Talk:Cambodia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Cambodia is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 20, 2005.

Land mines[edit]

The same i.p. editor in the above thread also removed information about landmines in Cambodia saying it was not a big issue now, but the sad truth is, that even today about 250 people step on such a device each year perhaps more are killed or injured by trying to sell them for scrap because of poverty. Very often the victims are children who play in the fields, while not realizing that hidden dangers lurk beneath them. In many cases, one dies right on the spot because the next hospital is far away and often there’s a lack of proper infrastructure to treat such traumas. If you survive such incidents, the scars stay forever; a lost leg is the most common injury. In most cases, these people are no longer capable of taking on a job or continue the work they had. Therefore, you’ll see many people with bad disabilities begging in the streets, in front of market entrances, hotels or restaurants. tourist should have a sense of this especially if they are hikers. Removing that kind of information, probably not a good idea. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Last year 100 people were killed by landmines; in the first six months of this year the number has reached 100 already, which, if the trend continues, might led to 200 deaths in 2014. The increase is due to farmers (not children) using heavy farm machinery in fields previously cleared of troop-mines (they're blowing up anti-tank mines). Back in 2002/3, when I was involved in anti-landmine work, the numbers were around 400-600 a year. So there's been a massive decrease in landmine fatalities and incidents in the period, and it's such a tiny number now that it's not worth mentioning - totolly dwarfed by the number of traffic fatalities,or even by people falling out of trees (which, oddly enough, is a major cause of death in Cambodia). We need to reflect reality, not preconceptions. (By the way, the source for the para on landmines is from 1996 - totally out of date).PiCo (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Reality? Then you say were killed in your argument. You neglect to mention about the unreported deaths. You neglect about the number of people with their lower limbs and other parts blown off. You care to think about the back drop of the information and its cultural implications from the past and future? Part of what happened, Cambodia was mined extensively. Many deaths go unreported. So your stats are wrong. Cambodians do not report things to the police very often. Death might be preferable for some people than having their legs blown off. As one of the most mined places in the world it needs reporting encyclopedic fashion. Would you care to go hiking out and about there? Not to personalize it but really some empathy or understanding towards Cambodians and their history is lacking in your comment. The land mine situation is a huge story in Cambodia always. In 2010 it was estimated that as many as 6million mines are still unexploded in the Cambodian soil, covering 276 square miles of land. In a country with a population of around 15million, it means there is more than one mine for every three people.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541776/Pictured-Cambodian-land-victims-wounded-one-10million-hidden-devices-waiting-detonated-nursed-health.html#ixzz3GPA3Qveo
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't use the British press, use CMAC - they're the ones who monitor the situation. Figures on both deaths and injuries are available. Both are low and falling. Very few if any incidents go unreported - having worked in the mine action field (mine victim assistance), I've observed this since 2002. Our article needs to be updated.PiCo (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I doubt you are an expert and I doubt your sense of the article. Its like saying Ebola is not important because a low number of the earths population have gotten it so far. You did not comment on the number of land mines to people I mentioned. You don't want to quote a mainstream paper but you want to rely on some NGO or private corporation that probably makes money associated with removing mines or whatever, it appears you have an agenda since you have a conflict of interest and are trying to downplay the situation. I think you have a dog in this contest so perhaps you are biased against this issue. So sorry to make this about you but its clear that you have made it about you claiming to be an expert and saying to disregard mainstream news on this topic and rely on your biased interpretation. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I live in Cambodia, I'm a professional writer, and I've worked for Handicap International as coordinator of their landmine victim assistance program here. Plus I know not just the organisations doing landmine clearance and victim monitoring but the people as well. That's just since you ask :). CMAG is the main agency involved in mane clearance operations here, but you should also follow CMAA, which has overall responsibility for collating statistical reports, and you should read Landmine Monitor, which will put Cambodia into an international perspective for you. You should also try to tone down the arrogance, it's really not becoming.PiCo (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I get the impression that you are not really reading the posts I made. In 2010 it was estimated that as many as 6million mines are still unexploded in the Cambodian soil, covering 276 square miles of land. In a country with a population of around 15million, it means there is more than one mine for every three people. is there something about that you do not understand or is your closed circle NGO for profit group making money off all this a problem? Your answers to issues, like you advising to dismiss the mainstream British press is telling. Few like NGO's and many think they are part of the problem in places like Cambodia where they draw large salaries and live in a privileged environment. Some countries ban them. Also Wikipedia is not run by experts like yourself since it can be edited by anyone and it appears that your stake in the situation is probably financial so you are in a conflict of interest. When you did not respond to any of the stats I gave, its pretty obvious that you are denying the mainstream reporting in favor of some pet groups that probably pay well for information they control. So, I don't think so. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
EKjr. I am not unsympathetic to the issue of landmines in Cambodia. However devastating it was in past years, the situation has greatly improved and is improving more daily. I'm not saying that it's not still perilous in a few particularly well known areas, but you are not helping your case by quoting The Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is little more than a tabloid, not at all a thorough, fact-checking new source, and even less a scholarly source for building an encyclopedia. Here is a Cambodian newspaper's take on the current situation. Here is an article from the Chinese news agency. This article from The Khmer Times, although noting a increase in deaths for the first 4 months of 2014 compared to the same time last year, says that at the current rate of de-mining, Cambodia will be totally free of landmines in 5 years (2020). For better or worse, the issue of landmines in Cambodia became a cause célèbre in the late 90s/early 2000s, which has even a decade later left a certain impression on the kind of people that don't do follow up research. This is an encyclopedia article, not an advocacy forum. If this issue is to be mentioned at all in our general article on Cambodia (for the record, I believe it does indeed warrant a few, limited lines), it should very briefly state that the situation is vastly improved since previous decades (as the current, reliable sources show) and it should mention the current social repercussions of so many victims and link to an appropriate sub-article in which the issue and its history can be dealt with in depth. The current issue is not so much the existence of landmines in Cambodia, but rather the social and economic fall out of the landmines (see for example this recent BBC article that says "...Cambodia has one amputee for every 290 people".--William Thweatt TalkContribs 04:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the very thoughtful reply. I think your approach sounds good and will support it. What I found annoying was someone just taking the information out of the article and saying it was not really an issue any more. This information "...Cambodia has one amputee for every 290 people", does indeed seem to warrant inclusion in the article with phrasing as you are describing above. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

