Talk:Lèse-majesté in Thailand

NPOV (May 2014)

The page is full of biased statements and assertions that cannot be proven, one of which is shown below. These need to be edited to a higher standard.

``When the Thai King is unfairly criticized, most Thais feel like their own parent is being attacked and cannot accept it – much in the same way that Thais do not accept anyone demeaning the Buddha or even statues that represent him.

Satire and irony

I restored satire from Not The Nation left behind when this article was budded off, to a new section, Satirical reaction. Satire and irony, properly sourced and in proper context, belong in articles on controversial subjects. As to "proper context," I also linked the satirical articles in Individual cases at conclusion of sentence on Harry Nicolaides<ref name="NTN Joe"/> = 58a; first mention of Joe Gordon = 58b. This makes the new section's original block quote <ref name="NTN Joe"> = 58c. Adding to individual case "Uncle SMS" <ref name="NTN SMS"/> makes it = 78a] and satirical response <ref name= "NTN SMS"> = 78b. Permission to use the block quote stands alone at [79]. Any editor who considers that a problem can simply search and delete NTN refs from individual cases. As for irony, I'll leave it here in Incarceration of Daniel Chong vs. red link for Incarceration of Joe Gordon. --Pawyilee (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is it here at all though? I know it is satire but I doubt that is the reason they got basic facts wrong (Corby was arrested for smuggling cannabis not heroin, isn't blonde, press coverage on her guilt is mixed, the arrest/gaoling of the Australian in Thailand was widely reported). The context isn't proper because it gets the basic underlying context wrong. I really think there needs to be more consideration of deleting the passage. I'm all for a section on criticism of the laws or reporting on the problems of foreigners in Thailand in this regard but this particular piece is clumbsily written and adds nothing to the article. Tigerman2005 (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Cut it to just a few lines and leave the links, which I just archived using WebCite®. I'd do it myself, but any summary by me would be clumb-silly written. --Pawyilee (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

How about this version?

[moved to article

--Pawyilee (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Clumb-silly shortening moved to article space. --Pawyilee (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah Kong, a.k.a. "Uncle SMS"

This link might be of use to this article, or the article about the individual, http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/293489/sympathy-for-ampon-has-many-roots. --No parking here (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is block quote no longer applicable?

The irony is that the red shirts are crying out against Section 112, yet they don't demonstrate to demand that the Pheu Thai-led government lead the effort to reform or abolish the lese majeste law.
The government they elected is the government that devoutly defends the law that sent Ah Kong to prison.

(--add new cases above block quote, for as long as it remains applicable --) --Pawyilee (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

CACHING FAILED

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/293037/tools-fools The caching attempt failed for the following reason: No files could be downloaded for the given URL. This is likely because a) The URL is incorrect, b) The site in question refuses connections by crawling robots, [articles over 60 days olde require a subscription] or c) The site in question is inaccessible from the WebCite network

--Pawyilee (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Academic search

DuckDuckGo has a "!Bang command" best explained by the site, itself. "!Academic Lèse majesté in Thailand" returned these:

• Kings in the Age of Nations: The Paradox of Lèse-Majesté as Political Crime in Thailand (Citations: 4)

David Streckfuss Journal: Comparative Studies in Society and History - COMP STUD SOC HIST , vol. 37, no. 03, 1995 DOI: 10.1017/S0010417500019769

• Sacred Nationalism: The Thai Monarchy and Primordial Nation Construction. Jack Fong. A sociological reading of Thailand's monarchistic legacy is employed to identify cultural themes and practices of nation construction. It is demonstrated how, after the end of absolute monarchy in 1932, royalist networks of Thailand's first constitutional king, Bhumibol Adulyadej, reinforced the staying power of his rule and the institution of constitutional monarchy with primordial themes. The themes functioned to sacralise the nation as rooted in a glorious past as well as legitimise the king's place and continued relevance in Thai politics. Within this context, primordial simulacra derived from the Siamese empire, Buddhism and rekindled royal ceremonies from antiquity were reassembled for nationalistic purposes. As a result, the sacralising of the Thai nation has rendered the king a sacred nationalist, a type of nationalist that synchronises the real and ethereal to construct nation, a process that elevated the country's traditional authority system to respond to the undesirable consequences of twentieth century modernisation. Journal: Journal of Contemporary Asia - J CONTEMP ASIA , vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 673-696, 2009. DOI: 10.1080/00472330903077030

--Pawyilee (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Trivia?

Trivial?

Analysis: Thailand’s lese majeste law erodes the judiciary

This would add to the article, but I'm too tired write now to try to incorporate it. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Analysis: Thailand’s lese majeste law erodes the judiciary

Lech Tomasz Kisielwicz

The article gives the date of the Lech Tomasz Kisielwicz case as 2007, but it appears it was actually 1995 (http://www.liberation.fr/monde/1995/01/07/lech-tomasz-kisielewicz_120856 (FR)).

