organization, grammar and sentence structure first. I have a lot of other things going on, so time is tight, but hopefully we can improve this page in relatively short order. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I've been editing for years, so please excuse any technical/formatting issues until I get the hang of it :) Also, what is WikiProject Thailand and how do I get involved? Jeditor17 (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

To follow up, here is a proposed outline for the page. Most of this should be straightforward, but let me know if there are questions about where a particular existing section could be grouped. Of course, we can have additional sub-heads under each section, but I wanted to make the page as easy as possible to navigate.

Introduction

• 1 Early Life and Family
• 2 Early Politics
  • 2.1 Entry into politics
  • 2.2 Member of Parliament
  • 2.3 Democrat Party leader
• 3 Rise to Premiership
• 4 Prime Minister of Thailand
  • 4.1 Domestic policy
  • 4.2 Foreign policy
  • 4.3 Political protests
  • 4.4 Scandals
• 5 Honours
• 6 See also
• 7 References
• 8 External links

As for additional sub-heads, domestic policy for instance could look like this:

• 4.1.1 Economics
• 4.1.2 Public health
• 4.1.3 Technology
• 4.1.4 Immigration
• 4.1.5 Public relations
• 4.1.6 Southern Provinces

Although I think the simpler, the better. Jeditor17 (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reorganized the article as much as possible in the manner I described above. Hopefully, this will make it easier to make necessary changes to improve the entry. Obviously, a lot still needs to be done in terms of content, length and sourcing, but at least similar content is now somewhat grouped together. This should make it easier to edit under specific subheds -- rather than trying to edit the whole article at once. Just for clarification, the only changes I made -- other than literally moving paragraphs around -- were a few minor edits to subheds. For instance, I deleted the subhed on the stock exchange, and left the content as the last line under economic stimulus. Given the line isn't sourced or given any context, I probably could have just deleted it. But I wanted the first edit to be free of any substantive changes to content so the various interests working on this page wouldn't find it too objectionable. Similarly, I just put the Rohingya refugees section under a new subhed for Myanmar in the foreign policy section, so similar content on foreign countries was given equal treatment. Given the size of the article, it was sometimes difficult to see whether individual sections were appropriately organized as I was editing. So my apologies if something seems out of order or miscategorized. Jeditor17 (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, one additional note on the order. For the scandals and criticims section, I at least started to group it by relative importance, rather than any sort of chronology. For instance, I placed greater significance on sections such as media censorship (an ongoing issue) and general corruption claims. I have to take another look at it though, because it was literally the last thing I did, and I wanted to save my changes before wifi went out (an unfortunately common occurence here.) Jeditor17 (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda comparison

In a September 2010 speech to the Council for Foreign Relations based in New York, Abhisit compared the UDD to Al-Qaeda. I think this comparison needs to be placed in the article, since it shows how he thinks of his opposition. Context:

He also defended himself against accusations of damaging media freedoms, saying that only outlets which "incite violence" had been closed. "I'm not sure whether you'd allow any special station for Al-Qaeda here," he told his mostly American audience.

(http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iFCUoD_iGBrFwchNJDxcmY6phsRg) Patiwat (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is the kind of characterization that has led to past edit wars. Nowhere in the article does Abhisit compare the UDD to Al-Qaeda. He specifically references media outlets that "incite violence" and never makes the broader claim that these outlets constitute the UDD in whole or in part. We need to be very careful attributing statements to the Prime Minister that he didn't actually make. Jeditor17 (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, while the Abhisit (and some editors of this article) insist that he's just enforcing the law and imprisoning those that incite violence and protecting the monarchy, nearly every international human rights agency of note (in the article unfairly called "her supporters") are saying that his targets include prisoners of conscience. So this dissonance between Abhisit's rhetoric and the reality of the situation should be clearly noted. Patiwat (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the censorship stuff and claims by international human rights groups are legit. That's why I haven't deleted them from the article. And I get what you're saying, but your point was that he compared the UDD to Al-Qaeda. That's just not accurate. Abhisit is making the argument that there are media outlets that incite violence in Thailand, and that they should be shut down, just like the United States would shut down an Al-Qaeda outlet. He never makes the link from that to the UDD, and we can't say that. Now, if you're trying to make the broader point that many of these outlets don't incite violence, and he is in the wrong, fine. Write it up and source it if you don't think it's already covered well enough under the censorship or lese majeste sections of the existing article. I'm not defending whether he's right or wrong. Frankly, as an editor, I don't care, as long as the information is presented neutrally and accurately. Jeditor17 (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thai-Vietnamese relations

Does the meeting between Abhisit and the Vietnamese Prime Minister really deserve a sub-section? The fact that there was an honor guard, the length of the discussions, the duration of the photo op, trade relations statistics, etc... these all seem like extremely trivial matters, not really worthy of inclusion in a biographical article about Abhisit. I mean, there's no mention about the substance of the relations, but rather details of the visit. In the absence of any matters of worth, I'd suggest just deleting the entire sub-section. Patiwat (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Also does this already very long article need lame PR copy like: "Hu Jintao, Chinese leader praised Abhisit’s ability in maintain strong relationship that has been established for 35 years. After the first official visit of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to China, President Hu declared that both of the of governments would support each other in diplomatic relation in the region and economics especially international trading and investment." Writing like this reads like something out of a vanity article. Matters of substance should be the focus, not diplomatic trivia. Macaroonie (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"Root to all problems"

Does this really belong under the "Corruption" section? It reads like a poorly written press release, doesn't really say anything of autobiographical worth, and focuses on Abhisit's rhetoric without actually saying what he did or what the results are. I don't think it belongs in this article. Patiwat (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Root to all problems Abhisit expands e-Customs to improve transparency and discretion of custom officials. “Corruption rests at the roots of Thailand's current political problems and public resentment about social and economic gaps within the country”. Corruption has always been a trigger to all sorts of conflicts in Thailand. "Even though we have systems and laws and organisations dedicated to countering corruption, it remains a long-standing problem." Still, corruption can be seen in every part of the society. Abhisit says that enforcing the laws more seriously does not work on its own, ensuring a sufficient salaries within the civil service to introduce gradual and persistent efforts of “morals and a sense of civic duty among staff, department heads and leaders” [78]

