Talk:South Thailand insurgency

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge?[edit]

Should this article merge with Pattani separatism? __earth 10:21, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, the two are duplicate articles. I have added the template to the top of the articles. andy 11:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added relevant material from Pattani separatism to this article. I don't think the first half of Pattani separatism is directly relevant to the topic - it really belongs in History of Pattani. My suggestion is that Pattani separatism should now be abolished. Adam 11:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However Pattani separatism is the older article, and the one which is actually linked by other articles. While I agree that Pattani separatism needed some review (and this looks like an improved version of it), IMHO the right way to do is merge into Pattani separatism, as otherwise the editing history would look like you were the original creator of the article. andy 11:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the view of other editors I am happy either way. If History of Pattani doesn't exist I think it should be created and the first part of Pattani separatism shifted into it. Adam 11:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's the article Pattani kingdom, which already covers the history of Pattani until it was firmly incorporated into Siam. andy 16:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I would delete much of the first part of Pattani separatism. Adam 00:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article by that name, only a redirect. No merge, thanks. //Big Adamsky 03:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign fighters[edit]

Info concerning foreign fighters should be incorporated from here. freestylefrappe 19:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Organizations roles and Superpower stances[edit]

The roles of superpower countries should be examined together with their changing in roles according to time. International Organisations comment and involvement should be provided in the article. Putting concerns of neighbouring countries in the article would be useful.

Provinces involved in current events[edit]

The article states there are three provinces involved, and trouble is spilling into others, but the current view amongst the media seems to be that there are actually 4 involved (Songkla, Pattani, Narathiwat and Yala). I've been following Bangkok Post, Nation, ThaiDay for Thai news of interest internationally and putting it up on WikiNews. Obviously I'll be linking here, I don't know if there are any plans to incorporate more detail on recent events, but it is generating about one story a week. Brianmc 12:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How Muslim is Songkhla? I've only been through it on the train, but I understood it is only partly Muslim. Adam 12:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it makes news almost everyday. Feel free to correct and update the information, which seems stuck in the Tak Bai incident!--Huaiwei 12:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm concentrating on the current event side of it, I'll point you to my work-in-progress Infobox over on Wikinews. This links to the WN articles on the subject. From there you'll find lots of links to news on the troubles. I'm not much of a Wikipedian, and from the look of things there are people with more knowledge than me who could update the article. Brianmc 14:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Script?[edit]

Could someone include names in Thai script in parentheses where applicable? The Jade Knight 07:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be applicable? This is an English-language encyclopaedia. Adam 10:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look at other articles on Thailand. Thai script should be shown for reference and for disambiguation

Censoring of insurgency websites by Thai government[edit]

Some of the external links point to sites run by people supporting the insurgency. These websites have been censored for Thailand internet users by the Thai government. Somebody put a short note saying exactly that, but their edits were reverted by user 203.90.25.134. Why this happened is completely beyond me. Patiwat 10:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It now appears that none of the external links are objectionable to the Thai government. However a link that was there earlier for PULO has been deleted entirely, and I can't check if it works or not because of where I'm located. Wisekwai 15:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current insurgency/Current developments[edit]

I would think the Current insurgency section could chronicle the major events that have been going on since 2001. And I can see why the Tak Bai incident would need its own section (heck, it could be its own page, with some extra work on it). But the Current developments section is kind of tacked on to the end of it all. It seems repetitive to have two sections called "Current" and "Current". I wonder if the latter section be more like a timeline can be called such? Wisekwai 17:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Monarchy and the Insurgency[edit]

An anonymous editor implied that the King might be involved in the insurgency. It seemed pretty absurd at the time, but I just stumbled across this peer reviewed paper: http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(ewipigahvbki5w55p1ryvf45)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,3,8;journal,2,22;linkingpublicationresults,1:107513,1 The author is not Thai, and a good thing, because if he were, he would be slammed for lese-majesty. Here's a quote from the abstract: "Early in his premiership, Thaksin decided that the South was controlled by forces of “network monarchy” loyal to the palace and to former prime minister Prem Tinsulanond. Thaksin sought to reorganize political and security arrangements in the deep South in order to gain personal control of the area, but in the process he upset a carefully negotiated social contract that had ensured relative peace for two decades. As the violence increased, royal displeasure — articulated mainly by members of the Privy Council — forced Thaksin to make certain concessions, notably the creation of a National Reconciliation Commission to propose solutions for the growing crisis. Network monarchy had struck back, albeit from a position of weakness." Of course, the NRC also came into conflict with Prem and the "network monarchy", but that happened after the paper was written. And the killings did not let up during the 60th Anniversary Celebrations. Could somebody who can read the full paper please note whether some of these insights should be included in the article? Patiwat 06:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be unable to access the paper. __earth (Talk) 10:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duncan McCargo, "Thaksin and the resurgence of violence in the Thai South: Network monarchy strikes back?", Critical Asian Studies, Volume 38, Number 1, March 2006, pp. 39-71(33), Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group. Abstract also available at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/rcra/2006/00000038/00000001/art00003;jsessionid=88fkqsmih9rnk.alice and http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(wi5vv43100btvuvbitb4q445)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=searcharticlesresults,2,6;

