Talk:Hun Sen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Cambodia (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Hun Sen is part of WikiProject Cambodia, a project to improve all Cambodia-related articles. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group on Wikipedia, 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 Cambodia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Headline text[edit]

Hello, can anyone tell me how I can e mail the office of Prime Minister Samdech Hun Sen ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2004 203.144.75.14 (talkcontribs) 09:05, 15 December.

It does not matter because the whole gov't is corrupt anyways I believe, so any attempts will be ignored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.163.136.195 (talkcontribs) 21:05, 13 January 2006.

hun sen a puppet[edit]

What sources can be given that say he is a puppet of Hanoi? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.163.136.195 (talkcontribs) 20:59, 13 January 2006.

Every history of Cambodia not written by Vietnam. He was put in power by the Vietnamese army and he was kept in power by the Vietnamese until they finally left the country. He isn't really a puppet anymore, he is just a standard second-rate political strongman controlling a rotten government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.137 (talkcontribs) 05:41, 20 April 2006.

Religion[edit]

Does anyone know if Hun Sen has any religious affiliation? Being an ex-communist, one might assume not. But being the leader of a deeply Buddhist state, one might assume so. Any knowledge on the subject is welcome. Picaroon9288 19:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Post 1993 political career section[edit]

I have removed this section from the body of the article because it is written in very poor English and is full of uncited facts, POV and Original Research. The only reason I did not totally delete is that there seems to be some useful material that could be salvaged by fact-checking, citing sources and removing POV. I don't have the time but maybe somebody else can clean this up and incorporate it back into the article.--WilliamThweatt 15:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Political Life post-1993 election
The 1993 election sponsored by the UN saw Hun Sen came second, after FUNCINPEC Party. Despite this result, Hun Sen refused to hand over power, and demanded power-sharing with the winning party. He threatened to start civil war should he failed to gripe on to power. Finally, due to some political wrangling within the FUNCINPEC Party itself and the facts that the bulk to the Cambodian military is under Hun Sen control, the Prime ministership was shared between the two men: Ranarriddh as first PM, Hun Sen as second. It was the first ever such power sharing arrangement anywhere in the world, and few believed the alliance would hold. During that time til 1997, the alliance continually showed signs of crack and disagreement, and the government achieved little if anything. Both parties focuses on building a strong military of its own, and in 1997, a war broke out in the centre of the city. The war is a coup by Hun Sen to depose his first PM.

The section above is substantially true, though the language is POV heavy. Hun Sen actually threatened to succeed the eastern provinces of Cambodia if CPP were not part of the new government. I'll hunt for some good sources. Paxse 14:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

From then on, Hun Sen went on to become a great tactitian, oppressor, democrat, entrepreneur, military leader, economic leader, chess master, spiritual leader, and above all else, the strongman of Cambodia. No one - no one - can touch him. His political fortune rises and rises. He is feared and loved everywhere. He is feard because at times, he is very evil - he constantly issued death threats, he stated that he would choose war over anything should he loses power, and he is known to be mad. He is loved because he is decisive and the best leader Cambodia could have among the current politicians.

Nothing to salvage here. Paxse 14:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In 2003, Hun Sen won the election for the 3rd term of the government, termed by internation observers as free and fair. Yet, the oppositions: the Sam Rainsy Party, and the FUNCINPEC Party disputed the result, alleging intimidation and vote buying. The next couple of months after the election, a huge demonstration organized by the Opposition took place in front of the National Assembly in Phnom Penh to protest the result of the election. At first, Hun Sen's attitude towards the demonstration was peaceful and even boasted that he would let them demonstrate as much as they wish, because he was still the PM and as long as the new government was not formed, he remained PM indefinitely. This attitude took a swift turn when his motorcade was attacked in Siem Reap, and he barely escaped death in that attack. He offered $100,000 and forgave anyone who confessed the act. (There was no record that anyone came out to confess despite this huge sum of money). He returned to Phnom Penh, and immediately ordered the demonstration, which was by then into its second month, to be dispersed or he will use force to disperse them. 2 days later, police, miliary and fire-fighter truck arrived at the scene and forcefully remove demonstrators. Several were killed, a large numbers were injured, and several were arrested, and some died in custody due to internal bleeding from torture. Phnom Penh became locked down, and curfew were imposed. Pro-opposition monks were dethrobe, and some were beaten. Gun shots were heard here and there and the city is completely chaotic.