I agree with you, but as I said in a previous post, I'm first going to try to restructure the article before actually deleting content. That way maybe we can avoid some of the conflicts that have led to these edit wars. Jeditor17 (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Medical Malpractice Victim Protection Bill

Excuse me if I think that the following, which is copied verbatim from a newspaper article, does not belong in this article. Patiwat (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Medical Malpractice Victim Protection Bill Despite the opposing voices, Abhisit continues to support public health protection and refuses to drop the Medical Malpractice Victim Protection Bill on the on-going legislative process furthermore, set up a national-level committee to improve the draft before sending the final copy to the parliament. "We need to push ahead with the legislation. For some contentious points in this bill, all sides just need to talk and cooperate," Abhisit spoke after a meeting with the Network for People's Medical Protection representatives and the Federation of Medical Workers, where both sides seeks to have a national committee set-up to improve the bill.[79]

Again, I agree with you in theory. I do think the article needs a section on Abhisit's major policy stances/initiatives though. Much of the current article focuses solely on the various conflicts/scandals while he's been in office, without much detail on what he's actually done or plans to do. In other words, information about him as a prime minister, rather than just a politician during a conflict. Hopefully, we can trim or cut some of this, and roll it into a broader section. Jeditor17 (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with user Jeditor17, the article mainly focuses on conflicts and scandals. The article should focus on Abhisit as a prime minister.nogia123 (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, but to the extent that Abhisit's last two years as Prime Minister has been full of scandals and political conflict, the article should reflect that. And back to the point, I'm not sure why some empty rhetoric on a transient topic, straight from the newspapers, belongs in a biographical article. Patiwat (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• It goes without saying that the impact of Abhisit's leadership, positive and negative, should be described in the article. And that includes the meteoric rise in the Thai stock market, the healthy state of Thai exports, etc. But not some comments on a law that is still going through parliamentary process (at least not without describing what the law is about in the first place). Patiwat (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article needs to reflect important scandals, etc., but it can be counterproductive when all of the negative information -- true or not -- is posted at the exclusion of major policy matters and other biographical information. I'm not a fan of press releases and flowery prose either. But this article needs to include more than just the criticisms others have levied against Abhisit. We need to construct a neutral, factual account of his political history and actions, that looks at all sides of the issue. Jeditor17 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Cordial ties between Japan and Thailand

Does this article really need a section on Thai-Japanese relations if the following is all there is to say? Patiwat (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Cordial ties between Japan and Thailand Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada affirms strong ties between Japan and Thailand, showing that he still has confidence in the Thai economy. The meeting covers the exchange of ideas on different matters, relationships in trade and the investment of the two countries. forward.[96]

Are you asking me a rhetorical question? But if you are waiting for an answer. The answer is yes, "Cordial ties between Japan and Thailand" should be included into the Foreign Relations section as the article implies the role of Abhisit as the prime minister to build trust between countries and Thailand. nogia123 (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree, for the same reasons I don't think that we need a section on Vietnam. Abhisit has visited numerous countries to build trust - without any concrete outcomes to those affirmations and discussions, e.g., a trade agreement or a treaty, I don't think they need to be mentioned in the article. Patiwat (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly agree, without any concrete outcomes, statements of trust and confidence are meaningless. Macaroonie (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Rohingya refugees in the Myanmar section?

I don't think the stuff on the Rohingya refugee scandal belongs in the Foreign Relations - Myanmar section. Because Myanmar really didn't have anything to do with it, other than being the source of the refugees. Myanmar never really had any say in the whole matter, and it really didn't impact relations with Myanmar. I think the more appropriate categorization would be Human Rights, and it belongs in the section 4.4 (Scandals and criticisms). Patiwat (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. I made the change. (Well, except for adding an additional human rights heading, which we could discuss. For now, I just moved it under scandals.) Jeditor17 (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Introduction re-write