More of the same in Cambodia [1] How often does it go unreported? The country is still loaded with them. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Introduction too long[edit]

Is it just me, or is the introduction for the article just too long? Compare this to similar countries like Laos for example. EDIT: Upon checking it out more, it seems like some parts of it is pretty outdated.Nice Stranger5810 (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The introduction seems like it is too biased against Cambodia. Some of the corruption comments aren't properly sourced and seem out of line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.100.170 (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it biased and what sources are you referring to? Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I, too, think it is well a bit biased against Cambodia, and that is really disappointing to me since this is Wikipedia, however I feel like some of the 'biased' information is pretty outdated and should be updated. Nice Stranger5810 (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
And what exactly are you referring to? Also how is it biased against Cambodia? You mean biased against the people of Cambodia, the politics of Cambodia, or what? Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
A couple of points. First off, Cambodia, whether regarding its crooked elections or its corrupt, bribe-taking police and politicians at every level of government, is consistently ranked as one of the most corrupt nations in the world and will likely remain so as long as Hun Sen (whom Reuters plainly called a "dictator" earlier this year) maintains his strong man position. Stating the verifiable truth, however negative it may be, isn't "bias". Secondly, the information regarding corruption is perfectly sourced and not at all "outdated". With a quick glance I see sources from 2014, 2012, 2011, etc. with the oldest source appearing to be from 2010. Thorough academic research, study and publication tend to lag slightly. Also, per the Manual of Style, the article lead is supposed to briefly summarize all important contents of the article. It follows that extremely long articles will have longer than average leads. In addition, it is WP custom (it may even be in the MOS, I haven't checked recently) that, barring extraordinarily controversial or BLP statements, material in the lead needn't be cited if it is a summary of material that is already cited in the body of the article. Such is the case in this article. See the Cambodia#Government section for the sources.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 05:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with WilliamThweatt. I also see where the editors calling into question this aspect of unfairness are providing zero examples of what they are talking about, at least so far. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Nice Stranger5810, the intro is much too long. Don't agree about bias though, Cambodia really is corrupt.PiCo (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Not only is it too long, I think it's poorly written too. Some sentence are too trivial for an opening paragraph. One that really stands out to me is: 'Cambodia's ancient name is "Kambuja" (Sanskrit: कंबुज).' Is this information really useful to most people? Do other countries article have such nonsense so early? If such name is important, it would be listed in the parenthesis at the beginning otherwise should go in the Name section. --Dara (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that is useful information that you are quoting. I would be for leaving that in. Its factual and a taste of history. