This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Srettha Thavisin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A news item involving Srettha Thavisin was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on the following dates:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand articles
The Wikipedia article on Srettha Thavisin has seen recent growth due to the addition of new content. This expansion prompts me to question regarding the section titled “Srettha Thavisin#Prime Minister of Thailand (2023–present)”. The query is whether this section is disproportionately large or if it receives undue emphasis in his biography entry. My concern arises from the fact that this particular section takes up a substantial part of this article. Given the likelihood of future expansion, my question is whether there should be a consensus on the need to prepare for splitting the content. Thank you. Bossza007 Here (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about first start with trimming out the content that is not related to the PM. For example "The government has shown renewed interest in enhancing transportation through the Strait of Malacca via the Kra Isthmus. " doesn't belong on this article or another split. This article is not Thailand current events, and should only be things directly attributable to the subject. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Srettha's premiership has ended, I think we should now split his premiership into a separate page while some of his policies (such as the digital wallet handout) get their own pages. But do we have to have like a vote to split or can we just create a new page now? Arthur Taksin (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I heartily agree with the need for editing. Much of the discussion of particular initiatives reads like a press release following a meeting or public event. Not only that, but it covers every meeting or trip he took; if his Presidency had lasted more than a few months the article would be unimaginably long. I did some light editing of the article to change present perfect to past tense where appropriate, but left the press release blah blah largely untouched.
My suggestion: consolidate all the meetings he took about electric cars, tourism, free trade agreements, etc. into one paragraph apiece, rather than treat them separately country by country. Then go to the discussions of education, cannabis, etc. and boil down the discussion into something closer to a narrative covering what he attempted, what he did and what he accomplished, rather than just a collection of sentences reflecting different newspaper articles. RootlessIrishman (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I currently oppose a split unless there is a policy reason for it, such as WP:TOOLARGE. Does this policy apply here? I think instead the article could be trimmed. We need to follow WP:10YT and if this subject was only PM for a short time period, ten years later do we really care enough to have two articles? Sure, if the subject returns to notability relating to the time as PM, then we can consider it them. Right now it appears to be a bit of naval gazing and I dont see any good reason for a content fork. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If splitting off his entire premiership is wrong, then I think instead we should just split off his two main policies (soft power and digital wallet scheme) into their own, broader articles. Arthur Taksin (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not wrong per se, it's just that there are differing opinions on the matter. The relevant guideline section is under WP:SPINOFF: "The main situation where spinoff articles become necessary is when the expansion of a section creates an undue weight problem for the article." The subject has had a significant business career spanning decades. It doesn't make sense to fill 90% of his biographical article with details on his one-year premiership. I agree with Jtbobwaysf that the article is currently filled up with insignificant routine coverage, which should be trimmed down. But personally, I'd support having premiership articles separate from the person as a general matter, regardless of article size concerns, since ideally they would cover policy matters that pertain to the entire administration as a whole, not just the subject personally.
We certainly dont need two articles that are titles of the subjects jargon or some sort of proposed agenda (unless this is later notably followed by another PM or group and becomes notable as a standalone). I think that Paul makes a good point in that too much weight is given on this article to the subject's short tenure as PM. This is a compelling argument and is based on policy. I support a split based on that assuming the article is first trimmed. Please do trimming first to get rid of all the puffery and UNDUE content. In the end this will remain a BLP and is not a coatrack for everything that was proposed during the subject's tenure. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with trimming the article, especially the very large section on foreign affairs when a page on his international visits exists. Are there any other specific sections you would say need to be trim. Arthur Taksin (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think anything that is not attributable to the subject (the person) should not be there. This sort of loose association content 'the PMs office proposed', 'the pm proposed', 'Thavisin proposed', is all quite general and probably not even due. We would want to see deep coverage in the RS (could be english or Thai language) on some issues the subject actually truly pushed for, if such existed. The issue here is that this article somehow becomes a coatrack for government proposals during that timeframe, which while maybe due on some other article, shouldn't be on a BLP. Maybe we can follow the Thai article a bit as it might have some better understanding of what the subject actually stood for (if such thing existed). But the positions of his administration without direct attribution to the BLP subject I think are UNDUE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned out of lot of stuff. Please do not re-add content to this article that is not WP:BLP in nature. The content should state something that is actually tied to this person, not the previous history of Thailand. A lot of WP:UNDUE content has been added seeking to summarize, or possibly WP:SYNTH into some sort of position for the PM or imply a change of position. If we dont have sources for the stuff, just leave it out. General Thailand politics content can be covered on other articles. Can someone help with one or two sentences to summarize for (MOS:LEAD) his time as prime minster? What was he notable for? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really impressive what you've done. I was just wondering if maybe the lead should maybe be extended by 2 or 3 sentences to describe what he did in office. I've seen on other pages on people who serve short terms as leaders (like Liz Truss), and I wondered that since they included few sentences on their premiership, should this page also? Arthur Taksin (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