The first few lines are correct but the curfew, defrocking, chaos etc are exaggerated. Paxse 14:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The above section is incorrect: The writer is referring to 1998, not 2003. What happened in 2003 was entirely different.74.166.249.148 (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Some months later, miraculuously, Ranariddh broke his opposition to the election result and decided to join the new government. The newly formed coalition took shape shortly after, with Hun Sen retaining his PM post, and Ranarridh acquiring the Speaker of the National Assembly post. This stunted the Sam Rainsy party, and left it the sole opposition party in the new government. The SRP accused Ranarridh of accepting $30 million bribes and a private jet for him joining the government.

This was the story at the time and may be correct - naturally no evidence is available.Paxse 14:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In 2006, Hun Sen and Ranariddh broke out, and Hun Sen said publicly that it is hard for him to work with Ranariddh. On 18 Oct, Ranariddh was deposed as FUNCINPEC leader, and he was replaced by Keo Puth Reasmey, a hardly known Cambodia Ambassador to Germany.

This is correct. I will try to find some sources and add the useful parts of the above back to the article. William, I heartily agree with your concerns. However, I would have preferred to work on the section in situ - rather than cutting and pasting it into the talk page and then trying to put it back. Paxse 14:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Family name[edit]

What is his family name? Hung or Sen? Or Hung Sen? Or he got no surname? Wasabian 11:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The family name comes first in Cambodia - so his kids are Hun Toe, Hun Mana, Hun Malis etc. Sen is what his Mum called him when he was a little boy :) Paxse 18:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As in most of the Far East, the family name comes first ... which is the same order that names appear in telephone and other directories in the West. Where mixed traditions exist (as in Hong Kong); the family name may be first if they follow the Chinese style or last if they adopt Western style. In this case, they usually use the Western order (family name last) if they adopt a Western given name (such as "Tommy Wong") or the Eastern style if using their Chinese name (say, "Wong Cheung-kwok"). However, this can be confusing if they give both given names such as "Wong Cheung-kwok (Tommy)." In such cases, it is common to capitalize or underline the family name to avoid confusion such as: "WONG Cheung-kwok (Tommy)." Enquire 2007-11-05

Vandalism?[edit]

The recent edits by 124.121.137.21 seem to have replaced the article with text about someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.218.187 (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A certain user Symo.kh seems keen on white washing Hun Sen´s violent passed and his recent questionable acts as a 'prime minister'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.237.230.118 (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Lesbian daugther[edit]

It sems, that the news are mashed up and cripplet the real background. It look like it is not because she is a lesbian. The the apell for tolerance made then no sense. It's because she make other troubles. (Finance or Bombs or both)

--Fg68at de:Disk 01:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Illegal with voting rights?[edit]

It looks like an oximoron...--Againme (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


Article: Birth 1951 - next thing - leader 1979[edit]

Born April 4, 1951 Appointed as foreign minister 1979 Maybe something happened in between - something to do with belonging to the Khymer Rouge? 124.169.231.34 (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed something needs to be done about his early life and involvement in the Khmer Rouge -- Gramscis cousin (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This article appears to be a whitewash of a thoroughly evil man. It's widely believed here (in southern Thailand) that his involvement with the Khmer Rouge continued right up to the point it became evident the movement's days were numbered. He abruptly "escaped" to Vietnam in 1979 and began the process of buying his way into the leadership role he enjoys now. I should be very interested in other points of view on this take. (kentfx 05:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentfx (talkcontribs)

This is all uncited[edit]

Where are the citings for this article. How can it make comments like this:

" He was a former Khmer Rouge who escaped to Vietnam before 1979 in order to call for the Vietnamese to overthrow the Khmer Rouge government. Since the restoration of multi-party democracy in 1993, the CPP has been in a coalition with the royalist Funcinpec party."