I've made the first substantive changes to the introduction, although I still have only added and moved content, and not deleted anything. Most of the changes should be self-explanatory, such as adding education history and a more detailed description of how Abhisit became Prime Minister. I also moved much of the information on the various back-and-forth between Abhisit and Thaksin to the appropriate subhed. This goes back to the point yesterday, but basically, this information is too detailed and cumbersome for someone new to Thai politics. (It was even confusing for me at times.) It can be much better handled -- and given proper context to hopefully avoid future edit wars -- if moved below. I haven't worked on the last paragraph of the intro, but that's where I will try to summarize any relavent information -- good and bad -- that needs to be included in the introduction, and can't be handled in a subsection (or separate article for that matter -- as should be the case for some of the longer sections further down Abhisit's entry.) Also, the Thaksin section will obviously have to be re-worked now that I moved some of the intro content into it. Hopefully I'll get to that today as well. Jeditor17 (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think that much of the second paragraph really belongs. So what if he's one of the youngest prime ministers - it's trivia? And I see no need to state the age when he first became an MP, and then in the next paragraph stating the year when he first became MP. Also, some details in paragraph 3, like the difference in timing between his parliamentary election to PM and the King's endorsement as PM, is really irrelevant. Also, Chaovarat Chanweerakul is a nobody, a mere caretaker who doesn't need to be mentioned. Lastly, please note that Abhisit has been PM for less than 2 years, but was Democrat Party Leader for 3. Arguably, his actions as Democrat Party Leader were just as important as his actions as PM. So I'd argue for putting back some summarized information about his role as Party Leader. Patiwat (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with the second paragraph. As it is similar to what Barack Obama and David Cameron have on their top section of their webpage. So if it is perfectly fine on theirs, I think it should be fine here too. nogia123 (talk)16:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Patiwat, given that any edits are apparently going to be the subject of much scrutiny and debate, could you please explain your recent changes? For instance, the sentence on Eton and Oxford is more difficult to read and includes a grammatical mistake. I believe an encyclopedic entry on the prime minister of Thailand should explain in the introduction -- at least in brief -- how and when he become prime minister. Other than removing the name Chaovarat Chanweerakul -- which I have no problem with (I only incuded it because other sentence structures sounded awkward) -- can you explain why the rest of the information was unneccessary? Third, this is an encyclopedia -- and ultimately a historical account of Abhisit's time in politics. As trivial as it may seem, assuming office at a young age is relavent both in the present and historically (which is why nearly every article I cited -- most of which you deleted -- referenced Abhisit's age when he took office.) Why did you think the sources you deleted were unnecessary? Finally, I don't understand the logic in saying he was Democrat Party leader longer than he was prime minister. Under a similar argument, Abhisit has only been in politics less than half his life. But I doubt anyone thinks the primary focus of the article should be on his childhood and college years. In any journalistic or encyclopedic sense, the fact he is prime minister is the most important part of the article. In fact, I bet we wouldn't be having this discussion if he were only Democrat Party leader. Moreover, I didn't delete any content on Abhisit as Democrat Party leader. (In fact, I've hardly deleted any content at all.) I have only reorganized existing work. Jeditor17 (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked your point about the difference between being endorsed by the king and voted by parliament. It's important as a point of clarification. Different countries obviously have different systems, and for someone who doesn't know the Thai system, it doesn't make sense to read a source saying Abhisit was elected PM on 15 December, when the Wiki page says he became prime minister on 17 December. Yes, it's only a procedural matter. But in this case, it's an edit intended to avoid unnecessary confusion -- or someone editing the page in the future to say he took office on 15 December (per a lot of non-Thai sources, including articles cited on the Wiki page.) I don't love it either. But there's more justification for leaving it in than taking it out. Jeditor17 (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Patiwat, it appears someone has undone your recent changes, so I will go back to editing the version as it was before your edits. I have edited some of my previous comments, which are no longer relevant. In the future, if you have suggested revisions to the work I've done, could you please post a full explanation on the talk page so I know the reasons for all of the edits? Otherwise, I'll just end up redoing my work and neither of us will be happy :) Thank you! Jeditor17 (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Since the new editor who removed my edits didn't state any reasoning, I'll be adding them back selectively. Trust me, I know how it sucks to ahve someone delete your work without saying why. Repeating one of my points above, I really think that the introduction glosses over his years as Democrat Party leader, during which he did some political very impactful stuff that definitely brought him into public attention. It's really inexcusable in my opinion that all of it has been deleted. Patiwat (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree this article is really inadequate regarding his time as party leader (and when he was an MP.) I've been trying to do some research when I have time, but a lot of that is pretty tough to pull up. Are there specific things that were deleted? I know I didn't remove any content, unless I posted on here. As far as the intro was concerned, pretty sure I only moved stuff. As for the new stuff you added in those series of edits, it was removed before I had a time to look at it all, and I didn't feel like going through the hassle of looking at past revisions. Figured you would add it back if it was important. But yeah, having your work wiped out without explanation is a pain. Jeditor17 (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Needs additional references or sources for verification?

Somebody has put a "Needs additional references or sources for verification" note in the article. But I see no "citation needed" tags in the article. If parts of the article really need extra citations, please add "citation needed" tags as appropriate. Patiwat (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I also think that in an article tagged as needing more verification, we should be careful about deleting sources without an explanation in the edit history or on the talk page as to why they are unnecessary.Jeditor17 (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues tag - lead too long

I've finished the first rewrite of the introduction, focusing on removing the most blatant NPOV stuff, and generally trying to make it easier to read. I think it still has some issues. For instance, it includes the UDD's accusation that Abhisit is an illegitimate prime minister. I understand the arguments about the coup, but Abhisit was still elected by Parliament and endorsed by the King. The claim may be better described below in either the section about his rise to office, or on the political protests. Also, the intro still has a lot of detail on the protests, which is probably better suited for a subsection. I also question whether death toll and injuries belong in the introduction at all. Obviously they are important in a historical context when describing the issues Abhisit faced during his first year and a half in office. But I don't want to create the impression that he was complicit in or caused the deaths. Before removing any of this information though, I would really like some input from the Wikipedia community. This is obviously a highly sensitive area, and I'm trying to tread lightly.

With that all said, I propose we remove "lead too long" under the multiple issues tag. The lead may still have problems, but length-wise it's within acceptable guidelines. Thoughts? Jeditor17 (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: I didn't actually "remove" the NPOV stuff. I just moved it into appropriate subsections to be edited or put in proper context later. Jeditor17 (talk) 09:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

GT200 Scandal

I propose we remove this all together. It's a huge stretch to call it a "scandal," it has little to do with Abhisit, it's given undue weight in the article, and Wikipedia doesn't -- and shouldn't -- serve as a laundry list of examples of government waste. If it did, I can't imagine how long some of these articles would be :) Anyone disagree? Jeditor17 (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, I think it's safe to remove the "Unusual Wealth" section. It lacks any sort of context, or explanation why it's important. And it seems pretty trivial with respect to the rest of the article. The entry is way too long, so right now I'm focusing on sections we can trim or remove entirely, to make this whole thing more manageable. Jeditor17 (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that both section should be remove from the page. GT200 scandal has a very weak connection with Abhisit. The article only mention how he denfended the issue but fail to show any deeper connection with the GT200. Despite the accusation on Abhisits wealth, "Unusual Wealth" did not show any importance or why it should be in this article. Nogia123 (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• GT2000 wasn't a scandal? You apparently weren't reading any newspapers or newsweeklies in Thailand during that period, a period where the support of Abhisit and his Cabinet for the GT2000 was very big news. If you need more references, I'll add more references. Patiwat (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

My point wasn't about sources exactly. Rather, the content of the section was written as a "criticism" not as a "scandal." The quotes in favor of GT200 were humorous to be sure, but being made to look foolish, and being disgraced, are two different things in my opinion. If this truly was a "scandal" then it would need to be written differently. But the definition of scandal is less important than my other points: namely, this is tangential and given undue weight. Much like the argument I make in the discussion on including corruption under the lead, if we start including everything Abhisit does -- good and bad -- this article is going to grow to twice its already considerable length. If the issue is that important, it can have it's own article. But seriously, it was as long as the Rise to Premiership section, and contained only one direct reference to Abhisit. That's the definition of undue weight. Jeditor17 (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Political protests

