Talk:Cambodia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article (or a previous version) was reviewed ending September 10, 2006 and was found to still embody the qualities of a featured article.

Cambodia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Cambodia appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 20, 2005.

Cambodia is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Cambodia, or visit the project page for more details.

FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on its quality.

[edit] Protected page

I restored the revision as of 17:38, 15 Apr 2004, which was the last stable version of the article. On this and two other Cambodia-related pages edits by User:Hanpuk are being removed without comments on the talk page. 172 07:03, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Province Names..

I notice that the Romanization of the province names here are different than the one on my map at home. I think there needs to be like a list of alternative spellings for the names of the province of Cambodia. For instance, if someone wanted search for Ratana Kiri (which is listed here as Rotanah Kiri) I don't think they'd be able to find it because of the different spellings. --Dara 09:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes Dara, this is true I have seen the romanization of Khmer province and placenames differ according to how one wishes to interpret it as. However I think that is at least some sort of standard in which is considered to be the most fairly standard used by most of the Western world. I really think that due to the many varieties of spelling like Phnom Penh, Phnum Peing, Phnum Penh, Penom Pen etc. It would just have to be that the Wikipedia has to settle for the one type of spelling. If this is not so then other articles would have varieties of place names too... Squash 03:36, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Okie dokie. :) I also notice different romanization for other Khmer words in the article. It just drives me crazy to see that someone wrote kaeyte reffering to the Khmer word for province. Go on to the next paragragh and you can see there's another variation of that word spelled khett. It doesn't make any sense to spell words differently because it would just cause confusion. We can spell words our on way, or we can conform to a standard which makes more sense. So if anyone want to use a transliteration/romanization table, I suggest the one at this link: (PDF file) http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/INF.30.pdf. All the diacritic marks are a little funky and maybe difficult to type out though. If you notice, the province names in the article here seems to have used that transliteration table. --Dara 01:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay. I changed the names of the provinces and city names to the ones stated in that U.N. document. I also updated the Cambodia template and most of the what links to article... articles... but there may be some minor things that need to be changed... So this should be of no problem. Thank you for pointing this romanization out :-) Squash 05:50, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I see someone used Khmaa in the article and that just makes me want to cringe. He or she may pronounce it like that, but it's nowhere close to the common pronounciation of Khmae or Khmai, but it's best if we just use Khmer. --Dara 23:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Uses of Names

Under Uses of names it says Although the name "Kampuchea" was first introduced by the Khmer Rouge it is still used today locally. I think this is sort of misleading. It may cause readers to think the the Khmer Rouge coined the word Kampuchea, when in fact it's a word that precedes their existence. Khmers have been using it as far back as anyone can remember. --Dara 23:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. Squash 23:46, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Due to the large Chinese minority that has traditionaly lived in Cambodia (especially on Phnom Penh) would it not be appropriate to include 柬埔寨 as one of the names for the kingdom? That name is used day in and day out by some Cambodians.

[edit] List of edit attribution

This is a list of edits, which the text were from other articles but put into Cambodia partially as a summary to those respective articles. E.g. I put information from Khmer Rouge cut it down, and linked to the main article. I don't claim copyright and authorship to the text under the following revisions. Squash 23:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The list:

[1] From: Early history of Cambodia and Colonial Cambodia
[2] "During the rule of Suryavarman II (1113-1150 AD) Cambodia's major landmark, The Angkor Wat was built." From: Early history of Cambodia
[3] and [4] From: Thailand and Angkor
[5] From: Economy of Cambodia and Foreign relations of Cambodia
[6] From: Khmer Rouge

[edit] Outstanding issues

Some outstanding content issues which need to be sorted before we get into copyediting:

the Bayon, a temple whose stone towers has 216 faces of buddhas, gods, and kings. Compare The face according to the common opinion of most historians is of Avalokitesvara. I thought these were multiple versions of one face, namely a composite of Avelokiteshvara and Jayavarman VII. Can we have a source to support whichever of the three claims is true?
Throughout the article, there are "See also" links which duplicate links in the text: these need to go. Same for the Topics related to Cambodia template at the bottom of the page.
The Climate of Phnom Penh graph is too small to see anything- it needs to be bigger or be removed.
For tourists coming into the country, the main transporation are Motorbikes and Velotaxis What does this mean? These seem to be plausible means of transportation within a city, but tourists do rather a lot of travelling between cities. And is this meant to imply that Khmers don't use these?
The Further reading section: as per my earlier question, has anyone read these? If so they can surely be used as References, if not why are we recommending them?

Mark ¹ 08:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Replies

Yes this is true. 216 faces - [7] Quote: "A pediment found in 1925 depicting an Avalokitesvara identified the Bayon as a Buddhist temple." - [8] Squash 09:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have removed all the redundant wikilinks. For instance Khmer Rouge that is wikilinked 3 times or so to only to one wikilink (Normally the first instance of the word appearing) - Done. I don't think it is a good idea to remove the "Topics of Cambodia-related" template, even it is redundant of wikilinks in the article. It provides central navigation for those who wish to track on Cambodia-related article without having to go through the text of the article. Please see United States and India for instance. Squash 22:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Enlarged - Done Squash 09:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Khmers _don't_ normally use velotaxi. They mainly use motorbikes and cars. I have changed the article to accomodate this setence - Done Squash 09:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is not a question of whether of whether one has read the book. It is a list of books that are recommended if a reader wishes to learn more about the topic (Cambodia). The futher reading section is used for recommendations for reading on the subject not references. My understanding of references is when a person wishes to cite sources. The references section is the wiki-correct section for "Sources" heading. I don't think it is correct to put books that you don't use in the article (merely only for recommendations of reading) in the references section. I hope you get what I mean by that. Squash 09:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My question is not about the number, it's about the identity of the subject. The official Apsara site [9] suggests that there is one subject (not "buddhas, gods and kings"), but that the identity of the subject is not as certain as the article implies: The multiple scholarly attempts to identify the Bayon faces have generally focussed on Brahmanic-Mahayanic gods, in view of the religious particularities of Jayavarman VII's reign. The most frequently cited is Lokesvara, a Buddhist divinity widely venerated during that time. It is also possible that the faces represented that of Jayavarman VII himself, as a new expression of an old Khmer tradition of belief in the apotheosis of kings.
Fine.
Fine.
I've gone ahead and changed this to The locals normally use cars, motorbikes and buses. Velotaxis are an additional option often used by visitors. I think this says what you mean to say.
I certainly agree that books we haven't read should not be put in the sources section. But if we haven't read them, why are we recommending them at all? It seems that the Further reading section was added in response to Jeronimo's request for written references. However, since they aren't references, they don't meet his point, and the fact that these are some of the thousands of books written on Cambodia is not a good reason for singling them out for mention. Readers are perfectly able to find books about Cambodia on their own.