The citation also does not name Lech anywhere. And from other sources, the claim sounds contradicting, as they mention it was a derogatory statement rather than switching of reading lights. ( http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=26936 )

Also the citation given is behind a paywall, but judging by the headline it may not be relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.152.57 (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Number of cases filed by police, 2007-2017

@Seligne: Your information is useful for the article, but I think it should be formatted to a floating table with the paragraph "Between the May 2014 coup and the beginning of October 2017, ..." put in Post-2014 coup section. --Horus (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Good input. Are you proposing to do it? If so, bravo! Seligne (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lèse majesté in Thailand. 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/20070930010354/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/03/headlines/headlines_30030967.php to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/03/headlines/headlines_30030967.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517092436/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Amnesty-International-names-Thailands-first-prison-30155366.html to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Amnesty-International-names-Thailands-first-prison-30155366.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lèse majesté in Thailand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Goldsztajn (talk · contribs) 05:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Parking this here for the review. --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are frequent errors of grammar throughout the article. The article is in need of thorough copy-editing. For example, the first paragraph of the lede: Lèse majesté[a] in Thailand is criminalized by Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code. It is illegal to defame, insult, or threaten the king, queen, heir-apparent, heir-presumptive, or regent. Modern Thai lèse-majesté law has been on the statute books since 1908; "insult" was criminalized and lèse majesté was made a crime against national security in 1957. The punishment, last strengthened in 1976, making Thailand the only constitutional monarchy to do so since World War II, is three to fifteen years' imprisonment per count and has been described as the "world's harshest lèse majesté law"[1] and "possibly the strictest criminal-defamation law anywhere".[2] According to social scientist Michael Connors, its enforcement "has been in the interest of the palace." Could be better rendered as: Lèse majesté[a] in Thailand refers to actions, criminalized in law, which defame, insult, or threaten the country's king, queen, heir-apparent, heir-presumptive, or regent. Thailand's modern law of lèse-majesté has existed since 1908. Thailand is the only constitutional monarchy since World War II to have strengthened laws prohibiting defamation of the crown, with penalties of three to 15 years imprisonment per offence under Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code. The country is considered to have the "strictest criminal-defamation law anywhere."
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article is well supported, but many of the references are incomplete. I stopped counting at 20 incomplete references (no date, no title, link only, text only in Thai).
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Generally good, the US Embassy statement on Joe Gordon via Facebook, the use of a graphic via Flikr and Fox News are not ideal sourcing, but given the extent of all teh other sourcing this small amount is acceptable.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig detects problems, some of this is due to direct quotes from the law, however there are some clear close paraphrasing issues. These sentences: "Lèse majesté remains the most potent political charge in Thailand. The charges went up in times of political upheaval" are essentially copied from in the article "Ramification and Re-Sacralization of the Lese Majesty Law in Thailand" by Streckfuss and Preechasilpakul: "Lese majesty as a criminal charge, as the most potent political charge in Thailand, has remained not only undiminished, but, as a few months ago indicate, shows signs of renewed vitality. While in many other ways Thailand seems to have become democratic, the lese majesty law exerts a kind of supra-natural hold on society. The frequency of the charge flares up in times of political upheaval." Article: "Lèse-majesté complaints can be filed by any person against anyone else, and they must always be formally investigated." BBC: "Lese-majeste complaints can be filed by anyone, against anyone, and they must always be formally investigated by the police."
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I think there is a problem with the structure of the article - my impression is that it should deal with history first, then examine the law in its contemporary form and finally deal with the contentious nature (opposition, defence to the law). At present the list of notable cases seems very indiscriminate... especially as those ordered to be executed in the 1960s are not on the list, but someone who turned the light off above a princess during a flight is.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Notable cases list – far too indiscriminate, needs clear criteria for inclusion.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	While not necessary for GA status, alt-text should be added for accessibility.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The execution order illustrated in the lead - is it confirmed the executions were carried out? If so, this should be incorporated into the caption.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a very important article and no doubt given the present situation in Thailand will draw a lot of attention, so efforts to get this to GA status are very welcome. However, three stand out problems lead to automatic failure: extensive copy-editing needed, completion of full referencing, removal of material which is close paraphrasing. Furthermore, the structure of the article could be improved and the notable cases list needs clear criteria for inclusion.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: Thank you for assessing this article after a long wait. However, may I take a time to fix the issues you mention? Or do you think I have to nominate it again (after the fix.)? --Horus (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Horus I think it's best to renominate once it has been reworked; happy to look over it again before renomination, just ping me.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prelim check

@Goldsztajn: If you are available, please give a prelim check before I re-nominate the article for GA. Thank you. --Horus (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Horus - I still see quite a few references that are incomplete eg missing publication date or publication title or translation of title ... ref numbers 27,30(should be Financial Times, not FT),32,34,73-79,86,90,93,95..all have problems. there's possibly more. There's still a lot of grammar mistakes, it really needs a thorough copy edit. You might want to consider making a request at the copy editors guild page. I could give it a try, but I'll not be able to do anything for a couple of weeks.--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Thailand Ministry of Information and Communication Technology 2014 Censorship Image.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Wanchalerm Save วันเฉลิม.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)