Talk:Cambodian Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cambodian Campaign article.
Article policies
Good article Cambodian Campaign has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] POV

I'll get back to this later, but as it stands, this article fails entirely to take on the Cambodian perspective on this conflict. It fails to mention the 300,000-600,000 Cambodian deaths estimated from the bombing campaign nor the more recently revealed number of 230,516 sorties over Cambodia. This article also suggests that the US mercilessly left Cambodia in the hands of a communist Vietnam. However, recent analysis suggests that the Khmer Rouge actually rose to power as a direct result of the widespread civilian deaths from the bombing campaign and were previously a ragtag group of 1-5k members. Check out this article from the Yale Genocide Project. http://www.taylorowen.com/Articles/Walrus_CambodiaBombing_OCT06.pdf

Additionally, the language suggests "success" is based on circumstances favorable to the American administration. -Ben Rassbach

  • You seem to be getting a little ahead of yourself here. The bombing campaign that you mention as to total tonnages, deaths, etc... (see Operation Freedom Deal) only just began at the end of this time period. They did not occur (at least in the main) during Operation Menu or during the Cambodian Campaign itself. During this period, U.S. bombing was usually limited to the sparsely inhabited border areas, where the communist sanctuaries were located. Post the incursion, the close air support campaign became an interdiction effort, attempting to halt PAVN forces from returning to its sanctuaries. During 1972 - 1973, however, the bombing became much more widespread, reaching into the heavily populated interior in an attempt to support Khmer Republican forces against PAVN and the Khmer Rouge.

As to the "suggestion" of the article, if you look at the sources, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion than the one you stated above. The only interest that the U.S. and South Vietnam had in Cambodia was to occupy and destroy as many communists as possible, not for the sake of Cambodia, but only as concomitant to the situation in South Vietnam. There is nothing "recent" in the suggestion that the bombing actually expanded Khmer Rouge influence or its ranks (which reached ~12,000 men during 1970). See Cambodian Civil War. As to the "success" of the campaign, since the U.S. was the principal progenitor of the operation, it seems logical to grant the term (or "failure", if it had come to that) to that nation. You might also want to get yourself an address if you wish to be taken more seriously. RM Gillespie 12:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Base Areas

Capital B, capital A - do these really need capitalisation? Are they genuinely proper nouns in this context? If so, I suggest the first appearance really justifies a link (even a red one) so that their definition can be explained. (Will make more suggestions as I copyedit further) Kim dent brown 19:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, they really do need capitalizations. Military stuff. RM Gillespie 04:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • In which case an explanation of the technical, 'military stuff' use of the term would be warranted. Maybe you could add one? Kim dent brown 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyediting reversions

Congratulations on geting your A-rating, very well deserved. I made a few copy-edits and you reverted several - I should perhaps have given my reasons, and I'm not going to undo your reversions! But one phrase in particular I'd suggest thinking about. You wrote: "The U.S. government was cognizant of these activities in Cambodia", which I changed to "The U.S. government knew about these activities in Cambodia". I did so because I always think simpler (usually Anglo-Saxon!) language is more appropriate, unless a particular technical use is being made of a Latinate term. "Knew about" is much clearer and less pretentious than "was cognizant of" and I stick by my recommendation. Kim dent brown 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Your copyediting is appreciated and surely helped the article. My revision to the term cognizant (as opposed to "knew about") is a little difficult to explain. I gave it some thought today and remembered what it was like to discover the English language as a child. I would browse dictionaries and encylopedias (don't really know why) and discovered a whole realm of information on words and their usage. If I did not know what they were, I looked them up, and then moved from there to others, gaining knowledge with each exploration. If I were a kid and read this article (and I would have) and encountered a term which was unfamiliar, I would have looked it up in a dictionary. The author of such an article, therefore, killed two birds with one stone, spreading information not only on the subject matter, but on the language itself. The "pretentiousness" of words? Maybe it is the simplicity (although accurate) of your revision that bothered me. I always believed that variety was the spice of life (and language). The simplification of our language to its lowest common denominator seems to be the way of the future, but it is a path I fear to tread. Rather old school I guess. RM Gillespie 05:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small Point

A small thing I noticed, the term "Viet Cong" was not derogatory, it was simply an abbreviation of vietnamese communist. It seems that the phrasing has little purpose in this article other than to backdoor a POV. 69.120.227.56 (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The use of the term Viet Cong, is (and was) indeed derogatory. It was cooked up by the USIA for use by president Ngo Dinh Diem. It was meant as a replacement for the term Viet Minh (and all of the historical connotations that went with it), which was the popular title for the guerrillas in use in South Vietnam during his tenure. It was also adopted in usage by the American military, which preferred it to NLF, a title which tended to lend legitamacy to the Front. For the same reason, NVA was adopted by the U.S. military as a title, obviating the usage of "People's" Army of Vietnam and any "confusion" that might arise over that moniker by the population (American or South Vietnamese).RM Gillespie (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repercussions

RMGillespie excised the following sentence from the repercussions section, saying he thinks it is redundant:

"The student strike spread nationwide, involving more than four million students and 450 universities, colleges and high schools in mostly peaceful protests and walkouts."

I disagree with his assertion that the information is included elsewhere in the article and believe there are compelling reasons that the sentence (and the link it contains) should be retained. While a number of incidents and protests are, in fact, listed in this section, the fact that it lead to a student strike is not. Nor is the extent of the student strike. The "Student Strike of 1970" was a significant event. The linked article is a new one and the link between the Cambodia Campaign and the student strike is direct and relevant.

I don't want to re-revert this myself and engage in a personal conflict here, but the writing and factual issues seem clear. Roregan (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reinserted the sentence and expanded the section a bit.Roregan (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legality

The legality or illegality of the Cambodian Incursion should be discussed in the article. Badagnani (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Class

This article has already passed an A class review and has three A class ratings. Why is it nominated for a GA? Outdawg (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review and A-class review are different review processes. It is OK for an article to go for both reviews and also OK to pass both reviews, so an article can be a GA and A-class at the same time. Also, a GA review is useful if you ever want to go for FA. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA=Pass

Good work!

One of the few comments that I would have is to rename the "Treasure Trove" section. It may just be my opinion, but I personally think that that doesn't fit. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)