One further issue: the Khmer text at the top of the page is completely baffling to most readers: if people can read it, then they know the Khmer word for Cambodia anyway. If we want to keep it, I'd suggest moving it down to the Demographics or Culture section to illustrate a mention of the Khmer language/script. Mark ¹ 04:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please change whatever you need to
N/A
N/A
Good job, that is what I meant
I 100% agree with you on that, but unfortunately many country articles have this so-called "Further reading" section and I don't like to break consistency with those other article. I know that I certainly can't satisfy the opinions of two people at the same time. Therefore I recommend (just a recommendation) that we leave it, but if you _really_ want to remove that section then go ahead. If you do _remove_ the "Futher reading" section then you can send a reply to Jeronimo's object on FAC as to why this issue is an invalid FAC issue. ;-) Squash 06:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Moved Khmer writting to Culture section - Done Squash 05:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Numbers 1 and 5 are now done: I found a paper reference to support the various interpretations of the faces, as well as miscellaneous other artistic stuff. Have you by any chance read some books on Cambodia in Khmer? Some Khmer language refs would be particularly impressive. ;) I think the copyediting will take quite a while, so we may have to focus on getting it through a third FAC nomination. Mark ¹ 05:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good job, only the copyedit (your job) to do. Unfortunately I havn't read any books on Cambodia in Khmer (I can understand and speak Khmer quite fluently, but can't read or write :-|). And I'll agree with you on a third FAC nomination, that'll be what this article deserves. Squash 04:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've started working my way through. One problem I've come across: according to the infobox, Kingdom of Cambodia in Khmer is Preăh Réachéa Nachâkr Kâmpŭchea, in which case Kampuchea was the official name under French rule, and before the Khmer Rouge adopted the name. Is this right? Mark ¹ 05:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are correct. Squash 07:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One more puzzle: the senate is elected largely by "functional constituencies". What are these? Does everyone have a vote? we have an article on Functional constituency, but at the moment it only covers the Hong Kong version. Mark ¹ 06:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No idea. Squash 08:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another: what are "national minorities"? Are we talking tribal groups? If they are 3% and the Khmer are about 90%, who are the other 7%? Mark ¹ 09:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

National minorities obviously means Vietnamese, Chinese and Thais Squash 20:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate map

This map shows the island in the south-east as part of Cambodia. In fact, Phú Quốc island is part of Vietnam. See this map: [10]DHN 18:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I edited the map to show it being part of Vietnam. DHN 18:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That website is a sham. Koh Tral belongs to Cambodia.

A Note of S.E. Dr. SAY BORY 16/08/2000 KOH TRAL the Vietnameses gave him a Vietnamese name: Phu Quoc historical Marks bench • 1856: Kings Ang Duong makes known with Mr. de Montigny, Ambassador plenipotentiary of France in visit in Bangkok, via Evèque ROUND LOAF, its intention to yield Koh Tral to France (cf "Second Empire of Indo-China") • 1863: Establishing Protectorate in Kampuchea, France annexed Kampuchea Krom to make of it a called French colony "Cochinchine". • 25/05/1874: Koh Tral (Phu Quoc) which belonged to Kampuchea (under the reign of King Ang Duong) was placed, by French Protectorate, under L ' Administration of the Governor of Cochinchine, C ' be-with-statement of France. • 16/06/1875: Koh Tral is attached to L ' inspection of L ' district of Hatien colonized by France. It should be known that King Ang Duong, in 1855, had recalled to Napoleon III that "the territories annexed by Vietnam and ranging between the Western branch of Mekong and the gulf of Siam (area of Hatien) were" really Kampuchean ground "(cf A. Dolphin-Dauphin-Meunier in History of Kampuchea, page 99). Thus Koh Tral remains always a Kampuchean island, in spite of qu ' it is managed by colonial France. • 31/01/1939: the "Line Brévié" N ' is not a maritime layout of border, but simply a police force and dividing line of the "capacities D ' administration" on the islands of the Gulf of Siam. So Koh Tral is placed, as in 1875, under L ' colonial administration French of Cochinchine. Brévié even specified that "territorial dependence of these islands (whose Phu Quoc also) remains entirely held". • 04/06/1949: In spite of the Kampuchean protests and Deferre Motion, France voted a law attaching the territory of Cochinchine (Khmer territory) to Vietnam. • 24/04/1954: with the Conference of Geneva, Kampuchea always continues prostester against this unjust and irregular transfer of its grounds of Cochinchine to Vietnam by France, and reserves the harbour due the litigation in front of L ' UNO. • 07/06/1957: Norodom Sihanouk, President of the Council of Ministers, had required, in a letter, in Lon Nol, Ministre for National Defense, D ' to ensure the protection of all the islands of the Gulf of Siam (thus also Koh Tral), and in particular the grouping D ' islands of Poulo- Pangjang (in Khmer: Koh Krachak Sès; in Vietnamese: Tho Chu), Koh PouloWai (Koh Achsès) and Koh Tang. • 30/12/1957: In his bearing Kret on the delimitation of the Kampuchean continental shelf King Norodom Suramarit reaffirmed well that Kampuchea reserves the maintenance of its historical rights on Koh Tral (cf art.6 of Kret). • 1963: In the book "Geography of Kampuchea" published in 1963, of Tan Kim Huon, a Khmer scientist, agricultural engineer and forestry expert, Koh Tral is well a Kampuchean island (cf its charts nº 3, 12 and 19). • 1969: Koh Tral (Phu Quoc) figure in the official list of the Kampuchean islands, under the nº 61 (on a total of 64 islands), published by the Ministry of L ' Industry and the Mines. • 01/07/1972: D ' after Kret of July 1, 1972, the Government of the Khmère Republic makes a point of reaffirming its sovereignty on its continental shelf and warns the oil companies against the consequences of any action undertaken in this zone. Koh Tral remains always Kampuchean. • 1975-end 1978: Statu quo. • 07/07/1982: Koh Tral (Phu Quoc) and Poulo-Pangjang (Tho Chu) appear in the Vietnamese territory, on a chart joined to the "treaty on the zone of historical Water of the Popular Republic of Kampuchea and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam". • Vietnam thus annexes 30.000 km² of maritime surface Khmère and creates the "historical sea" of 10.000 km² to broad of Koh Tral (cf Kampuchea: Research Oil, Continentan Plate of Mr. SEAN Pengsè, April 1995). Conclusion: By what precedes, the conclusion S ' imposes D ' itself. [User:65.197.228.2]

