Talk:Cambodia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

SV atrocities and US pullout

My edit was formerly revoked as "without source" although it was in two parts. The first, about atrocities by the South Vietnamese and Lon Nol's forces against Cambodian (presumably pro-communist) civilians, was in fact without sources, but the second section about the American pullout (which I remember well as a kid) had a good source. I have extensively revised the first section, gave sources, and added sources to the second section as well. I'm returning the revised writing. If you have reservations, please discuss before deleting.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding numerous paragraphs of testimony from Cambodians who suffered atrocities from just one side in the Cambodian Civil War is not a helpful addition, nor in keeping with Wikipedia's summary style. Imagine if someone added similarly lengthy content on Union atrocities during the American Civil War to the GA United States. It would be reverted on sight—and the same applies here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I wrote about events that were publicized and CAUSED A CHANGE in the American public's outlook, which in turn lead to the congressional decision leading to the US forces leaving Cambodia. So they are important in the context of the section I wrote them.
Also, the Viet Kong atrocities and of course the Khmer Rouge atrocities are widely publicized IN THIS ARTICLE ITSELF, so showing the other atrocities, widely publicized at the time, does not make for one-sidedness. Imagine that the GA on the US had a long separate section about the civil war discussing the horrors of slavery. Then yes, a section dedicated to Philip Sheridan unleashing a hundred mile swath of flames in the Shenandoah Valley, would definitely be due. Especially if on the way slaves were killed as well. Note, these are atrocities against Cambodian people, and atrocities against Vietnamese people in Cambodia. (I originally added a section about the extinction of Vietnamese in Cambodia, but then saw that it was dealt with in full in a separate section). In any case, this was a war in which all sides showed our human ability to become horrible to each other.
Last but not least, my second edit, about the US liftoff, is a missing fact, NOTHING TO DO WITH ATROCITIES, and very important to be noted.
I gave good sources for my edits.
So please return the edit which you bulk erased. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cambodia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone know what going on with that logo (Definition of Free Cultural Works)? It appeared in the "Economy" section over this image as of this revision, and has meandered its way down the page ever since. Friends on other computers have reported the same thing. I wouldn't want to delete it until we know why it's there. Gizatsby (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Turns out it was simply a neglected syntax error in the "Definition of Free Cultural Works" template, now fixed by said friends. Gizatsby (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cambodia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cambodia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cambodia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

No mention of film under Culture section?!!!

Would anyone be interested to write about film/movies in Cambodia? Of course, it should be categorized under Culture, shouldn't it? :) 220.95.110.1 (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Sithen

1997 clashes in Cambodia

I have reverted WilliamThweatt's reinsertion of text that characterizes 1997 clashes in Cambodia as a "coup". This is neither a correct representation of the events nor a mainstream understanding of the subject. No country, not even the United States, characterized the 1997 factional fighting between the military wings of FUNCINPEC and CPP as a coup d'etat. Even the title of the Wikipedia article on the subject uses the term "clashes" rather than "coup". The interpretation of the events as a "coup" is limited to a handful of intellectuals, which is only worth mentioning inside the article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Way of writing motto

Hi all Wikipedians, I wonder why the way of writing motto of Cambodia is this way: Nation, Religion, King. I usually see no comma "," in this kind of writing at all but I just noticed it here in the Wikipedia. Can anyone verify why since it seems strange to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.5.127.71 (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Ethnic groups all wrong?

Something does not add up on this page if you compare it with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Cambodia The section about the ethnic groups seems to be pretty accurate on this page, but the numbers given on the box at the right are conflicting. Garnhami (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that myself. The percentage for ethnic Vietnamese seems way over-inflated; it gives minorityrights.org as its citation, but that page says 400–700,000, which is 2.5–4.3%. The other minority figures in the infobox are also cited to the same source, and again, none of those pages state percentages that I can see, just various estimates of population. Demographics of Cambodia § Ethnic groups has different figures again, uncited, but still only 5.0% Vietnamese! -- Perey (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Upon investigation, the minorityrights.org figures date to three edits in May (1 2 3)by VyKhCH. Since the percentages do not appear in, and do not agree with, the source cited, I have restored the 2013 CIA World Factbook figures to the infobox. -- Perey (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2018

The new prime minister of Cambodia is Chea Sophara. Voted in in 2016. This is based on another Wikipedia article. 73.14.173.83 (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2019

HI JHSB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.125.52.29 (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2019

175.100.11.221 (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: blank edit request. Highway 89 (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2020

currently the population of Cambodia is around 16.5 million people but in this document is say 15 million if it is no hassel could you please edit this 2A02:C7F:AC6D:4500:455D:67C:4F40:DB5D (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Formating

I have looked at other countries Wiki pages and the quick info box is down the right hand side (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia). In the Cambodia page, it is above the text, leaving a huge space of whiteness. I opened this and i thought there was nothing on it. Could someone pls fix this up.