Tackling the political protests section now. This is a sensitive subject, so I wanted to briefly explain my approach. First, when in doubt I'm just removing biased content -- particularly if it has nothing/little to do with Abhisit -- rather than trying to add context. For instance, the whole explanation of the military dispersing protestors during the 2009 protests was particularly offensive. The sources cited all said the military showed restraint. But the actual text focused exclusively on the fact that Human Rights Watch acknowledged some live rounds were fired at protestors. Rather than explain that Human Rights Watch actually praised the restraint of the military, and make a messy section even longer, I just opted to take the whole thing out. Similarly, the UDD's claim that dozens were killed (although there was no link to the Bangkok Post articles cited) was both a minority view and not supported by any of the sources I could actually pull up. I tried to use the Bangkok Post archives to find the articles as well, but they weren't available. I'm not going to take the time to explain every decision I make with respect to this section -- because I'll end up spending more time on the talk page than the Wiki article -- but if someone has a question or criticism with respect to this section, just say so, and we can talk through it. One last point: The protests are obviously important. But this section is way too long and is better handled in detail in Wiki articles specific to that topic. So in addition to editing for NPOV, I'm also generally just trying to cut the whole section down. In other words, my apologies if it seems like I'm editing more with an axe than a scalpel. Thanks! Jeditor17 (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sondhi assassination attempt

If users 129.78.32.22 or 69.181.249.92 would like to dicuss my removal of the Sondhi section, I would be happy to do it here. It's inaccurate to say I didn't explain the decision though. Re-posting my comments -- and the relavent discussion -- from above. I will leave the section up for now (even though it's a stretch, given the rules on biographies of living persons.) But absent any further argument for its inclusion, I will again remove it from the page. Here is a repost of the complete discussion:

Sondhi's son has accused Deputy Prime Minister and senior Democrat Party figure Sanan Kachornprasart of being behind the assassination attempt. Thaksin isn't so specific, but implies that the government is killing people who know too much. Meanwhile, Abhisit's foreign minister is claiming Thaksin is behind it. This matter can now be included in the article, Abhisit being Sanan and Kasit's boss, after all. Patiwat (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Gossip, name calling and unsubstaintiated conspiracy theories do not belong in an encyclepdia Ddave2425 (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)ddave2425

The new user dave is not expressing this well, but I agree that the assassination attempt is pretty tangential. All that connects these two topics are veiled implications from rival factions. The only thing that need be noted is if an official claimed that Vejjajiva was connected with this. If no one stated this accusation then removal of the information is a wise option. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 04:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC) None of the sources logged under the line relating to the assassination attempt include any reference to either of these accusations. God knows I've just read them all. Harlequin115 (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the section, per this discussion. There's nothing concrete here, as written it's only loosely connected to Abhisit, and posting unfounded and vague accusations on something this serious sets a bad precedent. Using quotes with phrases like "I have the impression" and "it is said that" -- with no additional supporting detail -- should be reason enough to delete the section. Same goes with the claim that Thaksin is behind it (as supported by the defamation suit he just filed against Newin in a case very similar to this.) Jeditor17 (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Any input would be appreciated. Jeditor17 (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion? What discussion? Some comments last year, another comment made months ago? Accusations of the government's involvement in the attempted assassination of a major political figure is not "name calling!" (especially when the accuser was the target of the assassination). It should at least be stated that the accusation was made, members of Abhisit's government denied it, and that a government investigation ended up nowhere. Patiwat (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad someone actually responded for a change. Half the time I felt like I was just writing to myself :) For the record, the name-calling argument was made by another editor. I reposted the entire discussion because the person who undid the change said I didn't explain the deletion. As to your point though, the fact that the person who made the claim was the supposed target of the assassination would make it less credible, not more. Same goes with the claims made by and against Thaksin. In both cases, we're talking about accusations by political opponents against one another, without proof. It's slanderous and specious, on both sides. This is the same rationale for why I don't think Newin's recent claim that Thaksin was behind his and Abhisit's attempted assassination warrants inclusion on Thaksin's page. If there's proof that either man was involved, or charges filed, or something, this is a different story. But right now the entire section is based on extremely flimsy quotes from people with an obvious axe to grind. It's shoddy journalism even to print a quote that says "it is said that" when making a case on something as serious as assassination. And that's before even getting to the argument about how it's only tangentially related to Abhisit. Biographies of living persons have high standards, and this doesn't come close to cutting it. Anyway, those are my two cents for now. Any other editors have an opinion on this? Jeditor17 (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Corruption