Ah, virulent east asian squabbles over tiny patches of land. I love them. The island is administered by Vietnam, is claimed by Cambodia, and should be shown as part of Vietnam unless and until the situation changes. Mark ¹ 02:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You may say that Koh Tral belongs to Vietnam, but it really is a contested island. But for the sake of not making this into a dispute and because on most maps it shows the island as part of Vietnam. Let's end it at here. Squash 10:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geography

There is a really nice graphic in the geography section, but it is not referenced in the text. The graphic should either be removed or explained in the text. As it is now, the graphic is pretty useless since the reader probably has no idea what it is trying to convey. Rangek 20:49, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

[edit] The 70s

There is an interesting photograph of lots of old money blowing down the street after the central bank was sapped. This might be a good photo to use for this part of history. There is an even more famous photograph, of a stopped clock at a train station in Phnom Penh. Also, as far as China's influence down through the ages, it would be easy to write a two sentence paragraph about the Chinese words for the city and the country, and the Chinese traditional attitude that 'Cambodia is always rich'. It is as simple a matter as referencing German attitudes towards France in a France article, or New York attitudes towards LA in an LA article. I don't want to run into a language simplicity discussion; one should assume that Asian countries are as inter-influential as European countries. McDogm Apr 29 2005 2311 est usa

What do you mean "Cambodia is always rich", isn't it around the other way? Cambodia is one of the poorest countries in Asia, whilst for China it is one of the richest and most dominant in Asia. Squash

IDK, its just something I have seen repeatedly as traditional knowlege on Chinese tv shows and in Chinese books; it has as much truth to it as "The British have a dry sense of humor" or "Scandinavians are all depressed". --McDogm 12:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection...

Shouldn't "Cambodian" be redirected to the Khmer disambiguation page instead? --Dara 21:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed Dara, I have fixed it :) Thanks. Squash 07:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too long?

If you go to edit this article, you will notice that it says the article is too long. I think we need to shorten this article. There is a lot of links. I think only the good links should remain of course, for the ministries, how about just link to one that has a page that links to the other Cambodian ministries? And most of the information that some have added about etymology about Pali and Sanskrit needs go, I think it's interesting and all, but it's too detailed and makes the article look really cluttered. --Dara 08:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dara, When I made this article along with User:Markalexander100's grammar help. The people complain that it is too short, now it's too long... I don't know how to please people :) Squash 09:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Velotaxi? Never heard of it...

Here among the English speaking expatriate community in Phnom Penh (at least the one that I hang out with) these things are called cyclos, pronounced see-clo. Indeed if you look on the cycle rickshaw article it mentions that they are called cyclos here. --Easter Monkey 02:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I think velotaxi is a slightly fancy English term rather than a Cambodian one. Changed to "Cycle rickshaws ("cyclos")". Mark ¹ 02:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually now that I'm thinking hard about it, I remember from my high school French class that vélo means bicycle in French...imagine that! --Easter Monkey 04:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Unicode or Images?

I'm not so sure using images instead of standard Unicode characters is the best thing to do here. Tools are there, fonts are present; we should rely on those instead.

Arguments for using Unicode over images

UTF8 is standard in Wikipedia and is used all over the place (look at various pages like Tibet, Japan, Korea, etc.)
Images slows down page loading time on modem connections

202.93.15.78 09:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but theres people who cannot download or do not wish to download Khmer unicode support for their computer. Furthermore, Khmer unicode is still experimental. Squash 05:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

And also, no mainstream Unicode font have Khmer letters in it, not even Arial Unicode MS, which has Lao. For nearly 99.9% of visitors, they will just see those boxes. And the images do not take long to download, they're just a few kbs each. I'm on dialup and its not that slow-loading whatsoever. :) I do wish that the person making these images use a better looking font. And also, in addition to the images, I do think there should be Khmer unicode next to it for those that actually have support. --Hecktor 07:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autogenocide?

I really don't like this word "autogenocide". The "auto" portion greatly diminishes the abhorent connotation of the "genocide" portion of the word and makes it sound about as objectionable as "auroeroticism". I don't see where this word is justified unless there is a democratically elected government and the victims all agree that it is a good idea. Then it becomes mass suicide, so there is really no use for the word except for purposes of revisionist history. It seems that "autogenocide" would apply to the actions of the Nazis against the Jews, a positon I would not like to try to defend. I noticed that "genocide" is used in the case or Rwanda and "autogenocide" is used in the case of Cambodia in Wikipedia. Can anyone explain the difference between these two cases?

