Talk:Modern Cambodia

Cambodia High‑importance

Modern Cambodia 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.CambodiaWikipedia:WikiProject CambodiaTemplate:WikiProject CambodiaCambodia articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cambodia To-do:

Let us work in the best reference and presentation of archaeological sites of Cambodia beyond Angkor like Sambor Prei Kuk, Angkor Borei (Takeo), etc.

Should disambiguate Republican Party for Democracy and Renewal and generally try to link up social conscience with right-wing values.

I'm looking for the best picture or any informations about the KAF's U-6 (Beaver). It seem that the KAF had 3 aircrafts. But in 1971, during the viet cong's sapper attack at the Pochentong Air Base,at least 1 Beaver was destroyed.In 1972 at leat 1 Beaver was refurbished with a new engine. http://www.khmerairforce.com/AAK-KAF/AVNK-AAK-KAF/Cambodia-Beaver-KAF.JPG

Thankfull for this info. [Unsigned]

What a load of nonsense

This article is complete and utter nonsense. Is it too much to ask that we have some articles on this wikipedia that aren't from a heavily pro-Khmer Rouge POV? It's not just this article, there are a few KR POV articles on Wikipedia. Could people try to be a bit less biased in favour of genocidal mass murderers? Just because the USA, China, Thailand and the United Nations supported the Khmer Rouge, doesn't mean we can't try and tell the truth about what happened rather than just repeating their lies. Carl Kenner 18:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how this article is pro-khmer. Their repression in the elections is cited, as well as the fact that it was never disarmed or demobilised. they also mention that the UN's main goal was to prevent the Khmer Rouge of regaining power. So could you please clarify? - Betina 21:57 May 7th 2001 (GMT -2)

I would have to agree; I've read a lot of independent material and it seems to me that the subject matter is fairly objective. Also the title says, with its bare face sticking out, '1979-present'. The Vietnamese invasion of 1978-9 specifically ENDED the Khmer Rouge as the 'regime', so... how is Mr. Kenner's objection relevant anyway? As 'Betina' stated, the main goal of the UN was to facilitate the withdrawl of Vietnamese forces and to prevent the Khmer Rouge (as originally consituted, at least) from regaining power. - Pat Struthers (8/24/06)

I usually, dislike "me too" posts on talk pages, but in this case, I have to agree with Pat and Betina. This article, doesn't seem to be "Pro-Khmer Rouge" at all (and I don't think there are many people around that are more "anti-Khmer Rouge" than me). Kenner is right, though, in his assertion that there a couple other articles that were written by a certain pro-Khmer Rouge, pro-Marxist editor last year (he seems to have moved on, though). This article is, however, problematic in several areas. It is completely un-referenced, is repleat with what looks like original research (probably due to the lack of cited sources), and could stand a thorough copyediting. Any takers?--WilliamThweatt 22:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

The article History of Cambodia (1979-present) already contains information from the article Peoples's Republic. Thus, Peoples's Republic is redundent. In addition, the name of the article can be misleading because many countries (especially Communist) uses People's Repulic as part of their (formal) name. --Hurricane111 17:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. I didn't realise it was a link to a generic definition of People's Republic and not specific to the PRK regime.

rename this pageto 'Modern Cambodia' due to addition/separation of PRK from more recent history

my account is too recent, can't do the move by myself; thanks NIRVn 03:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move

When Vietnam installed the People's Republic of Kampuchea which last until 1993. So, we should move all events since the 1989 Vietnamese withdrawal until 1993 to a new article Cambodia Emerges - After the Vietnamese Occupation or just Cambodia after the Vietnamese Occupation (1989-1993). Well then this article Modern Cambodia will only discuss Cambodian history since 1993. 96.229.179.106 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help to convert images to svg

Could anyone help by typing out the letters that are showing up in the article, including "Preăh Réachéanachâkr Kâmpŭchea", the official name, and "Nation, Religion, King", the national motto, in Khmer Muol, using Unicode? I'm planning to convert the pngs that are currently used to svgs so they are better quality and so they can be scaled to be seen more easily. Either posting here or on my talk page would be great. Thanks. -Thylacine222 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Cambodian Coup Merge/Redirect

I've changed the 1997 Cambodian Coup page to be a redirect here. The topic itself is fine (people are likely to search for it after all), but until the subject matter material grows to the point where the Recent Developments section really needs to be split out into sub-sectioned pages I don't see the need to create a stub for this topic.
Besides, the text that was on the 1997 Cambodian Coup page was a straight copy of the first paragraph from Modern Cambodia#Recent Developments.
Ω (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Use of this Page, and Biases in its Writing.

This page as a whole is basically a page on the Cambodian government and political history, but it is titled "Modern Cambodia," not "Modern Cambodian political history." Quite frankly I find it odd such an article exists at all, as basically no other countries have such a categorization. Additionally, significant portions of this article come off as being highly biased. Especially the mentions of the 1997 conflict/coup. It WAS a coup. Wikipedia as a whole acknowledges that. The article is just weirdly apologetic about the whole thing, and written from a bizarrely pro-dictatorial angle? This whole article is helpful in terms of info, but it lacks the professionalism and design that other Wikipedia articles carry, and it is clearly outdated in some sense. It needs a lot of edits, and maybe a title change. ColonelJJHawkins (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]