He called for nothing. The vietnamese invasion was the result of the Khmer Rouge attempting to regain land in South Vietnam. I'd also question the use of the term 'democracy' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.177.207 (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's democracy, Jim, but not as we know it.
To be fair to Hun Sen, the country is a lot freer than many others in Southeast Asia. There are regular elections and the results are not actually a foregone conclusion; the press is pretty free, in fact it's often pretty libelous; and roads and schools and clinics do get built. All this is to Hun Sen's credit. On the other hand, it's not exactly Sweden out there. The elections are the occasion for massive bribery and coercion, especially in the rural areas (less so in the cities), the elite are deeply corrupt and don't give a damn about the poor (if those roads and schools get built it's in order to bribe the village elites who control local vote-blocs), and the lives of journalists can be abruptly terminated (though a jail term is more usual). It's a mixed picture, and simply calling HS a dictator doesn't begin to give the flavour of the complexities involved. The interesting part will start when he leaves the scene and others, probably less politically adept, take over. PiCo (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Killing political opponents, union leaders and actresses are not exactly a democratic procedure are they? Besides, Hun Sen calls himself a dictator, who will remain in power until he is 90. Notice how he always talks about himself in third person, Hun Sen this and Hun Sen that, psychologist would have a field day with him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uij_Hj2uf10&feature=related http://pisethpilika.free.fr/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVQ9kQ-sfPs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.178.229.254 (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

The article is too biased towards negative aspects of the Cambodian government. Editors should stick to writing about the individual, the stuff about the administration should be moved/merged into the article on the government. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@Nearly Headless Nick, thanks for the advice and correcting my edit. Upon reflection, I agree it is not best suited on the individuals page. What page do you think would be suitable for a piece on government corruption? Government_of_cambodia? 4JackInTheBox (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I think a neutrally worded article on Corruption in Cambodia should do fine. But remember, allegations are simply allegations, Wikipedia has no place for speculation, we must give due consideration to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOR/WP:SYN. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
A couple of points to ponder. 1)If a person/government IS corrupt, writing about it is not bias. 2)For all intents and purposes, Hun Sen IS the Cambodian government; if not for his position as the Strongman in charge of Cambodia, he would be non-notable. Thus, the "writing about the individual" is not nearly as relevant as the "stuff about the administration". (See for an example Richard Nixon where the vast majority of the article is about his politics and administration.) The well-documented and wide-spread corruption relating to Hun Sen and his grip on power as well as his close ties to Viet Nam are inseparable from any article about him. Now having said that, I agree that we must give due consideration to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOR/WP:SYN. I guess what I'm trying to say is that any article written about the Cambodian government or Hun Sen might seem "biased towards the negative" but that's just because that is the reality of the topic. To not write about it or to have a "sanitized" article just about his personal life would be biased in the other direction. Just some things to think about.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 00:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree with you in principle about the policies. However, to make claims such as "he is corrupt" should be backed by multiple reliable sources. The more exceptional the claim, the more exceptional the sources should be. The sources should also mention who made the allegation (most allegations would not qualify, unless they pass the muster at WP:DUE and WP:BLP). Something like "Hun Sen is the Cambodian government" will not go through unless it's a widely held view published in independent, reliable, mainstream and scholarly sources. Remember, Verifiability, not the truth. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 00:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I found extracts from many newspapers in which Hun Sen acknowledged and responded to the bribery allegations (and subsequent investigation by US government) (HERE) but denied that corruption had taken place. However he admitted to signing the original deal with BHP (HERE). Hence why I thought his page may be appropriate. Statements such as "Hun Sen is the Cambodian government" are not relevant in highlighting a newsworthy investigation. 4JackInTheBox (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
One of the sources you have quoted is a blog post and cannot be considered a reliable source. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The other source claims that the US authorities were probing payments. Hun Sen said it was meant for a social fund. That is a fact. But we have to be careful whist representing multiple sources in an article so as to ensure that none of what is stated is original synthesis. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

About the claim of corrupt: If you would name then Hun Sen corrupt with "exceptional" source, then the implications will be that dozens of politicians (including in the US) can then "enjoy" to read the word "corrupt" in respective articles about them. 49.145.85.9 (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

And rightfully so, most politicians are corrupt. That is the problem with Wikipedia, not calling a spade a spade. Hun Sen is a dictator and most politicians are corrupt. I don´t see why blog posts should not be allowed, if they are well researched they are just as valuable as an ´official source´ whatever that may mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.178.229.254 (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The NPOV problem does not necessarily come out of whether Hun Sen is corrupt or not. The NPOV problem comes from the lack of balancing what are clearly failures (corruption) with achievements (role in getting rid of the Khmer Rouge and stabilizing the country). The article needs a section that includes his contributions as well as his shortcomings. Hun Sen abandoned failed and genocidal movement and helped get rid of -- and that does deserve credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.116 (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