Genocide refers to the (attempted) destruction of a particular ethnic group. Nazis and Rwanda: directed at another ethnic group. Cambodia: directed at the same ethnic group. The problem of course is that Cambodia was "genocide" only in the looser sense of "killing a lot of people"; the KR, while not being particularly fluffy, were not trying to destroy an ethnic group. But that's a problem of wooly thinking among people in general, not a problem with the way we've written the article. Mark ¹ 00:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess I see your point, but aren't Cambodians are an ethnic group? The Pol Pot government was killing everyone who would possibly get in the way of their complete subjugation of the country with perhaps a few others thrown in for good measure. I expect that if this had happened in Switzerland instead, Pol Pot would have killed German, Italian, and French speakers indiscriminately, depending on how much it fit his plans for domination. This is a tactic as old as history. There wasn't an attempt to rid the world of Cambodians, just the ones in Cambodia who posed a threat to the takeover. Perhaps pogrom would apply if you disregard the antisemitic connotations. What do you think? A fitting word may not exist for this tactic. Toby 15 November 2005

The Khmer are an ethnic group, but the killers and the killed were both Khmer. Pogroms, I gather, were racially motivated (Russians killing Jews), so that doesn't help us. If the language were logical we would just say "large scale politically motivated killings", but it isn't. Mark 21:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link creep

Looks to me like a lot of crap has crept into the other external links section. I can only see about three of those that I would keep. Any takers? --Easter Monkey 16:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, people are taking this as an online directory for self-promotion. I just splitted the chaos into smaller chaos (created other subheadings) but an objective selection/removal should be applied. I do see more than three relevant links though :) 203.144.64.9 07:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've done some trimming of the blogs, backpacker photos and minor organisations. Most of the royal and government links should probably be kept, but on Government of Cambodia. Mark ¹ 10:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That was an extreme washing :) I've re-added LICADHO link as it is the main/biggest source of human rights information coming from Cambodia and its content is reliable. I also think the royal links should come back too. If you agree or don't see any reply on this message after a week, I'll re-add the royal section 203.144.64.9 08:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete the royal links, I moved them to Politics of Cambodia, where they are more relevant. Links should be from the most specific article we have (oddly, we don't have Monarchy of Cambodia, but if you want to write it...) Mark ¹

[edit] Cambodia, Kampuchea

Took this out:

Contrary to what some believe, Cambodia and Kampuchea are exactly the same word, being merely two different transliterations of the same Khmer word. Due to its use by the Khmer Rouge, the transliteration Kampuchea is now eschewed, and the traditional Cambodia is preferred for use in Western languages.

What some believe is weasly. Cambodians, when speaking Khmer, use Kampuchea or Srok Khmae as later stated, much the same as Germans, when speaking German, use Deutschland, thus the bit about the KR etc. is uneccessary. --Easter Monkey 15:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cambodia ties

I've replaced the footer templates with Template:Cambodia ties. Such templates on country articles have been deprecated for some time, after lengthy discussions at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countries. Since most countries belong to at least a half dozen international organizations, which creates quite a mess at the bottom of articles when a box is added for each. Since my knowledge on Cambodia is very limited, I recommend you to make changes to improve this template. (See also United Kingdom, India and Canada for examples). CG 20:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summer 97 Coup d'etat

In the current revision of this article, the takeover done in summer 97 by the CPP is being described as a 'civil war'. What really happened, by definition, is a 'coup d'etat'.

Markalexander100: you reverted my changes saying it's ungrammatical, could you justify please? I'm not a native English speaker so I might have inserted my change in a wrong fashion but we still have to replace 'civil war' by 'coup d'etat'.

Your edit said it was 'a coup d'etat between the two sides'. That's impossible. Mark ¹ 11:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, it was obviously wrong :) I've just made a new revision to this part. Please correct any grammatical mistakes if any, thanks. (203.144.68.30 05:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

Actually, by strict definition, what happened in July of 1997 was a putsch, not a coup d'etat

[edit] Need for commments

After reading this article (the first time I read something about Cambodia), I found some terms that could need some comment about their POVness:

If this wasn't enough, Cambodia broke into...
Even the royal family was brutalized.
the People's Republic of Kampuchea, which became a Vietnamese puppet government...
Cambodia is now attempting to rebuild itself after years of horror.

Don't you think these words might be POV, specially the "puppet government" one? CG 21:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not the "puppet govt" bit. It was a Vietnamese puppet (tho I'd cut "governbment" off the end, for the sake of style). As for the others, I'd take "If this wasn't enough" off - it sounds overly colloquial - and delete the sentence about rebuilding after years of horror, which is the sort of thing bad journalists write when they run out of things to say but still have a couple of column inches to fill. And I think I'd like to see a better way of stating that members of the royal family were murdered. PiCo 15:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Naming

A great article! I just made a couple minor edits to the "Naming" section. I added a few words to the sentence regarding the final "r" in the pronunciation of "khmer" to indicate that final "r" is no longer pronounced in most dialects of Khmer. My justification is that final "r" can still be heard in some northern mountain areas and in the Northern Khmer dialects of Surin, Buriram, Srisaket, etc. The previous version simply stated that final "r" disappeared from Khmer in the 19th century.