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I didn't remove it. The statement is also debatable (among other things about ancient Cambodia such as the ancient name for Angkor Wat) and it doesn't mention what period this word "Kambuja" was used in and by whom? Traders, foreigners, or Cambodians themselves during what unmentioned period? If you look at the article for Names of Cambodia it mentiones that Kampuchea is derived from Kambujadesa which appears in an inscription. This is not the same thing as saying Kambuja was the ancient name. It seems like some of this information is being twisted and taken out of context. Where do we find that "Kambuja" was the sole name for Cambodia in ancient times (when?)? Mentioning such statement is too esoteric for a beginning section, especially if such information is debatable. If anything, it is more useful to mention the names of Cambodia used by Europeans during the age of exploration or what European language the name "Cambodia" was derived from (Cambodge/Camboja/Camboia)--Dara (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Dara here, in part. The statement is, at present, unattributed. And even if true, doesn't belong in the lede but rather under "Names of Cambodia". As for the name "Kambuja", it is simply "Kampuchea" pronounced in Old Khmer. Another way of looking at it is the spelling កម្ពុជា would have been pronounced "Kambuja" in Old Khmer (before the voiced stops were lost and the subsequent vowels were diphthongized). So "Kampuchea" is just the modern way of pronouncing what was once "Kambuja". The name "Kambuja" itself comes from two Pali/Sanskrit words Kambu ("gold") and ja ("born of" or "giving birth to"), giving a loosely translated "place birthed in gold" or "land born of gold". The name was a reference to (and indeed is related to) to the term Suvarnabhumi ("Land of Gold") used by ancient India to refer to various lands of Southeast Asia. The Kambujadeśa mentioned in inscription is simply a case of yet another Sanskrit modifier, deśa ("place" or "country of") being attached to the term, yielding Kambu + ja + deśa, which is just an ad-hoc Sanskrit way to say "the Country of Kambuja" (literally, "the Country of the Land Born of Gold"). So Kambujadesa = Kambuja = Kampuchea; they're all the same word. When "Kampuchea" was chosen as a name for the modern kingdom, they didn't just make that name up out of whole cloth, it is a modern pronunciation of the name formerly given to the kingdom, Kambuja. There's no doubt Kambuja was an ancient name of the polity that became modern Cambodia, but, just as today, it was probably never the "sole name". However, this is all too detailed and complicated to explain in the lede. For reference, here is what Chuon Nath had to say on the mater:

កម្ពុជ ឬកម្ពុជា 1 ន. (សំ. បា. កម្ពុ “មាស”+ជ ឬជា “កើត, កំណើត”= សុវណ្ណភូមិ​ “ទីកើតមាស​, ភូមិ​ប្រទេសជា​ទី​កើតនៃមាស​” )​ ពាក្យនេះ​ជាឈ្មោះ​នៃ​ ប្រទេសខ្មែរ​យើង, យើងហៅប្រទេស​របស់យើង​ថា​ កម្ពុជរដ្ឋ ក៏បាន​, ថា កម្ពុជប្រទេស ក៏បាន, ថា ប្រទេសកម្ពុជា ក៏បាន, ថា ប្រទេស​ខ្មែរ​ ក៏បាន, ថា ខេមរប្រទេស​ ក៏បាន, ថា ខេមររដ្ឋ ក៏បាន​ កាលណា​បើកវីជាតិយើងត្រូវ​ការ​ប្រើ​ក្នុងកាព្យ ឬក្នុងការ​តែង​សេចក្តី​​ជា​ពាក្យរាយ​ខ្លះ​, យើងអាច​ហៅប្រទេស​យើង​បាន​តាម​ត្រូវ​ការ, ប៉ុន្តែ​ពាក្យប្រើក្នុង​ផ្លូវ​ការ យើងសរសេរ យើងហៅ កម្ពុជរដ្ឋ ឬ ប្រទេសកម្ពុជា;​ ឯជនបរទេស​ គេហៅតាមយើងដែរ​ក៏មាន គេហៅ​តាម​ការសន្មតិរបស់​គេក៏មាន​ ដូចជាបារាំងសែស​ គេ​ហៅ​ប្រទេសយើងថា​ Cambodge, អង្គ្លេសហៅថា Cambodia, អ្នកបរទេសខ្លះទៀតហៅថា​ Cambodja, ខ្លះហៅ Kambuja ។ល។​​ប្រទេសកម្ពុជាយើង​ តាំងពី​​​ត្រឡប់បាន​ឋានៈជា​ប្រទេស ឯករាជ្យ អព្យាក្រឹត​ ពុទ្ធសាសនិក​ កើតមានសង្គមរាស្រ្តនិយម​ ដោយ​ព្រះគតិបណ្ឌិតដ៏ឈ្លាសវាងវៃ​ភ្លឺថ្លានៃ​ សម្តេចព្រះនរោត្តម​ សីហនុ ព្រះប្រមុខរដ្ឋ​ របស់យើង​រៀង​មក យើងមាន​ សាមគ្គី ស្រុះគ្នា​ដូចគេវេញខ្សែបញ្ចូលធ្លុងមាំមួនរឹងប៉ឹង យើងបាន​ប្រកប​ដោយ​ សន្តិសុខ សន្តិភាព វឌ្ឍនភាព លូតលាស់ ចម្រុងចម្រើន កើតកើនឡើងជានិច្ច ស្្ទើរតែនឹងគណនាត្រារាប់ពុំបាន​ប្រមាណ​ពុំអស់​មានកិត្តិនាមថា​ ខ្ែមរជួយ​ខ្មែរគ្នាឯងដោយ​ពេញសមត្ថភាព, ខ្មែរ​បង្កើតជីវភាពខ្លួនឯង, បង្កើតសុខសន្តិភាពខ្លួន​ឯង, បង្កើត វឌ្ឍនភាពខ្លួនឯង, ខ្មែរ​មាន​កល្យាណ​មិត្តច្រើនក្នុងសកល​លោក​ ។ល។ ។ល។ សំ. បា.

