Talk:Cambodian–Thai border dispute

Images

3 images of Cambodian soldiers. It is over adequate and unfair. Deletion of those images is good. If you want to have those 3 images, you have to add 3 more Thai soldiers' images. Please do not revert until the discussion is closed. --Passawuth (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think those images ought to disappear from the article since this is the article that is shown on main page. The images on this article should have copyright status and description clearly. This is to be an example of other articles likewise GA and FA. --Passawuth (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The opinion above, on the posted image, should be seriously taken in account since they, the images, tend to give viewer a sense of partiality. Yet, I fear that the choice of adding photos of Thai military may result in increased tension, or worse, some sort of vandalism act. (Particularly, between users from the two disputing nations, since this case is very sensitive) Removal of the images might be the better way. Eakka (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I had removed all of the images now. I will report to the administrator to semi-protect the page in order to stop the adding of images and will be then easier to notice or block anyone trying to add images without discussion yet. --Passawuth (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The See Also section seems relevent for background and the Aug 3rd event is sourced to a third party media outlet (BBC) so I will re-add that with modified wording. The pictures, while there is at least one I think is nice, lack copyright info. Until that is provided, I'd be reluctant to add any to a recent events article. Narson (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

The introductory paragraph should be general, not detailed, and neutral, not partisan, in tone. It should avoid presenting the claims of either side, which are disputed, as though they were settled facts. The claims can be referenced, of course, but they should be described rather than adjudicated. Comments on the respective claims should be reserved, and clearly labelled as comments, evaluation or analysis.Fconaway (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, actually some of those "claims" are settled facts. If you read the ICJ judgement, you would know this. A major part of what has driven this dispute for four decades has been the successive Thai governments' refusal to communicate (or publish in Thai) the full ICJ judgement, thus allowing them to pull the wool over the eyes of most of the Thai people all of the time.KhProd1 (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Addition

Should we put the part where Hun Sen criticize Thailand of not being capable of ASEAN meeting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.237.37 (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Need to be source or else it will be deleted. --125.24.79.128 (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

The infobox shows numbers for the casualties. However, the citation doesn't support any such numbers: it says only that "one Thai and three Cambodian soldiers died in last year's exchange".

Cambodian–Thai border dispute
Date 2008-present Location Cambodian - Thai border Status Ongoing
Belligerents
Cambodia	Thailand
Casualties and losses
4 killed 8 wounded	22 killed 27 wounded 20 captured

Has a more adequate citation been removed? Please provide documentation of the casualties from a reliable source.Fconaway (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a similar confusion in the text, under "April 2009 clashes".Fconaway (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I just read the article, and by my figures 5 thai troops have been killed, 16 wounded, as well as 5 cambodian troops willed, but 3 wounded. Somehow i dont think the article is very clear on casualties and the wounded. we need to clear this up.

Also i think we should include a little section on the weapons being used by both sides. are the only using Small Arms fire + RPG's, or have they exchanged any fire with artillery or tanks. Nath1991 (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There's been a continuous media battle over numbers of casualties and deaths after each incident. That battle has then been reflected once more here (I have this article on my watchlist). Cambodian media reports high Thai casualties, Thai media reports high Cambodian casualties, then they argue over who is right. Depending on which source you use you can probably find a news agency to support the high numbers of casualties for either side - nationalist madness doesn't only happen on the border :) This makes accurate casualty reporting very difficult for us. My suggestion would be to only use independent media sources, wait for 48 hours after each battle before updating (initial reports are often inflated), have 4 or 5 editors watchlist the article and revert unsourced changes with extreme prejudice :) I'm willing to help out with this, but beware you will be taking on ocassional POV warriors. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

True, I'sppose on both sides its a propoganda war, i woulda thought using sources from Neutral perspective, like the BBC for instance would give you a more clearer idea. i got some spare time, do you want me to leave it as it is for now, or i can try and find as many news articles as possible to get a clearer idea Nath1991 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

We need clearly reliable information, and exact citations. If this is not forthcoming, I propose to remove all unsourced numbers. Fconaway (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Nath, if you've got some time go for it! Anything sourced from the major wire services should be OK, Reuters, AFP etc. BBC should be ok as well. Let's see what can be sourced and then as Fconaway suggests, nuke the rest. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, ive had a look to see any solid sources, that arn't Thai or Cambodian, but its extremly difficult, doesn't seem like many major news services worldwide are interested. But by using simple mathmatics, reading the sources that are there, it seems that the casualty count isn't that high. By my last count it seemed that Cambodia: 5 killed 3 Wounded Thailand: 5 Killed 16 wounded Also i checked a few of the sources, and some have deleated the articles, for i can't seem to find them...which further makes this more difficult. I suppose we won't know the full casualty count until the standoff has been resolved,...Nath1991 (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As in most conflicts, one of the reported deaths was self-inflicted, and two were wounded by stepping on land mines. News reports have their limitations, with errors of both commission and omission, so that's about as good as we can do. We may never know.Fconaway (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering the info and sources we have, the Cambodian casualty's seem much more realistic, considering the amount of skirmishes they have had, unlike the Thai's which seems way too high, considering. And can we take seriously the claims of taking POWs. Nath1991 (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes we can. The Phnom Penh Post published photos (taken by a western photographer) of the Thai prisoners. However, I haven't seen those photos replicated on the web.KhProd1 (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The casualties, first added to the infobox October 15, 2008, have been challenged for lack of documentation since November, 2008. Removed as unreliable information. Fconaway (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The casualties, first added to the infobox October 15, 2008, have been challenged for lack of documentation since November, 2008. Removed, once again, as unreliable information. Fconaway (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What!? It may lacks of reliable source about the cambodian casualties ,but last time I came here they're listed as Thai govt claim.(yes, not just KIA. It included vehicles and weapons) Thet came with the source, so why it was removed as it's just listed as a claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.207.210 (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Commanders?

Despite the fact that King Bhumibol Adulyadej is the Commander-in-Chief of the Thai Armed Force by constitution, I don't think it is reasonable or appropriate to named him as the commander in this conflict as he made no real decision or planning here and since Cambodia didn't listed their King as commander too. I suggested that it should be change to Abhisit Vejjajiva as PM of Thailand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.121.39.119 (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Black magic!

Can someone who has the time please attend to the timeline and do something about the grammar and neutrality in the assertion that Bun Rany used black magic?KhProd1 (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Name Change

Since this also took place in 2009, It should be the 2008-2009 Cambodian-Thai stand-off.

Reenem (talk)

Certainly seems reasonable.KhProd1 (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Vietnamese participation?

Since Vietnam is a close ally of Cambodia, I wonder whether or not Vietnamese forces has been aiding the Cambodian troops. Of course, this is just an idea, and I do not have a source. I was hoping that if anyone knew something about this, or have heard or read anything that indicates direct or indirect Vietnamese involvement, than they could write it here. Thanks! With regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Doubt it, there's been no suggestion or rumors I've heard of Vietnam being drawn into it. Unless the two countries break out into fall scale war, they probably won't get involved, and the chance of full scale war is pretty small it seems. Nath1991 (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Cambodian-Thai War

The reference to a "main article" on the war is to a non-existent page. -24.83.20.94 (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is a war --88.117.65.208 (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)