Also, I added a few words to the sentence regarding "srok" vs. "prateh" to indicate that "srok" is a Mon-Khmer or "pure" Khmer word. The article previously explained that "prateh" was an importation from Sanskrit, I thought it would add a little to the article indicate why "srok" is considered the more colloquial of the two. WilliamThweatt 05:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right about the final "r". I think it can also be heard sometimes in the dialect of Battambang. But are you sure about "srok"? I'm asking this because it is sometimes very very hard to guess whether a word comes from sanskrit or is pure Mon-Khmer. Ancient sanskrit loan words have been "khmerized" to the point that they look totally Mon-Khmer and one need to be an expert linguist to figure out that they are actually sanskrit. For instance, would you have guessed that "phteah" (house), "tuk" (water), or "khbal" (head) are actually sanskrit loan words? So are you sure "srok" is really a Mon-Khmer word? You have any source for that? I'm merely asking out of curiosity. By the way, the only word that I know for sure is pure Mon-Khmer is "khla" (tiger). All other khmer words I know are in fact sanskrit or pali loan words, which sometimes leads me to wonder what's really Mon-Khmer about the vocabulary of the Khmer language. LOL. A beautiful language anyway. Hardouin 01:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, linguistics is one of my main areas of study...and Southeast Asian languages in particular. I was aware that "khbal" (head) was long ago adapted into Khmer from a Sanskrit word whose original meaning was "pottery" or "a pot" and was also a Prakrit slang term for "head". Although I can't quote the exact percentage right off the top of my head, most of the words used in everyday, colloquial usage are of Mon-Khmer origin (with some Thai borrowings), especially numbers, names of body-parts, indiginous plants and aminals, kinship terms, etc. It is only when you get into religious terminology, poetry/song, scientific and governmental jargon, and speaking to/about royals that you find Sanskrit-based words outnumbering "pure" Khmer words. Proof is mainly based on cognates in other Mon-Khmer languages that were never Indianized. I have a whole list of cognates from Bahnar, Jru, Khmu and others if you're interested. As for "tuk" (water), I believe that is a Mon-Khmer word. There is a cognate for this word in almost every Mon-Khmer language that has been studied. I believe the same is true of "pteah". (see this website for starters: http://www.anu.edu.au/~u9907217/languages/languages.html) As for "srok", I know it is attested in palm-leaf manuscripts and inscriptions dating from the Old Khmer period of the language as "sruk". I can look up the etymology further and post it in the next few days. Also, the dialect of Battambang was the first dialect of Khmer I was exposed to and the first one I became fluent in. Most speakers of this dialect are aware that their language used to pronounce final "-r", but really the only time you hear it is when they do a "surin accent" (usually for a comedic effect, the way an American will do a Cockney Accent or a Aussie Accent).--WilliamThweatt 04:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

For "tuk" and "phteah" I know it from my professor of Khmer language back when I studied the language. He is a world renowned scholar in Khmer language, so if he says "tuk" and "phteah" are sanskrit I trust him. For "khbal" it is the first time I hear it comes from "pottery" or "pot". I was always told it comes from sanskrit kapāla meaning "skull", cognate of Latin caput, capitis, and English capital. Perhaps the meaning "cup, jar" came from the fact that ancient people used skulls for drinking during rituals.

Otherwise, more generally I think you should distinguish between Pali loan words and Sanskrit loan words. What you wrote above applies to Pali loan words. These words are indeed long, they still look distinctly Indic, and are used in literary, scientific, royal jargon, such as "mâhavithielay" (university) or "santakie" (hotel). However, Sanskrit loan words were borrowed at a much earlier date, and have been "khmerized" to the point of looking native. For instance the very frequent word "kru" (master, teacher) comes from sanskrit guru, even some body parts come from sanskrit (such as "moat", the mouth). Not all numbers are pure Mon-Khmer, I believe 1 to 5 are Mon-Khmer, but 30, 40, 50, .., 90 are Cantonese loan words, and 0, 100, 1000, 10000 are sanskrit I believe. Even the word human ("monuh") is sanskrit. Cambodian people certainly perceive "mâhavithielay" or "santakie" as being Indic, but they would never guess that "moat" or "kru" are also Indic (unless they have higher education). You have the same phenomenon in English. Early French loan words have been anglicized to the point of looking native, while more recent French loan words still look quite French. Everybody can guess that "cliche" is a French loan word, but who could guess that "mushroom" is also a French loan word (from French mousseron). Hardouin 14:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I correct myself, according to this webpage at the Australian National University, the word "tuk" (water) is a pure Mon-Khmer word. Previously it was thought to come from sanskrit udaka (that's the explanation I had heard), but now it is thought to be pure Mon-Khmer. Interesting. They don't say anything about "srok" unfortunately. They were supposed to publish a Mon-Khmer Comparative Etymological Database, but I see they haven't done it yet. So whenever you find something about the etymology of "srok", keep me posted. Hardouin 22:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Now it's my turn to correct myself. I was backwards on the original/slang meaning of Sanskrit /kapala/. (I've been on other projects for a couple years now and I was trying to pull everything from memory, not to mention it was very late when I was writing).

Also, since Pali and the Prakrits all sort of descend from Sanskrit, I was using the term Sanskrit loosely as a sort of generic term. I should have made that clear or been more specific. Thanks for pointing that out.