Thanks AwesomePilot01 (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

The island of Phú Quốc (or in Cambodian "Koh Tral") is currently under administration of Vietnam (as a district of Kiên Giang) and most people living on the island are Vietnamese. Historically, it has been colonised from the old Khmer Empire territory by a Chinese-Vietnamese man called "Mạc Cửu" who lived in Đàng Trong (a region which covers whole Southern part of the kingdom of Đại Việt) and supported Nguyễn Lords (the de facto rulers of the region back then). Despite being a disputed territory, the second image of both Vietnam and Cambodia articles shows that the island is a territory of Cambodia. However, the article Phú Quốc on the other hand states that the island is Vietnamese territory (there isn't even the Cambodian name "Koh Tral"!). As a Vietnamese wikipedia user, I find this insulting and unprofessional and request for an update for the articles. NhatMinh1701 (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If I understand your issue correctly, it sounds like you want a revision to the map images. If that's the case then your issue is with the image File:Location Cambodia ASEAN.svg and File:Location Vietnam ASEAN.svg, not this article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
...and the user @ASDFGH: is the author of both images. Better ping him/her about this. RhinoMind (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2020

Please unlink all four occurrences of "CPK" (without parentheses) in the Khmer Republic (1970–75) section per WP:OVERLINK. --2001:BB6:4713:4858:493E:5AF9:43D0:7D1E (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Grammatical error

Paragraph 2; second sentence. Please change

Buddhism is enshrined the constitution

to "Buddhism is enshrined in the constitution". Thank you

Rlamacraft (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

Adding source for "The trial began in November 2011. Former Foreign Minister Ieng Sary died in 2013, while his wife, Social Affairs Minister Ieng Thirith, was deemed unfit to stand trial due to dementia in 2012. citation needed" https://news.un.org/en/story/2012/09/419602-prosecutors-un-backed-court-want-conditions-placed-khmer-rouge-leaders-release for FlyingNoodles (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This kind of detail is not necessary here, so I have removed it. Still needs a citation for the sentence before this one, though. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sjb1213.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chamsok.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

2018 "One Party Rule" claim

I Removed the blurb for the following reasons: 1.) Undue weight 2.) validity of sources (VOA is literally US external media for the purpose of influencing opinion; The Strait Times article is weak on the claim and uses highly inflammatory language (ironically the Strait Times itself is published in an authoritarian one-party state with a highly precarious media environment). I don't necessarily argue with the claim, but I think it could stand to do with better sources, especially if the claim is outdated and has such weak sources. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2022

Change the statement "The sovereign state of Cambodia has a population of over 15 million." to "The sovereign state of Cambodia has a population of over 17 million." A source is https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/static/d1058931af5aafbc191bf7200af79468/CB-summary.pdf KabutoPower (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2022 (8)

Bozil kkk97 (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Formation • Funan 68–627 • Chenla 550–802 • Khmer Empire 802–1431 • Middle period 1431–1863 • French protectorate 11 August 1863 • Independence 9 November 1953 • Admission to the UN 14 December 1955 • Paris Peace Agreements 23 October 1991 • Current constitution 24 September 1993 • ASEAN Declaration 30 April 1999

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aidan9382 (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2022

Bozil kkk97 (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Formation

• Funan

68–627

• Chenla

550–802

• Khmer Empire

802–1431

• Middle period

1431–1863

• French protectorate

11 August 1863

• Independence

9 November 1953

• Admission to the UN

14 December 1955

• Paris Peace Accords

23 October 1991

• Current constitution

24 September 1993

• ASEAN Declaration

30 April 1999 Bozil kkk97 (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Formation

• Funan

68–627

• Chenla

550–802

• Khmer Empire

802–1431

• Middle period

1431–1863

• French protectorate

11 August 1863

• Independence

9 November 1953

• Admission to the UN

14 December 1955

• Paris Peace Accords

23 October 1991

• Current constitution

24 September 1993

• ASEAN Declaration

30 April 1999 Bozil kkk97 (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Cambodia Bozil kkk97 (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You need to explain what exactly you're asking to be changed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2022 (2)