And while we're at it, it's not just the lede that needs cleaned up. This article has been neglected for far too long. Many statistics are outdated, references are outdated, the big map in the "Geography" section is outdated (it doesn't reflect Pailin or Kep becoming provinces or the recent split of Kampong Cham into two provinces). The whole article needs updated, copy edited and trimmed.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Information box[edit]

An editor removed information on religion from the article that is sourced and pertinent to information presentation. It is the bit about Islam and Animism. I returned the information. The editor that removed it did so without an edit summary and also failed to discuss his reasoning on the talk page. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not the one who removed the information but I have something to say regarding the Religion section of the infobox. Buddhism should be the only one in the Religion section of the infobox or what you guys call it since from what is stated by the sources and this article itself, it is the official religion of Cambodia, besides around 95% of the population follows the religion. HOWEVER, if you people want to keep on putting multiple religions, on the Religion section of the infobox, I feel like it is useless to have that section of the infobox since for me there should be only one or even two or above if there is two and above official religions of the country.Nice Stranger5810 (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, however, the article is not presented by the Cambodian government it is presented by Wikipedia which is an encyclopedia that wants a well rounded view. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Islam is followed by under 2% of the population - seems rather unreasonable to give is a mention in the infobox. Animism isn't really a religion, more a set of practices underlying all religions (the term was invented by Edward Tylor in 1871 to describe the common faces of "primitive" religion). What arguments do you have for including them?PiCo (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The citations are given about this and it is a big part of the history and present, of the area. Breaking things into %'s seems to be not really a good way to qualify or measure information in an encyclopedia. Ebola is popular in the news though what is the percentage of people compared to world population that has contracted it? So, like an argument about landmines no longer being important because of the % of cripples and deaths being X, a well rounded view of Cambodia is more important than some bias of the government there saying something about the 'official' religion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Not a very convincing argument. I think we need to take this to an RfC. PiCo (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Saying something is not convincing is different than explaining why something is non convincing. Is it better to present Cambodia the way that government says and ignore ethnic groups practices? Doubtful. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Khmer Leou[edit]

Khmer Loeu Also known as Hill tribes. Interesting article but it is not sourced. It is really in need of real sourcing of information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. That particular article has been #1 on my "to-do" list for nigh on a decade now but, unfortunately, I get sidetracked quite easily or lose focus. So I started rewriting it today and will continue to add sources and information over the next week or so.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 05:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Super. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
What do we do about this article Military history of Cambodia that appears to be taken from some source, copied from some source without any actual attribution citations? Is it better to clear the article and turn it into a more stub-like thing? The information now appears to be good in it but it is just the single perspective of some study, so appears to be without any critical foundation in regard to sourcing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cambodia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Cambodia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)