Should individual incidents be noted any more?[edit]

The editors should give some thought about whether this article really should include the details of every single violent incident occuring in the South. This might have been insightful in 2004-5, when incidents were scattered. But now we've got killings and bombings on occuring on a daily basis. The article is getting a bit tiresome, with all these mentions of individual incidents. Patiwat 13:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a threshhold issue. If the news is big enough to hit the international press, for example the Yahoo News or Google News' lead stories, the New York Times, etc., it's something that should be included on the page. But for these smaller, daily occurrences, it's very difficult to keep track of and maintain, and, yes it's tiresome, not only for the editors but for the readers as well. Perhaps a year-end summary? Wisekwai 16:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you refering to any particular entry in this article? Dont mind quoting them here if possible?--Huaiwei 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm referring to the entire "Current Developments" section. It currently gives a scattering of events, and any threshold for inclusion isn't very clear. The reader might get the impression that the listing is comprehensive, while in fact, it is not. Wisekwai's criteria for inclusion seems reasonable, except that nobody seems to be following it consistently. Patiwat 01:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not create list of terrorist attacks in thailand and put the individual smaller attracks in there. Of course major attacks do probably need adding to this article. (Hypnosadist) 19:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Krue Sae[edit]

The article doesn't mention the storming of Krue Sae mosque, which seems to be a glaring ommission. Patiwat 01:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent attacks and responses" -> "Timeline of significant events"[edit]

Should the "Recent attacks and responses" to "Timeline of significant events"? Some of the events mentioned in the section are mentioned in the topical sections as well, and I think this new title reflects its content better than the old. Patiwat 23:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article[edit]

This article is in danger of becoming yet another endless chronicle of current events in Thailand. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news blog. Patiwat, this seems to be a bad habit of yours in particular. Please do not add a new sentence every time something new happens. Also there is no critical dimension at all in recent edits. The stuff about the soup-sellers is reported as fact when it is obviouly nonsense. Adam 01:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • See the "Should individual incidents be noted any more?" topic above. It was reasonably suggested that not every incident of violence should be included, but that some "threshold" should be used. The torching of the health center by villagers in protest against the arrest of a suspected insurgent seemed to be significant. And the "soup-sellers" might be obviously nonsense, but the Prime Minister was the one who made the accusation, and he made it very seriously, claiming evidence. I think both of these topics are worthy of being noted in the article. Patiwat 21:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article comment anything related to the Muslim separatists?[edit]

I agree with the previouse writer...it is sad to see such "fear" propaganda in a sense. If you were to go to this area it is calm and not as it seems in the news. However, there are underlying clashes and there are groups of people who may represent a religious group and then branch off from the core or core teachings of the religion and misinterpret what the religion asks of them in the name of the religion, thus overstepping into a way that not only ends in taking lives, but casts a bitter shadow and racial discrimination of those other religious peoples, of the same religion, but do not participate, nor agree with the actions of others of the same religion. It is as if a small group of people are talking..alone, and convincing themselves they know best and in their discussions they see only what they think and see, and they use agression to get what they want, or they believe this is how to get what they want. So they go out and use violent tactics, they go to violence first not trying all other methods and ways to communicate or to make change. They do not look at the history of the world and realize that what they are doing "to fight for a cause" their cause, has already been done in the world all over. Usually from historic reference, it is those who had the patience, the knowledge and the respect for life, in its form, those persons who looked for a method to make change without violence...it was these people who made change..for ever...and to this day remain examples and icons of how to make change in a way that shines world attention on the very cause, because violence was not used. The situation in the South of Thailand needs to be handled by the news with more racial sensitivity, rather then pointing fingers or making assumptions that are unproven about muslim peoples. It just feeds to the frenzy of the on going war in another part of the world and does not lend itself to change, but lends itself to mistrust and fear. Thailand in the South has a high concentration of muslim peoples who are not involved with the insurgency. They are just people of a religion. Just as there are Buddhist peoples. To blanket the whole South and putting fear into people who live or visit Thailand negates all that people are living for..the right for freedom


I, personally, didn't believe that this insurgency in the Southern part of Thailand have anything to do with the Muslim separatists.