Bozil kkk97 (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

| upper_house = Senate | lower_house = National Assembly | sovereignty_type = Formation | established_event1Funan| established_date1 = 68–627 | established_event2 = Chenla | established_date2 = 550–802 | established_event3= Khmer Empire | established_date3 = 802–1431 | established_event4 = Middle period | established_date4 = 1431–1863 | established_event5 = French protectorate | established_date5 = 11 August 1863 | established_event6 = Independence | established_date6 = 9 November 1953 | established_event7 = Admission to the UN | established_date7 = 14 December 1955 | established_event8 = Paris Peace Agreements | established_date8 = 23 October 1991 | established_event9 = Current constitution | established_date9 = 24 September 1993 | established_event10 = ASEAN Declaration | established_date10 = 30 April 1999

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Largest Cities

In line with most of the other country articles, I've taken out this section since it was devoted to just a table and a separate article is more comprehensive. Iterresise (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Iterresise I totally no Disagree with the massive and unilateral withdrawal of demographic tables from articles about countries and have reported their actions to the administration. You must reach consensus, not promote edit wars. Chronus (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Information

The article have problems so I'm trying to overhaul, therefore, it needs some deletions. But most of the deletion is information without source or clearly out of theme content. There are texts unrelated to the issue given.

I will divided the edits, gradually section by section, in order to not create complications and misunderstanding. Someone can revert any section if having question. We can then discuss that section or any section individually. For example @... please feel free to excavate a response as to the discussion I solicit here. Igsiters (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You are deleting sourced information at random, and (badly) modifying individual sentences in a way that damages the grammar. Explain what you are attempting to do, specifically, and then get consensus for your changes on this talk page first, or you will surely end up being blocked again. MrOllie (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
The sourced information that is removed is for following reasons: being unrelated to the content, some subjective evaluations, or being too detailed. Some parts removed are not needed for this type of articles, or should be in detailed articles. But it is not that much, 70% of the removals are just information without source. As said, this is a general overhauling and reorganizing of the article. One of the last edit is wrong in grammar, yes but that is the only one because I was editing quick. The main changes was reducing loquacity in writing and miscellaneous for better flow of information and texts, and I was reorganizing the sections and paragraphs for the same purpose. This change is general and applies across every parts. It looks to me as only you have continued to revert for a second time now, the others undo only because I did not write a clear edit summary. If you have question with any part, at least give a particular example, so that I can continue discussing on that. Igsiters (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Igsiters, as you are making large mostly unexplained changes that have been reverted by multiple people, it is important that you gain consensus here for the proposed changes. A "general overhauling and reorganizing of the article" is a substantial undertaking. I suggest bringing up the changes here, with clear explanations. CMD (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Igsiters, you were blocked for your edits to this article, and the first thing you did when the block ended was return to the article and delete more than 60 k of the material in one edit with a virtually incomprehensible edit summary. Bad idea. Break your changes down into small chunks, explain each chunk, and get consensus here before making them. Meters (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

First, for example, the openning is too stretched and unbalanced, so I reduce a bit of it, including the template. The links in source edit when displayed is not accurate to the display so I remove them. In the remaining sections of the article, the bits that were removed contain the 3 problems mentioned above. But most of the removed parts simply has no source or are not mentioned in source. Those are the only 4 reasons for the removing the parts, other than that, some words or cluster of words have tone issues, so I alter the tone and do the writing rework. Igsiters (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, after a period if there is no response in discussion, I will start and divide these edits in this order of types:

  1. Simple reduction and writing fix in the openning.
  2. Removing texts and paragraphs without any source in the ensuing sections. This seems obviously more agreeable so I do it first.
  3. Then it will come to the more complicated part that is removing the sourced parts I deemed unnecessary, reason to be put in edit summary, also gradually section by section, no rush, you can undo an edit/section you don't agree with and I can discuss here. Igsiters (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Igsiters, given your edits have already been undone multiple times, I re-iterate my earlier request that you bring up the proposed changes here. This requires not general explanations, but specific proposals with specific textual changes. CMD (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
To bring specific textual change will clog the discussion, as there too many texts to bring up but the reason for each texts and edit are mostly same, for example, many texts don't have source and the reason for removing those texts is same and simple - no source. Do we want to paste multiple texts like that here just to state the same reason for the same proposal? Igsiters (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
To the contrary, it would start discussion, as so far there is nothing here through which your edits can be looked at. CMD (talk) 06:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
For example, first paragraph in the culture segment don't have source, so I remove it, there are 2 or 3 more paragraphs like that in the same section. I can edit section by section providing a same reason (ex. remove text without source), then with another reason or another type of edit, again section by section. It's the faster method that bringing every text up and waste time and space. It is now easy to read, skim and classify each edit, and in each each section/edit, if someone don't agree with something, it can be pointed here, I can myself undo my own edit or part of the edit that is related to the thing being questioned and then it is easy to discuss the questioned part here. Igsiters (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
This article is written in summary style (WP:SUMMARY). You can tell because the sections have main article pointers at the top. In the case of the Culture section, the main articles are Culture of Cambodia and Preah Ko Preah Keo. The sourcing that you are concerned about can be found there. If you have identified specific statements that don't have sourcing on either of those articles, you should add a {{citeneeded}} tag rather than deleting. Deleting large sections of the article is disruptive. MrOllie (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
The main articles don't even have source for many of the texts shown, I can't find it. The texts without source should be deleted anyway because they are also rather general and subjective evaluation. Main article pointers but there are still too many details and problems in some parts, in fact, it is not that much of a summary, but still buffs in many random details and the general content layout is not polished. Igsiters (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
No, mass deletion sprees are disruptive. Use citation needed tags and/or find citations yourself. MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Cite tags are used only if someone is actively looking for the source to the unsourced texts, and asked for the text to be on hold while they are looking. In this case, you are not, and I don't have the interest, either, so I have the right to remove unsourced texts. If you actually want the texts to stay, then please find the source, how can you push the obligation on me? This isn't disruptive, this is an editorial right as according to the policy here. Igsiters (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Cite tags are used only if someone is actively looking for the source to the unsourced texts No, that is not correct. Where did you read that? MrOllie (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
My assumption is based in here: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations. Igsiters (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
You have misread: Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Also, in response to your edit summary here, Wikipedia doesn't operate on your arbitrary deadlines. You should not come back and delete large sections of the article again, in two days or otherwise. - MrOllie (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure about what specialty the material here has that it shouldn't be initially removed? In any way, it is still a supplementary statement and does not change the main thing that you are obligated to find the source for the challenged material. I don't want to arbitrate anything, all I have made are suggestions, we can negotiate a deadline, if not, maybe one another can. Igsiters (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
What does it have that would suggest it should be removed? Is it particularly unlikely? Have you been unable to find sources for it? Does it contradict other text? There is no deadline, especially for what seems to be quite a large body of work. CMD (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Most of the texts without source are mischallenous details, with other problems so I incline to remove. My edit is just about reducing details and reshuffling information. I saw some users here also make these changes, deleting a lot for the same purpose and their edits passed without any opposition but mine hasn't, why? Igsiters (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
You deleted over 60,000 characters with either no edit summary or with an incomprehensible one. The only example of text you'd like to remove that you have brought up here is the first paragraph of the culture section, which touches upon what look like quite important topics the article would be worse off without. CMD (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Like I said, I will divide my edits and edit section by section now, gradually, and there will be much more specific summaries. Igsiters (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Igsiters, you are creating a lot of work for other editors, which is a waste of valuable volunteer time. Please write your suggestions for changes here so that other editors can provide their thoughts, opinions, and feedback so that consensus can be reached. With all due respect, it is unclear whether your comprehension of the English language is skillful enough to make changes yourself, and the way you have been going about things here is very disruptive. Please slow down, and use this talk page for suggestions. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and community input is very important for reaching consensus. You will need to get consensus from other editors before you continue to change the article. Netherzone (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's allow me to just start edit this time section by section, gradually and with clear edit summaries, to start making progress. I can't bring and paste every textual changes here just to discuss because it is too cloggy. Igsiters (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
@Igsiters, it's understood that you want to improve the article and that is wonderful, however, there are four experienced editors here who are all saying that the way you are trying to improve the article is not collaborative in spirit or style. It seems you want to do things your way instead of listening to your fellow editors who are trying to guide you. Please slow down. Wikipedia is not a race to the finish line. You are not the sole authority or expert and do not own the article; read WP:OWN. Please post your suggestions here before making sweeping changes so that other editors who watch and edit the page can weigh in such that consensus can be reached. What is being asked of you is quite simple: work collaboratively with others. Netherzone (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that Igsiters is has been blocked and likely won't be responding here further. - MrOllie (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cambodia/Archive_3&oldid=1189658676"