As for the other issue, I mean no disrespect to your professor, but I believe he was basing his ideas on research primarily put forth by Wilhelm Schmidt at the turn of the 20th century. Although it was the first major work on the "Austro-Asiatic" language family that really clearly classified the Mon-Khmer languages, it's lexical work had some major shortcomings and has since been disproven. (Schmidt's inability to read Khmer script led to improper transcriptions and false assumptions. Also, his work on Mon-Khmer was limited to 4 closely related languages and neglected other MK languages that have remained isolated from extensive borrowing). This bad lexical research was later expanded upon by Menetrier in 1933 who tried to claim that most Khmer words were borrowed from the Indian languages en masse in pre-Angkorian Khmer times. A theory which has also since been disproven, although many "old-school" linguists, who don't keep up on the field, still propigate it. I will look through my old notes and see what I have on "srok" and post if/when I find something. It's a pleasure to meet and talk with other scholars who share the same interests, however obscure those interests may be! By the way, the Khmer word /kongkia/ is the borrowed term for "water" from the word for the Ganges River.--WilliamThweatt 01:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Obscure I don't know, but it is certainly not trivial. I think every subject is worthy of interest, particularly this one related to language and culture which was a key component of the Khmer Rouge tragedy. About water, I actually found out the Khmer word that comes from sanskrit udaka yesterday, but I didn't write it down. I'll tell you tomorrow. It's a very literary word, maybe you've never heard it. Otherwise, I've been doing a little research about "srok", and I found good information in Mon - Khmer studies IX-X, by Philip Jenner and Saveros Pou, University Press of Hawaï, 1980-1981. According to them, the word "srok" comes from the word "ruk" which means to poke, push in, to penetrate violently, to invade. Originally "ruk" meant to fall, drop, go down into, and also to be covered from above, to take shelter. "Srok" was pronounced "sruk" in Old Khmer and was recorded for the first time in an inscription written in AD 639. The original meaning was "shelter, place of security, as opposed to forest". A cognate today is the word "jrok" (open "o") meaning shelter ("ti-jrok"). So it seems the word "srok" is pure Mon-Khmer. Hardouin 11:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, saved me some work. I have a lot of back issues of "Mon-Khmer Studies" but not that one, although I have read a lot of both Jenner and Pou. A very interesting etymology. I, too, found the word that comes from "udaka". It's /?u?tea?ka?/ or /?u?toek/, spelled with the /sra? ?o? penh tua/. I've never "heard" it, but I have read it in compound words, although I never made the connection.--WilliamThweatt 16:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, do your own research anyway. I still find it odd that a verb meaning "to fall, drop, go down into" can end up meaning "to shelter"... Otherwise, they also had the etymology of the word "sâmdec" (prince) which I had always wondered about as I could never find a sanskrit or pali cognate. According to Jenner and Pou, the word comes from "sdec", itself from "dac" (to cut, break off). To cut, break off > hence vehemently, assertively, imperiously > hence someone who speaks assertively, with imperious tone > hence a prince. Really had to think about that! Hardouin 17:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

I have some questions about the "History" section. All concern the following sentence taken from the second paragraph of this section: In 1969 the USA began B-52 bombing operations in Cambodia to destroy Communist bases. The US administration kept the bombing secret until 1970. In 1970 the Nixon administration briefly invaded Cambodia, and the bombing continued until 1973. About 30,000-500,000 civilians were killed during the bombing raids.

For simplicity, I'll number my issues.

1) What is the source for the number of civilians killed "during" the bombing raids? 30,000-500,000? Such a range seems not just purely a guess, but also quite high.

2) It says that the civilians were killed "during" the bombing raids. This is ambiguous. Were they killed "by" the bombings, or were they killed by other fighting "during" the 4-year span of the bombings.

3) Was the US bombing directed at Cambodian Communists bases or Vietnamese communists crossing the border Ho Chi Minh Trail to avoid SVN and American troops?

I am going to look for sources and edit as warranted, if somebody else doesn't do it first. WilliamThweatt 23:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, DamageControl. A fine edit. As it reads now, it is much more clear. The Citation Needed tag after the figures is perfect until somebody can cite a source that either confirms or disputes these numbers.

I have been doing some investigation on this since yesterday and still have one issue though. It is with the use of the word "civilians". I have read a couple of sources that state when the US bombing of Viet Cong bases inside Cambodian territory was at its most intense (1973), the US, fearing an all-out siege of Phnom Penh by the Khmer Rouge, also bombed Khmer Rouge bases as far west as Siem Reap to help prop up the Lon Nol regime.

Undoubtedly, there were many truely civilian (ie. non-combatant) casualities, but how many of the 30,000-500,000 were Khmer Rouge soldiers or guerillas? Because it is impossible to determine, I suggest we change the sentence to read something like "At least 30,000 Cambodians were killed as a result of the bombing, with some estimates going as high as 500,000..." replacing "civilians" with "Cambodians". Anybody else have anything to add?--WilliamThweatt 20:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, WilliamThweatt, appreciated. Re "civilians" and "Cambodians", that sentence needed a bit of tweaking also so I thought I would go ahead with this change at the same time - hope I have not jumped in too early if there are differing views. DamageControl 07:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming to this discussion a bit late, but as I don't see it mentioned, a good source for info about Operation Menu (bombing of Cambodia, 1969-1973) is William Shawcross's Sideshow. --Easter Monkey 16:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

re the request for references for the estimates of deaths, I couldn't figure out the coding to insert the following references: Chandler uses 1.7 as a "safe" estimate but others make the estimates much higher. "...estimates range anywhere from 1.7 million [David Chandler, Voices From S21: Terror and History in Pol Pot's Secret Prison. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999] to 3 million Cambodians. [Craig Etcheson, Documentation Center of Cambodia, Phnom Penh, Cambodia http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/toll.htm]"

[edit] History > Recent Years > CWCC Paragraph

This whole paragraph should be removed or at the very least reworked (and probably moved to Tourism) for several reasons

The paragraph is proportionally way too long; this article is on Cambodia, not on an alleged scandal of a local NGO
It only offers one side of the story
It uses few valid references (most of them being articles from the same source: stuff.co.nz)
Right now, it sounds like a friend of the NZ guy in this particular conflict between an alleged perpetrator and CWCC is taking a stand using Wikipedia, which would totally inappropriate

What, IMO, needs to be done to make it acceptable into this article

Describe the other side of the story too: most of the time, sex offender will pay the girls family to push them to change their version of the story, sometimes accusing NGOs of forcing them into accusing the perpetrator.
Reduce the paragraph length, defocus on one incident and make it more general (if you can't, then that's a good hint this should never have been included) and move it to tourism section. Do not pollute the rest of the article
Include more reliable & diversified references (again if you can't, then that's another good hint of the inappropriateness of this paragraph)

I will remove the paragraph, and also other insertion in the article which I would rather label 'pollution'. Further discussion can take place here

I agree. This paragraph didn't belong here at all. It's way too specific to be included in a general encyclopedic article. If there is any substance to this story it may warrant its own page as long as it can be written NPOV but not in this article.--WilliamThweatt 22:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict information?