Someone removed all mentions of corruption scandals in Abhisit's Cabinet in the lead and added some note about his advocacy of "stronger anti-corruption measures." Yes, but other than some speeches has he actually enacted any anti-corruption measures? Not that know of. The lead should summarize the key points of the article, and the article shouldn't be focusing on rhetoric but the reality Abhisit's leadership. And the reality is in numerous cases of corruption in Abhisit's hand-picked Cabinet. Rather than some rather rhetoric without any tangible actions. Patiwat (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an incompetent government PR hack, like you mention in your next post :) But I am the one who removed the corruption scandals from the lead. The lead is meant to summarize the article in so far as the article is relavent to the subject and written according to NPOV rules. I would wager that any head of state in any country can be linked to corruption scandals if someone has a mind to do it. But in this case, the scandals are only tangentially related to Abhisit -- seemingly included for the sole purpose of discrediting him -- relatively uninteresting, especially to someone not well-versed on the intricacies of Thai politics, and not given any context as to why they are important. The information wasn't deleted. It was just moved out of the lead. I'm certainly willing to listen to compelling reasons why it should be included, but I haven't heard any. If we're going to include corruption scandals on people under Abhisit in the lead, then what's to stop editors from including all of the positive things his ministers have done? This will get way out of control. But like I said, I'm interested to hear the other side. This discussion board has been quiet for quite some time. Jeditor17 (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, to your other point, I'm also the one who added the line about his anti-corruption stance. Basically I was trying to succinctly summarize his major policy stances. I specifically stayed away from any determination -- positive or negative -- on the efficacy of his approach. Obviously, there are very different schools of thought on this. I only stated that was one of his major issues, which it was. A big part of Abhisit's ascension to Prime Minister was his image as a "clean" politician, in direct contrast with Thaksin. I'm not here to argue whether that's true or not. And I make no allusion in the Wikipedia article one way or the other. But his anti-corruption stance -- for better or for worse -- is certainly central to his position and platform. Like before, I'm interested to hear any opposing views on this. Jeditor17 (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've nothing against major policy stances, but after two years in power, the outcomes of those policies should also be noted. So I've modified that sentence in the header to say "Although he advocated for stronger anti-corruption measures, numerous members of his Cabinet were caught in corruption scandals," which takes both perspectives into consideration. For more detail, note the corruption metrics by the World Bank that BLS 123, a new editor whose only edits have been on this article, deleted without any comments or reasoning. Also note that Thaksin also came into power as a clean politician, and up until early this year, hadn't been convicted of a single case of corruption, but that doesn't mean that corruption accusations against him and his government were ever ignored in his biographical article. Patiwat (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Other than bouncing over to Thaksin's page a minute ago to check if the Newin stuff was added, I haven't really paid attention to it. But I do know it's a 'B' article and not a 'GA.' Per an editor's suggestion awhile ago, I've tried to use the Barack Obama article as a guide when I'm having trouble deciding whether a particular point is worth including. Obama is an extremely polarizing figure in the United States. But you wouldn't know it from the lead of his Wiki article. Heck, even Fidel Castro's biography on here doesn't have any criticisms of him in the lead. In those cases, they include basic information about how they came to the position, and their major stances. Everything else is dealt with in appropriate sections below, or in separate articles. As much as possible, I think this is the direction we need to head. Oh, and I don't get the reference to the World Bank edit by BLS 123. Can't remember it, or maybe I never saw it. Anyway, I'm not saying your changes are wrong or NPOV. I left them alone. I just thought I would let you know where I was coming from on the intro. Thanks Jeditor17 (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I had a feeling mentioning the Obama article was just going to confuse the discussion, but I opened that can of worms, so I'll explain how it applies to the recent changes to the introduction. Right now, the examples provided for why Abhisit was a notable figure during his time as opposition leader are not NPOV and given undue weight. Of the three, the boycott may have merit. But I have yet to see one source on how he is notable for requesting a royally-appointed PM (in fact, I tagged it as citation needed in the body of the article), the party was aqcuitted on the election fraud charges -- which isn't even mentioned in the lead, and connections to PAD are out of place, not tied directly to Abhisit, and not given any context whatsoever. To the Obama point, that article mentions two things that brought him to national prominence -- his speech at the convention, and his primary win over Hillary. The speech is notable in that he literally went from being an obscure politician to a national sensation overnight. The guy was a rockstar after that speech. There is just no comparison to Abhisit. As for his win over Hillary, again, this was a previously obscure guy who no one thought would win, beating the respected (well, in some circles), well-known and well-funded wife of a former president. Not to mention, Obama's first big win came in Iowa -- where a black man beat a white woman in a state that was more than 98% white. This was huge news -- and nothing in the laundry list of negative examples of Abhisit's party leadership comes close to this. A better comparison would have been if the Obama lead had said he came to national attention because of claims he wasn't born in the United States, or that he had ties to influence-peddler Tony Rezko. Obama critics would argue both of these examples brought him to national attention, and deserve mention in the lead. And it's true that both examples have received -- and still receive -- considerable news coverage. But to put them in the lead would be giving them undue weight. I'll leave it at that for now, although I have plenty more I could say on the issue. Patiwat, I'm leaving your changes alone because I hate edit wars. But after you read this, it would be good if you could find a way to modify the content. Other editors want to weigh in? Jeditor17 (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

One more quick point on the introduction changes, and then I'm taking a break. The date that Abhisit was endorsed by the King, and the fact that he was voted by parliament, is relavent and deserves inclusion. In the United States, they use one word: inaugurated, meaning to be sworn into public office. By comparison, a newspaper editorial board could "endorse" Abhisit as prime minister. As I mentioned in a previous post, the endorsement by the King and the vote by parliament are both relevant as a means to to avoid confusion (as widely evidenced by the sources cited in the article) as to the date Abhisit became PM. Like I said before, this isn't a big deal either way. But I still fail to see, Patiwat, why you have such a strong objection to this particular sentence. There seems to be more of a reason to include it than to remove it. Also, in point of fact, the inauguration of Barack Obama is linked to an entire supporting Wiki entry -- which happens to include a whole section on his oath of office as administered by Chief Justice John Roberts. Jeditor17 (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added a "citation needed" tag to the line about jailing prisoners of conscience. This is probably too generous, given the citation rules for BLPs. But I'm trying to avoid deletion where possible. I also don't want to turn into a crutch for people who are consistently posting positive or negative information on this page that lacks sufficient sourcing, or includes content that isn't supported by the citation. I'll do what I can when I have time, but hopefully another editor can take care of this one. Thanks. Jeditor17 (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Blatant POV

Very poorly written and POV. Why is this article turning into a press release by an incompetent Government House PR hack? Patiwat (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

PAD occasionally claimed that Abhisit’s premiership was from their protest. Leading to numerous demands from Abhisit as the PAD believed that the Democrat Party owes favor to the PAD, which was denied by the Democrat Party. As Abhisit’s sees it differently, believing that his priority is the people’s interest. Abhisit focuses mainly on the interest of the people and the lower class citizens shown through the “People’s Agenda” policy platform and that the government must be “honest and truly democratic government” without any conflict of interest.[136][137] Leading to PAD’s development of new political party “Thien Hang Dhama” which is later changed to “New Political Party” to drive their new “ideology”[138]. Claiming that Democrat party only protects their own interest and ineffectively solving the country’s problem[139].Democrat has now created a new challenge as both party’s political base overlap[140].