As of now, Thai people are still not sure about the cause of this insurgency and who did it. The majority of Thai people in the southern part of Thailand, they sure didn't want to seperate the country.

We still don't know whether this group of people who created the insurgency are hired to do so or something else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chatchavit (talk • contribs) 09:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I delete the phrase Islamic terrorism because it is prejudiced, implies complete ignorance of Islam and sounds like hate propaganda.78.185.133.129 (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims and language - more info needed[edit]

The article currently states: "Jobs in the Thai public sector are difficult to obtain for those Muslim students who did not ever fully accept the Thai language or the Thai education system."

The articles on the southern provinces make no mention of language - I know that some in the south do speak Malay, but this is a much stronger claim. Hopefully someone can flesh this out and add info to the relevant articles, e.g. about percentages of the populations who speak a particular language. --Chriswaterguy talk 06:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights watch[edit]

HRW has published a large report on this conflict available here [1]. this should help with the righting with this article. (Hypnosadist) 19:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the external link to "Southern Thailand insurgency news" should be taken away, since it is not working —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasab897 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties[edit]

I'd like the page to be more detailed on casualties: among the 3,000 that were killed, how many were Buddhist civilians, Muslim civilians, Buddhist troops, Muslim insurgents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORTERS = PHILIPPINES?[edit]

Are you kidding? the Philippines has the same Muslim insurgency on its southern part so why the Philippines have to join the trouble this is hilarious and irrational. Double trouble no way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.68.114 (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The deepsouth Thailand insurgency

Are those informations on this page, mostly from news and websites, true without any bias? I can feel some bias, esp.when you talk about the military junta. The website war is done by the Patani seperatist organizations, and also by the governmental side. So the data on websites and news are mostly not reliable.

The good examples are the seperatist claims the "Pattani is the most glorious Islamic kingdom" and "Pattani is the corridor of Mekka", etc. In fact, before became into the Islamic kingdom, Pattani is the Buddhic-Bhramic kingdom for many hundred years. And, the corridor of Mekka is claimed by Acheh, Malacca also. But there is no such an anoucement from the Middle East.

Each city of Malay Peninsula has a king or chieft which the strongest city will be the most influent city of each period. The remarked city of the peninsula are Malakka, Acheh, Kedah, Kalantan, Jahor. Historic Pattani is "waxed and waned" depends on the ability of chieftan or king/queen.

So, please consider before believe what you read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.123.19.159 (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article name: Are they really insurgents?[edit]

As the people involved are native Thais should this really be termed an "insurgency"? They are not "insurging" from anywhere as far as I am aware. Kernow (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep using this word...I do not think it means what you think it means... ('insurge') is a rock band. The word insurgency is from "insurgens" or "insurgere" - which simply means to get up, ascend, rebel... implicitly, internal to a group, unit, organization, country, etc...[1]. Check out "insurrection" as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archon888 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insurgent

Timeline of the South Thailand Insurgency[edit]

Should we make another page calle Timeline of the South Thailand Insurgency? There is actually a lot more that has happened than in this article. I tried updated a lot recently . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.156.194.93 (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

I have flagged the opening secion for review, because it characterises the events as a "liberation struggle" and a "struggle for freedom". Others might characterise it as a genocide of Buddhists. It also describes Patani as "under Thai rule" - what about describing Patani as "part of Thailand"? KillerBoogie (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgency during the 1960's?[edit]

This article mentions an insurgency in south thailand during the 1960s. I can't see any mention of this in the current article. Did it happen or not?

http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/292/465

Rajmaan (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

I have started a new article for the timeline here Timeline of events related to the South Thailand insurgency

Can we move the timeline text to the new article? --C (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support the move as long as we keep the most important events in the main article.--Catlemur (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know which are the most important ones. I started looking at this topic just recently. But in other articles like ISIL they just keep the most recent events in the main article, and the rest in the timeline article. --C (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on South Thailand insurgency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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) 01:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Concerns[edit]

"Mostly led by Salafist hardliners, they have extreme and transnational religious goals, such as an Islamic Caliphate, to the detriment of a constructive cultural or nationalistic Patani identity."

From the literature I read, it looks like the BRN, the most prominent group, seeks a local sharia-based state, not a caliphate. This contradicts the Abuza citation (and others) pretty directly. At the very least, if the literature is unclear on the BRN/the insurgency's motives, it should be noted that the motives are unclear (or something to that effect that falls within Wikipedia's guidelines). Anthemia (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

war on terror?[edit]

Why is this part of the war on terror? the usa has nothing to do with it 2001:1C01:35C4:6900:B178:4CFC:5EA7:D6C2 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Thailand_insurgency&oldid=1215179700"