Here in mid February 2014, the following info was inserted under 'Political career':

The controversial and widely disputed elections of July 2003 resulted in a larger majority in the National Assembly for the CPP, with FUNCINPEC losing seats to the CPP and the Sam Rainsy Party. However, CPP's majority was short of the two thirds constitutionally required for the CPP to form a government alone. This deadlock was overcome and a new CPP-FUNCINPEC coalition was formed in mid-2004. When Norodom Ranariddh was chosen to be Head of the National Assembly and Hun Sen became again sole Prime Minister of Cambodia.

In August 2013, Hun Sen announced he would continue with his aim to form a new government, even if the main opposition tried to block the process. The news came after both sides claimed victory in the 2013 general elections.[24] Also in August,in New York, a major, but largely unnoticed, demonstration held in front of the United Nations (UN) on August 19 by Cambodians and Buddhist monks was a crucial prelude to planned mass demonstrations in Phnom Penh later in September 2013 by opposition groups protesting the July elections and Hun Sen's response. Cambodians in the United States, Canada and elsewhere, joining hundreds of Buddhist Monks, to peacefully protest in front of the United Nations in New York City in opposition to Hun Sen's deployment of tanks and military and security forces in Phom Phenh and what they believed was his unwillingness to share political power with opposition groups and seriously address earlier voting fraud and election irregularities from the July 2013 election. [25] [26]

After the 2013 election results, disputed by Hun Sen's opposition, one person was killed and others injured during protests in Cambodia's capital, where a reported 20,000 protesters gathered, some clashing with riot police.[27] Following the opposition's two weeks in a row protests, in response, Hun Sen declares he will not step down from his position, nor will there be a re-election; further adding he was elected constitutionally.[28]

On September 7, 2013, tens of thousands of Cambodians, along with Buddhist monks and opposition groups, including Sam Rainsy's Cambodian National Rescue Party held peaceful mass demonstrations in Phnom Penh to protest the July 28 elections results which they claimed were flawed and marred by voting irregularities and potential fraud. The groups asked the United Nations to investigate and claimed that the elections results were not free and fair. [29] [30]

After the violent crackdown in Cambodia, manyCambodian Americans protest in Washington, D.C..[31]

On 3 January 2014, military police open fired at protesters, killing 4 people and injuring more than 20.[32] The United Nations and US State Department have condemned the violence.[33][34] US Congressman Ed Royce responded to the report of violence in Cambodia by calling for Hun Sen to step down and said the Cambodian people deserve a better leader.[35]

While some parts of this info might fit on a page about the individual of Hun Sen, most of it should be moved to othr pages like Cambodian general election, 2013, Elections in Cambodia or Government of Cambodia. 'Nearly Headless Nick' explained the reasons very well in his posts above. Will someone do the job?

RhinoMind (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Info box[edit]

The info box seems quite incomplete. I added that he was prime minister alongside Norodom R. between 1993 and 1998. I will add this, otherwise, it doesn't make sense to state, he rules since 1985 in continuation. --Datu Dong (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Call a spade a spade: Dictator Hun Sen[edit]

Hun Sen has ruled Cambodia violently over the past 28 years. There are no free elections, free press or freedom of speech in Cambodia. According to Wikipedia a dictatorship "is defined as an autocratic or authoritarian form of government in which a government is ruled by either an individual: a dictator, or an authoritarian party, as in an oligarchy." So we should call it what it is. Furthermore, he calls himself king, his complete honorary title Samdech Akeak Moha Sena Padey Decho Hun Sen which translates roughly as ´Greatest King of Kings Hun Sen´ (Khmer: សម្តេចអគ្គមហាសេនាបតីតេជោ ហ៊ុន សែន). The word ´samdech´ means ´king´, you can verify that with wiki of the real king of Cambodia, Sihamoni. In other words, he considers himself more important than the king.