No, I am merely just trying to make this article as neutral as possible. Please give further explaination on how this section is biased? I do not understand why saying abhisit denies the demands of PAD is biased? or having a policy and living up to it is being biased? Whereas, many section in this article barely link to Abhisit. Please do make any suggestions to improve it, not just merely finding faults. nogia123 (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2010(UTC)

NPOV means multiple points of view, not just your own. You're a very new editor, and nearly all your edits are on Abhisit - it might benefit you to read up on Wikipedia policies. If you want to provide Abhisit's point of view, you also have to provide other opposing points of view. On the specific issue of PAD/Abhisit relations, the PAD said that Abhisit was their choice, Abhisit picked a senior PAD leader as a key Cabinet minister, and the PAD declined to compete with the Democrats in a key election a few months ago. And please, simply stating his stated goals like PR man doesn't really cut it after two years in power and the results of his actions are already evident. Any statement of his claimed policies must also be compared/contrasted with the reality of what actually happened. Patiwat (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand, will try to improve it. Hopefully, we can make this article neutral as much as possible.nogia123 (talk) 06:16, October 2010(UTC)

"Spy" controversy

I propose we either delete this section, or move it to Thaksin's page. Other than the fact that Abhisit's deputy said the event was staged, I don't see any connection at all. The whole "controversy" is about an alleged spy revealing Thaksin's flight plans, and then Thaksin requesting a pardon for the man. It has a lot more to do with him than Abhisit. If no one has any thoughts or objections, I'll just move it to Thaksin's page, because in general I don't like deleting content outright. But either way, I don't see any justification for leaving it on Abhisit's page. Jeditor17 (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it could be summarized under Thaksin's section on Abhisit's page and then linked to Thaksin's page. Even through there is not a strong link between Abhisit and the incident, but Suthep and Kasit is in the Abhisit government. Therefore, there should be atleast some information on this issue, however not on Foregin Relation section of the page. nogia123 (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Abhisit's Intro Image

Even though this picture is a traditional thai outfit. But it might send out wrong messages to foreigners despite the conflicts that is happening in Thailand between Politics and the military.Nogia123 04:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Just reverted to this image. I don't have much experience with photos on Wikipedia, but the argument that this was a low res photo seems pretty weak. It looks better than the photo that was posted in it's place. Also, the argument for using formal attire has never made sense. Abhisit only dresses like that on special occasions. It's not at all indicative of how people view him -- or the way he usually looks -- in his role as prime minister. Not to mention, I'm guessing very few people outside of Thailand would even recognize the formal wear. Unless there's a compelling reason to change this photo, I think we should leave well enough alone. Jeditor17 (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Intro

Just undid an edit to the intro that made four changes. The first two weren't huge deals, but it's still more accurate to talk about what happened to Abhisit's immediate predecessor than a vague sentence about the dissolution of governing coalitions, and describing the People's Agenda as populist would be fine if it were explained. The last two changes were more problematic. Including accusations of human rights abuses, without actual explanation or specific charges, looks on its face to be an attempt simply to discredit Abhisit. Literally almost every government in the world is accused of "human rights abuses," and vague generalities don't belong in a BLP, let alone the intro. Also, it is inaccurate to imply that Abhisit proposed a reconciliation plan as a result of a violent "military crackdown." The plan was meant to address years of political divisions, not one day. Not to mention, it's called a "reconciliation" plan because it takes into account both sides. If it were an "apology" plan, it might make more sense to point solely to the crackdown. Anyway, there are a lot of other supporting arguments on the dicussion board, so I'm not going to bother to rehash everything here. Jeditor17 (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me apologize in advance for what will turn out to be a lengthy post. Reverting the same edits over and over is getting old, especially when the users making the changes won't discuss the issues on the talk page. I am writing this in the hope that it is the last I will have to address the subject in any detail, until the time someone actually posts an opposing point of view on the talk page. I've already written extensively on issues related to the introduction, but given User:Patiwat and User:Macaroonie insist on repeatedly making the same changes, I will briefly sum up the arguments here. I am still waiting for either user to engage in the discussion on the talk page, rather than limit their interaction to short edit descriptions. But here -- again -- is an explanation of why I reverted Macaroonie's edits. (Btw, I'm the one who reverted the changes last night, but I forgot to log into my account.) First, the inclusion of both the King's endorsement and the vote by members of Parliament is quite simply to avoid confusion. Numerous media outlets incorrectly reported that Abhisit become PM on Dec. 15, which is when members of Parliament voted for him. More importantly, media outlets to this day criticize Abhisit for being appointed, rather than elected to his position. Macaroonie's argument that a vote by Parliament is the only way to become PM is spot on -- unfortunately many of the most widely respected publications in the world show a surprising ignorance of Parliamentary procedure. If we can't expect newspapers to understand the procedure, I don't know why we would expect the average Wikipedia reader to know any better. That said, let me again repeat that I have yet to hear an argument for taking the information out, other than the claim that people should already understand the system. If Wikipedia is meant to be educational, then it seems reasonable we should err on the side of too much information. Second, both users seem intent to remove ex-PM Somchai's name from the introduction. It is a point of fact that Abhisit could not be PM unless his predecessor stepped down or was removed. Granted, the court also banned Somchai and others from office, etc etc. But frankly, this is too much detail for the intro, and confusing for someone who doesn't follow Thai politics. On the other hand, it's pretty easy to understand that if you want someone's job, that person has to go before you get it. This may be simplistic, but we're talking about an introduction here. It is worth pointing out that -- per Macaroonie's suggestion -- I removed reference to the court dissolving the governing coalition (even though the dissolution was a direct result of their decision.) Third, both users seem intent on saying "violent crackdown" rather than "violent clashes," probably because it sounds more incendiary, and puts the blame solely on the government (which seems to be their intent.) Unfortunately, it's factually incorrect. The sentence says Abhisit promoted a reconciliation plan in response to the violent clashes between the military and protestors in 2009 and 2010. His plan was not a response to the "crackdown" they refer to. Sure, May 19 is definitely a part of the bigger picture. But the plan was about all of the political and social violence and instability that took place in 2009 and 2010 (and really, before that too.) As I've said before, this was not an "apology plan" that was concerned only with the May 19 military "crackdown" on protestors. Fourth, and finally, both users have been trying to tie Abhisit to human rights abuses in the introduction. This latest attempt was unsourced, but I have reverted previous, "sourced" changes because the content hasn't matched the source, the claims are frequently misleading, the links to Abhisit are tenuous at best, and the issue is given undue weight. "Human rights" is a loaded term. Arguably U.S. President Obama is complicit in human rights abuses after defending the recent changes in airport screening measures, but you won't see that claim show up in his Wikipedia introduction. Why not? Because it's ridiculous. Neither Obama or Abhisit are Pol Pot. But the vague way users write about human rights abuses sometimes makes it hard to distinguish. The introduction says he has backed censorship and supported lese majeste cases (which is the primary basis of the claim of human rights abuses.) The introduction does not attempt to argue for or against censorship or strict lese majeste laws. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. But users Patiwat and Macaroonie -- by adding the claim of human rights abuses (and I repeat, this is only a claim, which goes to my point about undue weight) -- are taking a side in a debate that has no place in the introduction. Now, if either user would like to comment on any of these points, I would gladly welcome their input. Jeditor17 (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and per the suggestions of both users, I added a short explanation of the "People's Agenda" -- one that is more descriptive than their preferred (and inaccurate) label of populist. Thaksin's rhetoric is populist, because he in effect advocates for a people's revolution against the ruling "elite." Given that critics allege Abhisit is part of this so-called elite, it is nonsensical to argue he is encouraging people to rise up against himself. Policies that benefit poor or under-educated members of society or not populist in and of themselves. But I agree with both users that the term People's Agenda needed some explanation. Jeditor17 (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights

