![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I nominated this article for deletion. Not because the subject is not notable, he clearly is. But because the article is poorly written and most of it was copied word for word from the two sources, The Bangkok Post and Forbes. If somebody wants to clean up the article and reword things so we are using the sources as sources and not just copying them (which is against the law) - then I would be willing to withdraw my objection that this article be included on Wikipedia. DegenFarang ( talk) 15:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
This article states the DOB as being in 1923 but the cited articles state ages that suggest the date of birth would be ~10 years later than this. The Bangkok Post says he was born in 1932. Webcitation says he was 80 which again would suggest 1932. Forbes says 77 but was publisted in 2009.
Looks like the Bangkok news article was updated as I wrote this, the body text now states he died aged 80. The AP article cited later in this page also notes the discrepancy: NPR
It seems to me that it is presently unclear as to exactly what year Chaleo was born, but this page is reporting it as 1923 without noting the discrepancy at all. 66.187.233.202 ( talk) 16:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's not remove this without first reaching a consensus; it may not shake the whole world, but special privileges afforded the offspring of the hyper-rich do shake up this part of it, in the extraordinarily rare cases when it has been exposed. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 06:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe there is absolutely no justification for the paragraph about the subject's grandson or his alleged evasion of the law being retained in this article. I have already deleted mention of expiry of the statute of limitations as this goes way too far off topic and is clearly trying to influence the reader that there has been unfairness in some rich kid avoiding the law. Leave this to a blog or campaigning newspaper - not an encyclopaedia article about his grandfather. Or go create an article on the grandson himself. In drafting this discussion, and reading the original 2012 comments by Pawyilee, I am more convinced this section is being used for campaigning purposes. Nick Moyes ( talk) 22:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I nominated this article for deletion. Not because the subject is not notable, he clearly is. But because the article is poorly written and most of it was copied word for word from the two sources, The Bangkok Post and Forbes. If somebody wants to clean up the article and reword things so we are using the sources as sources and not just copying them (which is against the law) - then I would be willing to withdraw my objection that this article be included on Wikipedia. DegenFarang ( talk) 15:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
This article states the DOB as being in 1923 but the cited articles state ages that suggest the date of birth would be ~10 years later than this. The Bangkok Post says he was born in 1932. Webcitation says he was 80 which again would suggest 1932. Forbes says 77 but was publisted in 2009.
Looks like the Bangkok news article was updated as I wrote this, the body text now states he died aged 80. The AP article cited later in this page also notes the discrepancy: NPR
It seems to me that it is presently unclear as to exactly what year Chaleo was born, but this page is reporting it as 1923 without noting the discrepancy at all. 66.187.233.202 ( talk) 16:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's not remove this without first reaching a consensus; it may not shake the whole world, but special privileges afforded the offspring of the hyper-rich do shake up this part of it, in the extraordinarily rare cases when it has been exposed. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 06:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe there is absolutely no justification for the paragraph about the subject's grandson or his alleged evasion of the law being retained in this article. I have already deleted mention of expiry of the statute of limitations as this goes way too far off topic and is clearly trying to influence the reader that there has been unfairness in some rich kid avoiding the law. Leave this to a blog or campaigning newspaper - not an encyclopaedia article about his grandfather. Or go create an article on the grandson himself. In drafting this discussion, and reading the original 2012 comments by Pawyilee, I am more convinced this section is being used for campaigning purposes. Nick Moyes ( talk) 22:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)