Please let the truth about Cambodia be told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.178.232.232 (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do not think there is much doubt that Hun Sen is a dictator in the classic political sense. One editor here recently is removing that type of information from the article and saying that saying that it is not neutral. I am going to paraphrase the information differently and find other sources also. Do you have a news article on that thing you said Greatest King of Kings Hun Sen´ (Khmer: សម្តេចអគ្គមហាសេនាបតីតេជោ ហ៊ុន សែន). If a legit news article or book etc. is saying that then we can say it also. Did he invent his own title? No sense in sugar coating or white washing the article, its better to give the mainstream vantage on this and that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
This seems like a reasonable way to explain Hun Sen that is backed up by mainstream media. Probably this is appropriate for the lead area since it reflects world opinion via the press.

Hun Sen is widely viewed as a dictator that has assumed authoritarian power in Cambodia using violence and intimation and corruption to maintain his power base.[1][2][3] Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, "samdech" doesn't only mean king. A dictionary (Headley 1977) gives the meaning as "a powerful person; a title given to very high officials of a kingdom". Headly 1979 gives "nobleman or lord or a high honorific title that can be given to people of non-royal birth usually in recognition of great service to the nation" Chuon Nath's 1967 Khmer-Khmer dictionary gives:

សម្ដេច 1 ន. លោក​អ្នក​មាន​តេជះ​ច្រើន, លោក​អ្នក​មាន​បុណ្យ​មាន​អំណាចធំ ។ គុ. ខ្ពង់​ខ្ពស់, ឧដុង្គឧត្តម, ថ្កើង​ស័ក្តិ ថ្កើង​អំណាច, ថ្កើង​ថ្កាន (សម​តែ​នឹង​យល់​ថា​ក្លាយ​មក​ពី បា. សំ + តេជ ឬ សំ. សំតេជស៑ “ដែល​មាន​តេជះ​ខ្លាំង” ព្រោះ​ខ្មែរ​បុរាណ​សរសេរ​ជា សម្ដេជ ក៏​មាន) ។ ពាក្យ​សម្រាប់​ប្រើ​បន្ថែមលើ​ព្រះ​នាម ឬ​លើ​ឋានន្តរ​ក្សត្រិយ៍ មន្រ្តីស័ក្តិ​ខ្ពស់ : ព្រះ​បាទ​សម្តេច​ព្រះ​ហរិរក្ស​រាមាឥស្ស​រាធិបតី...; សម្តេច​ព្រះ​មហាក្សត្រិយានី; សម្តេច​ព្រះ​ឧបយុវរាជ; សម្តេច​ព្រះ​ឧភយោរាជ; សម្តេច​ព្រះ​វររាជជននី; សម្តេច​ព្រះ​មហា​ឧបរាជ; សម្តេច​ព្រះ​សង្ឃរាជ; សម្តេច​ព្រះ​រៀម; សម្តេច​ព្រះ​អនុជ​។ល។ សម្តេច​ចៅពញា ឋានន្តរ​សេនាបតី ទី ១ សម្រាប់​ទោ (មាន​តែ​ពី​ក្នុង​សម័យ​បុរាណ) ។ល។ ជើង ដ. សំ-​ដាច់

The title breaks down to សម្ដេច "lord" អគ្គមហាសេនា "a highly stylized rendering equivalent to Prime Minister" បតីតេជោ "Supreme Commander of the military"....so basically "Lord Prime Minister, Supreme Commander of the Military Hun Sen". Now, title aside, I agree that he is a strongman/dictator who stays in power by unfair elections and purging popular opponents and enemies when necessary. However as an encyclopedia (which only conveys what others have written) and a WP:BLP article, we need really good sources to flatly say "he is a dictator". Otherwise we need to distance WP from the appearance of accusations and make it explicit that it is not WP that has deemed him to be a dictator but that "Reuters (etc.) has referred to him as a dictator". I have no problem with Earl King's wording above.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 05:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

A small but apparently controversial thing[edit]

In the section on Hun Sen's Political Career, a sentence reads:

"Hun Sen has vowed to rule Cambodia until he is 74."

In an effort to clean up this page for badly or completely unsourced statements, I opted for a source on this one. It has stirred a somewhat heated discussion, since some people feels this is "common knowledge" and as such, does not need a good source or explanation. Let me remind, that this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and not a newspaper or open forum for political frustration for that matter.