According to this page:

In 1993 a United Nations transitional authority sponsored democratic elections, with a very high turnout of eligible voters. However, the popular results were negated, and government was instead formed by a regime with Prince Sihanouk as king and Hun Sen as prime minister.

However the History of Cambodia (1979-present) states

Prince Norodom Ranariddh's FUNCINPEC Party was the top vote recipient with 45.5% vote followed by Hun Sen's Cambodian People's Party and the Buddhist Liberal Democratic Party, respectively. FUNCINPEC then entered into a coalition with the other parties that had participated in the election.

The parties represented in the 120-member Assembly proceeded to draft and approve a new Constitution, which was promulgated September 24. It established a multiparty liberal democracy in the framework of a constitutional monarchy, with the former Prince Sihanouk elevated to King. Prince Ranariddh and Hun Sen became First and Second Prime Ministers, respectively, in the Royal Cambodian Government (RCG). The Constitution provides for a wide range of internationally recognized human rights.

These two seem rather conflicting to me as one seems to suggest the popular results were ignored, the other that the government was formed in accordance with the popular results. Which one is correct? Nil Einne 19:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Just from memory, the election results you quoted from the Histroy Article are correct. After the 1993 elections, Ranariddh was "First" Prime Minister and Hun Sen was "Second" Prime Minister. However, Hun Sen's Vietnamese backed CPP consolidated control of the military and constantly worked to undermine Ranariddh's power and authority until ultimately, in the coup of 5-6 July 1997, Hun Sen ousted Ranariddh, declaring him a criminal and calling for his arrest. Many members and supporters of FUNCINPEC were arrested, tortured, or murdered. Other Ranariddh supporters and MPs fled to Thailand. FUNCINPEC general Nhek Bun Chhay organized a resistance of Ranariddh military units and loyalists in Northwestern Cambodia while Ranariddh himself appealled to the West for help, almost igniting a full-scale civil war. But, I digress. The info on this page should be changed to reflect the passage of about 4 years between the elections and 1997 coup's effective negation of the popular election. I will check my facts and work on it this week.--WilliamThweatt 21:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History section, etymological erudition

The history section of this article was far too long - we have a whole series of articles on Cambodian history which the reader can be refered to. All this article needs is a summary.
I too find the derivations of words and their cognates in other languages very interesting, but they don't belong in this article, where they just look like someone displaying their erudition. Adam 03:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extra Script

There seemed like there was some extra badly written script and some weird sample images. I deleted them. Codejkoolguy

Good catch, but there was a lot more wrong than just that. I reverted all the edits of 166.109.0.90 for vandalism.--WilliamThweatt 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Wilde

There's a Kim Wilde song named Cambodia and there's no article about it. However, it is not linked from the Kim Wilde article possibly because it doesn't exist yet. Following the singles/albums project, I believe there should be an article about the song. That's why I ask if it is wise to put "The article about Kim Wilde song is Cambodia (single)" or something in those lines at the top of the article because the link provided would be red. And I'm not too familiar with the guidelines/policies about that stuff, especially in case of a featured article, like this article is. --Filip (§) 12:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reamker

anyone want to expand the Reamker. The thai version is pretty long.--Dangerous-Boy 18:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed duplicate link in section "See Also"

Hi, I removed the template/link

Main article: List of Cambodia-related topics

because I saw another link in the same section. --Starionwolf 21:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 0.5 Nom

This article was nominated for Wikipedia:Version 0.5, I have failed it because of having unsourced info, not enough refs, needs a copyedit and cleanup, qualifies for WP:FARC. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I added two references on 1/corruption in Cambodia and 2/Islam/Christianity (also replacing 'spreading throughout Cambodia' phrasing by 'is also present in Cambodia')202.178.112.80 06:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "varies in relation to the person"?

The article says, "Everyone in Khmer culture is given a hierarchical title before the name - in some cases names are shortened with the title added before the name is given - which varies in relation to the person." Does the last clause mean it varies according to the person addressed, according to the person speaking, or both? (My guess is the last of those.) —JerryFriedman 01:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The answer is both. However, I understand the source of your confusion; the statement is misleading in that the terms are not "titles" per se. Khmers, like other Southeast Asian cultures, address each other most often using kinship terms, instead of names. The terms used vary according to the relationship and/or percieved difference in age/status and/or sex of both the speaker and the addressee.

For example, when speaking to someone intamately slightly younger but of the same generation I would use "bong" (older sibling) for "I" and "p'oun" (younger sibling) for "you". However, when addressing a female of my parents generation, I could use "khmuey"(nephew) or "khnyom"(deferrent "I") for "I" and "ming" (aunt) for "you". Hope this makes it a little more clear. There are also at least three other sets of terms to use when addressing those not considered intamates, Buddhist clergy, and royalty.--WilliamThweatt 01:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the source of my confusion was something else, but you cleared up that and a confusion I didn't know I had. Thanks! So if I understand you right, Khmers often use kinship terms instead of pronouns as well as instead of names. In talking to that hypothetical woman friend of your parents' generation, you might say, "Nephew wonders if I (deferential) might borrow aunt's car tomorrow"? (No doubt there's another whole layer of politeness for asking favors.) —JerryFriedman 01:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Land mines?