I'm quite astounded that ALL references to Abhisit's human rights record have been removed from the article. Surely the PR hacks that regularly cruise the article have at least something good to say about his rhetoric? It's sad how far back into the article history I'll have to dig to retrieve some of this stuff. Patiwat (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 Floods

Adding relevant information on the 2010 floods. Note that articles on GW Bush and Obama contain 1-3 paragraphs each on Katrina and the BP spill. Patiwat (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Premiership of Abhisit Vejjajiva Separate article

YES Dunno who suggested it when, but it's a darn good idea. BTW, he was born and raised in England: his native language is English! --Pawyilee (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with splitting the article. As for your second point, l can't say for sure, but I'm guessing he has two "native languages" -- Thai and English. If he was raised in England to Thai-speaking parents, he probably learned them at the same time. That's just a guess though. I don't have a source. Also, does anyone know when he actually came to Thailand? I understand he was born in England, but before attending Eton, did he live in England, or did his parents just happen to be in the country when he was born? I don't see much written about his early childhood. Jeditor17 (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Early life and family

20 December 2008 version said

After studying at Chulalongkorn University’s Demonstration School, he transferred to Scaitcliffe School

— quote

That was unreferenced so I've left it out, added back his teaching post in Bangkok, and asked for help at Talk:Bishopsgate School#Notable graduates. As for He is fluent in both his mother tongue and the English language, I heard him on BBC today and yes, he's fluent in English, but no, it's not his mother tongue. What about blind-linking the lede "born in England" to "born in [[Thais in the United Kingdom|England]]" which says:

Besides private tutoring, there are many places across the country specialising in teaching of the Thai language, Wat Buddhapadipa, the Bournemouth Thai School, the Brasshouse Language Centre and the School of Oriental and African Studies all help the young Thai immigrants in the UK to keep their mother tongue whilst still encouraging the learning of English.

— quote

I put his ancestors in order, added their Thai spellings, but left remarks on the meanings above, under "The apple didn't fall far from the tree." I added "known throughout Thailand as CP" to Charoen Pokphand Group without a reference, but if you're in Thailand, you'll see those initials in just about every market. Won't hurt to delete it. --Pawyilee (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues tag

At this point, I propose we remove the tags. The article isn't anywhere near perfect, but I think a lot of the blatant original research, neutrality and verification problems have been addressed. The tags aren't meant to be a badge of shame and they have been up since September 2010. At the very least, the tags can be taken down, the entire article can be reviewed again, and if applicable, new tags can be applied. Jeditor17 (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that tantamount to saying the article needs splitting? Could we start a list of proposed titles?

1. Premiership of Abhisit Vejjajiva
2. 2006 elections expansion?
3. 2006 Thailand coup
4. Thai general election, 2007
5. 2008 Thai political crisis
6. April 2009 Thai political unrest
7. People’s Agenda
8. 2010 Thai floods
9. 2010 Thai political protests
10. 2011 Thai political protests
11. Rohingya refugees
12. Cambodian–Thai border stand-off
13. ?

--Pawyilee (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What does BMA/BTS have to do with Abhisit?

The article claims that "Under the guidance of Abhisit's administration, the BTS sky train, which is a rail-based mass transit system in Bangkok, launched a new 2.2-kilometre extension linking the Saphan Taksin Bridge." Abhisit has no authority over the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, which is in charge of the BTS. The BMA governor was elected, not appointed by Abhisit. Abhisit can't fire or replace the governor. And besides, the Taksin extension was NOT initiated under the Abhisit government. The plans have been place years before Abhisit. ParkKimLim (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Mark of "Priviledge"

This guy's given name is MARK! The Thai press often refers to him by its Thai transliteration, "มาร์ค" enclosed in quotation marks, and is consequently is his nickname for political purposes. Why has mention of this been removed from the article and the only reference to his given name buried in footnote 20? While his given name is spelled in roman letters M-A-R-K, the Thai transliteration becomes his political nickname, which should be given prominence in any article about any Southeast Asian political figure, Too, like I said before, if his Thai personal name is not preceded with some sort of honorific, it changes from a Proper noun to a common noun meaning "privilege," which has rather important consequences in Thailand's political atmosphere. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I included the birth name modelled on the Bill Clinton article. I know the comparison is flawed, because Clinton's last name was changed upon the matrriage of his mother while Abhisit's name was changed upon his return to Thailand. Still I think, it is relevant what his birth certificate says, and that is "Mark". -- RJFF (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We have a conflict in naming practices here, as well as in pronunciation. The "find my past" link goes to just an abstract of Mark's Northumberland birth record, and follows the Western practice of Last name, First name, Middle initial, so just reads "VEJJAJIVA Mark A." VIEW link only works for members of the site, but it's a safe bet "A." is for "Abhisit." He would not have had to change his name, just which one he uses. I've done the same as my first name, like his, cannot be pronounced properly in Thai, while my middle name, Lee, is quite common. I think it significant to include his first name and to note that when the Press uses it as a nickname, they always enclose it in quotation marks. Thai transliteration marks /r/ as silent and the final /k/ changes automatically into a glottal stop, but that may be more information than is needed. --Pawyilee (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

.