When reading the sources on this particular statement carefully, all they reveal is that Hun Sen said he is planning and hoping to win three more national elections, before finally stepping down at the age of 74. And in that context he even explicitly says, that it will be up to the Cambodian people, to decide on this in a democratic way. Citation:

“I rule for so long because I started when I was young. What is the matter with working so long? It’s up to the people who vote for me. If they don’t vote for me, why should I stay?”

This is what he said. Everything else must necessarily be interpretations and while interpretations are fine and sometimes interesting, they cannot form the foundation of an encyclopaedia. They can be debated and expressed elsewhere, in a lot of fora.

One more note: When Hun Sen's statements are described with words like "stepping down", he can very well mean "leaving politics". Why? First, because there is no source or citation on what he actually have said, only journalistic interpretations are presented. Secondly, because it may very well be a reckless mistake in the translation. And thirdly, it might be an effort to intentionally distort actual statements for political gains.

A personal comment: To me all evidence points towards this as a completely normal and everyday political statement, that have been blown out of proportions. And there can be many reasons for this. If the statement needs to be mentioned at all in an encyclopaedian page on Hun Sen, at least it needs to be explained and sourced properly.

On this background, I am replacing the statement above with this more unbiased one:

"Hun Sen is hoping to rule Cambodia until he is 74."

And keeping in mind, that "ruling Cambodia" might in fact be a biased interpretation of a statement that originally said: "stay in politics". Another possibility is to cite the sources directly: "Hun Sen is planning to win at least three more national elections, before stepping down at the age of 74."

For the sake of documentation, I have copy-pasted the previous discussions on this single issue below:

RhinoMind (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue has now been settled by introducing the phrase: "On 6 May 2013, Hun Sen declared his intention to rule Cambodia until he is 74.", along with two independent refs. RhinoMind (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Previous Discussion
== Your revert on page:Hun Sen ==
Hello. You reverted an edit of mine on page:Hun Sen and removed:
"According to Reuters"
in the Section on his political career, claiming he had vowed to rule Cambodia until 74 years of age.
I am here to explain why you are wrong and why your revert will not be accepted.
The page need a source on this claim and I put up a source needed template. The Reuters article was provided, along with a stupid comment, that it was "common knowledge". We all know that "common knowledge", is not a proper source for anything. well, anyway the Reuters source was provided.
The Reuters source however, does nothing but mention the same claim, that is expressed in the article. The Reuters article does not cite Hun Sen or explain in what context he vowed (or said) that, they just happen to mention it. This is not a credible sourcing. Secondly the Reuters article only says that Hun Sen had vowed to rule until 74 years old, not that he vowed to rue Cambodia until he was 74 years old. This could very well be a reckless translation of him vowing to stay in politics until 74 years old, if he ever vowed to do anything in the first place. On this background I could have inserted a template of better source needed, but instead I choose to insert "According to Reuters", which is a better solution in my opinion.
Your revert will be reverted on this background and if you want to discuss the issue, please comment below, as edit-wars are unwanted.
PS. It may be that the claim is "common knowledge", but this would just make it easier to give a proper acceptable source, right? If this source can not be given, this "common knowledge" might in fact be wrong.
You may think this is a small thing, but the page on Hun Sen, is filled with so many similar unsourced (or badly sourced) claims, that overall something must be done and every small bit counts towards improving the page to an acceptable level. I have started the clean up and you are welcome to join this project in a constructive way.
RhinoMind (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I have been "working on this project" since 2005, so please dispense with the condescending attitude now. From what you wrote above I can't tell if English is not your first language or if you just don't understand the concept of reliable sourcing. And if you knew anything about Cambodia, its history and its politics, you'd know that this fact is fairly well established and the Reuters article is plenty sufficient to support its existence. In general the more outlandish or controversial a piece of text is, the more stringent the sourcing requirements should be. Although "common knowledge" doesn't need to be cited, I agree this isn't common knowledge, but for people who follow or are involved in Cambodian politics, this fact, as I said, is fairly well established (neither outlandish nor controversial). A quick google search reveals countless references for it. For example, here is a newspaper article directly addressing it. Throughout the years we've had many CPP supporters and Hun Sen apologists try to whitewash this article, which is just as unacceptable as edit-warring and unsourced fact. Aside from all of this, from a style standpoint, a sentence that is appended with a footnote attributing it to a particular source should not, in general, start with "According to (the source)"...that's just redundant and bad writing and why I reverted it. I'll update the article with this better source.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 08:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)