I don't see any discussion in the main article of the fact that Cambodia remains one of the most heavily-mined countries in the world, with millions of victims maimed and injured and international efforts ongoing to de-mine the country. Would this be better described in one of the sub-articles? I think it at least deserves mention here. Kasreyn 22:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Good observation. It is featured prominantly in some of the relevant subarticles, but your right, it should be mentioned in the main article. Even though it is now seen by most as the clichéd "cause d'jour" of certain celebreties, it is relevant to the demographics and economics of the country. I will include something in my edits if nobody does it sooner.--WilliamThweatt 23:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Long

The article does not match the preferable Wikipedia:Article_size. Unnecessary long parts of sub-sections should be added to the main article.Figer 02:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As the guide says, it is a bit outdated, originally written due to restrictions of very old browsers. Although it is still used as a benchmark for most articles, it is not necessary to conform to the size limit in all articles, especially when the quality of the article will suffer. Most articles (especially those dealing with countries) that have been promoted to Featured Article Status are longer than the "preferable" size. As the header says at the top of this talk page, Cambodia has already been promoted to Featured Article Status and any edits made should seek to maintain that status. Removing content is contrary to those goals.--WilliamThweatt 02:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, as indicated in the guide you mentioned (Wikipedia:Article size), the "size" refers to the main-body text only, and does not include the images, templates, references, etc. The aproximated size "warning" you get when editing the page includes the entire article, images, templates and all, and so is not a reliable indicator of the true "size" of the main-body text.--WilliamThweatt 02:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] '97 putsch--Where did it go?

The only reference to the putsch now is a vague remark about infighting and "civil violence." What gives?--WadeMcR 21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that as well. The only place I can find it even mentioned directly is a few sentences in the sub-article History of Cambodia (1979-present). Kinda suspicious as I distinctly remember writing a detailed section about it a few months back. I have been planning to write a stand-alone article on the events of '97 as part of the "History of Cambodia" series, but have been busy trying to improve this article and then occupied at work the last few days. If nobody else does it sooner I will add a summarizing paragraph into the history section (or maybe the politics section) in the next couple days.--WilliamThweatt 03:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of accent marks

OK this might be a dumb question, but I would like to know more about the diacritical marks used with Cambodia. It is shown as Kâmpŭchea with the â and ŭ. About the only place I've seen it written like this is on Wikipedia. Most sources show it in the local form as just Kampuchea, without any accent marks. Even on some Wikipedia pages it has it listed without the accent marks (List_of_countries_and_capitals_in_native_languages). I've noticed this same thing with many of the country names on Wikipedia. Like Afghanistan for example. It is written as Afġānistān on many Wikipedia pages, yet that is about the only place I see it like that. Can someone with knowledge of the subject please explain to me what the accent marks are and if they are correct or not if I want to write the name of the country in its native language, transcribed into the Latin alphabet of course. Thanks.--Brian1269 09:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark, first off, it's important to understand that there is no way to represent most Khmer sounds with the Latin alphabet. The sounds represented by "K", "P", "CH" and "ea" have no equivilents in English, they're just approximates. Circumflex ("accented") vowels aren't usually used when transcribing Khmer words into English for everyday purposes. They are a hold-over from the old system of transcribing Sanskrit vowels and really are of no value in transcribing Khmer since there's no universally accepted method of using circumflex vowels or accent marks for this purpose. For those who are familiar with the old system of transcribing Sanskrit, it may give some clues regarding inherent vowels versus written vowels but really adds no value as far as pronunciation quality. The only accurate way to convey proper native pronunciation is to use the proper IPA symbols, but that's not always practical. It is preferable to write them without the accent marks unless, in a scholarly treatment, you define exactly what sounds your accent-marked vowels are supposed to represent.--WilliamThweatt 13:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koh Tral

Does the Cambodian government still claim Koh Tral (Phú Quốc)? According to most sources, Vietnam and Cambodia signed an agreement in 1982 that officially recognizes Phú Quốc as Vietnamese territory [11]. If they no longer officially claim it, it should not appear in the list of islands. DHN 01:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The situation is not very clear. From what I understand, most Cambodians consider Koh Tral to be part of Cambodia, but while there is significant pressure on the royal government make an "official" claim, the island (if fact, large portions of the Cambodia/Vietnam border) remains a matter of contention between Phnom Penh and Hanoi. The 1982 "agreement" you mention was called the "Historical Waters Treaty of 1982" and was signed by Nguyen Co Thach of Vietnam and Hun Sen of the Vietnamese puppet government of Cambodia (while tens of thousands of Vietnamese troops still occupied Cambodia) and thus is seen by most Cambodians as an invalid treaty that Vietnam basically made with itself. On this basis, it seems Cambodia has a valid claim on the land but the problem lies in the details of the historical dispute. Historically, the claim on Koh Tral has always been linked to Cambodia's claim on the Khmer Krom territories in southern Vietnam (another issue that is far from settled in the minds of most Cambodians). If Phnom Penh lodges an official petition to reclaim Koh Tral, Cambodians will expect their government to also claim the Khmer Krom territories. Likewise, the Vietnamese government wouldn't relinquish their claim for fear that the Khmer Krom territories would also be demanded of them. The matter is complicated by the fact that the 1982 "agreement" also gave the Vietnamese almost 900 square nautical miles of Cambodia's territorial waters north of the Brieve Line, a line drawn by the French demarcating the border and the basis for Vietnam's original claims to the island. This is actually a very interesting topic, if I had all my sources organized, I'd start the article Historical Waters Treaty of 1982...ah, maybe tomorrow. Anyway, your edit of this afternoon makes the current situation clear. Here are some (admittedly partisan) links that explain the history a little better if anybody else is as interested as I am. [12][13]--WilliamThweatt 03:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Phonetic Alphabet

Can someone in the know add "Preăh Réachéanachâkr Kâmpŭchea" in the International Phonetic Alphabet?--Greasysteve13 10:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay marriage?

I put a citeneeded tag after the claim that Sihamoni isn't married because of the ban on gay marriages. This is a potentially inflammatory claim, given the fact that he claims to be straight. --Slashme 09:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is unsourced speculation and I have deleted. If someone can find a credible source for his having a same-sex partner, that fact can be stated at his biographical article. It is not relevant to this article even if true. Adam 09:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/m/Talk%7ECambodia_78d9.html"