Bkk john2

Bkk john2 did a good job cleaning up the article, but the Maldives story was not bogus: Abhisit admits to Maldives trip amid Thailand flood crisis --Pawyilee (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

This is interesting. The references to both the award of the Palace Name to Dr. Long and its meaning in English proffered to a Bangkok Post reporter have been blocked. What to do about it goes above my pay grade.--Pawyilee (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Images, again

Before adding OR deleting images, please read Thailand's public-domain exemptions. --Pawyilee (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Murder charge

• Abhisit, Suthep charged with murder over 2010 crackdown
• update
• political ploy?

Leader of the Opposition

The article contains nothing about Abhisit as leader of the opposition. Perhaps this article suggests a place to start.

PM was called a “stupid bitch” by the leader of the opposition

[F]emale Democrat Party MPs defended in parliament Mr. Abhisit’s ee-ngo remark that it was “not vulgar” and “not an insult” as the meaning of such an expression “depends on the context.”

Wiktionary link for Thai ee defines the term translated as "bitch" as a "derogatory prefix for certain terms pertaining to women or girls, or certain animals or farm machinery." Thai: โง่ (th) (ngôh) is included in the Wiktionary link for stupid under Translations show "lacking in intelligence".

I'm not suggesting the name-calling be included, but the “stupid bitch” article contains — and also links to — numerous salient issues related to leadership on both sides of the aisle, that do not necessarily call anyone “stupid.” —Pawyilee (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Name

"born Mark Abhisit Vejjajiva." I want to see a source that "Mark" was ever part of his legal name. Othwerwise I'll delete it. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abhisit Vejjajiva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071010025207/http://bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=113080 to http://bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=113080

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abhisit Vejjajiva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110422/ts_nm/us_thailand_cambodia_fighting

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/SE%2BAsia/Story/STIStory_314681.html?vgnmr=1

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Abhisit Vejjajiva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718042819/http://whoswho-thailand.com/listings/politician/abhisit-vejjajiva.html to http://www.whoswho-thailand.com/listings/politician/abhisit-vejjajiva.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061119161053/http://www.thaiairways.com/Royal_Orchid_Holidays/Roh_travel_feature/rohweekly-153tharticle-1.htm to http://www.thaiairways.com/Royal_Orchid_Holidays/Roh_travel_feature/rohweekly-153tharticle-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726145409/http://www.royin.go.th/upload/61/FileUpload/50_5507.pdf to http://www.royin.go.th/upload/61/FileUpload/50_5507.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706175021/http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/intl-tobacco/2001q1/000423.html to http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/intl-tobacco/2001q1/000423.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311203845/http://www.cabinet.thaigov.go.th/eng/cab_47.htm to http://www.cabinet.thaigov.go.th/eng/cab_47.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208184413/http://theleftrightdebate.com/2007/05/30/thai-tribunal-democrat-party-cleared-of-electoral-violations-nasdaq/ to http://theleftrightdebate.com/2007/05/30/thai-tribunal-democrat-party-cleared-of-electoral-violations-nasdaq/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C1655420%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abhisit Vejjajiva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331070320/http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2003/04/21/banyat-emerges-new-democrat-leader to http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2003/04/21/banyat-emerges-new-democrat-leader
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227063605/http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/world/19087-thousands-of-thaksin-supporters-rally-against-thai-government to http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/world/19087-thousands-of-thaksin-supporters-rally-against-thai-government
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616214141/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/read.php?newsid=30092065&keyword=Abhisit to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/read.php?newsid=30092065&keyword=Abhisit

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116025013/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30007710 to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30007710

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abhisit Vejjajiva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813175732/http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/07/09/politics/politics_30039961.php to http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/07/09/politics/politics_30039961.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223235544/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30083655 to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30083655
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312004643/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2005/10/07/business/index.php?news=business_18809586.html to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2005/10/07/business/index.php?news=business_18809586.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Abhisit Vejjajiva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219150637/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/16/politics/politics_30091072.php to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/16/politics/politics_30091072.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203085820/http://nationmultimedia.com/2005/05/01/opinion/data/opinion_17221939.html to http://nationmultimedia.com/2005/05/01/opinion/data/opinion_17221939.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115032513/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/06/27/headlines/headlines_30007427.php to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/06/27/headlines/headlines_30007427.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116024853/http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/02/02/politics/politics_30025769.php to http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/02/02/politics/politics_30025769.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224072546/http://nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30027611 to http://nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30027611
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208183827/http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/04/30/headlines/headlines_30002879.php to http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/04/30/headlines/headlines_30002879.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929130841/http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/04/29/headlines/headlines_30002859.php to http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/04/29/headlines/headlines_30002859.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060707021427/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/05/30/politics/politics_30005236.php to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/05/30/politics/politics_30005236.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930010326/http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/08/07/headlines/headlines_30010532.php to http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/08/07/headlines/headlines_30010532.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218033624/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/07/politics/politics_30090358.php to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/07/politics/politics_30090358.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212032925/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/10/politics/politics_30090618.php to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/10/politics/politics_30090618.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211101153/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/08/politics/politics_30090418.php to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/08/politics/politics_30090418.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110226114346/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/02/23/national/Govt-to-extend-subsidies-until-July-30149307.html to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/02/23/national/Govt-to-extend-subsidies-until-July-30149307.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090316095545/http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/13/politics/politics_30097841.php to http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/13/politics/politics_30097841.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106091539/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/12/politics/politics_30097786.php to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/12/politics/politics_30097786.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090316100552/http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/13/politics/politics_30097878.php to http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/13/politics/politics_30097878.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

--- pronunciation

The pronunciation voice seems to have a strong english accent. Maybe a Thai people can record it again. It's accurate but you can hear the english accent ...