Talk:Cambodian–Thai border dispute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Images

3 images of Cambodian soldiers. It is over adequate and unfair. Deletion of those images is good. If you want to have those 3 images, you have to add 3 more Thai soldiers' images. Please do not revert until the discussion is closed. --Passawuth (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think those images ought to disappear from the article since this is the article that is shown on main page. The images on this article should have copyright status and description clearly. This is to be an example of other articles likewise GA and FA. --Passawuth (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The opinion above, on the posted image, should be seriously taken in account since they, the images, tend to give viewer a sense of partiality. Yet, I fear that the choice of adding photos of Thai military may result in increased tension, or worse, some sort of vandalism act. (Particularly, between users from the two disputing nations, since this case is very sensitive) Removal of the images might be the better way. Eakka (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I had removed all of the images now. I will report to the administrator to semi-protect the page in order to stop the adding of images and will be then easier to notice or block anyone trying to add images without discussion yet. --Passawuth (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The See Also section seems relevent for background and the Aug 3rd event is sourced to a third party media outlet (BBC) so I will re-add that with modified wording. The pictures, while there is at least one I think is nice, lack copyright info. Until that is provided, I'd be reluctant to add any to a recent events article. Narson (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

The introductory paragraph should be general, not detailed, and neutral, not partisan, in tone. It should avoid presenting the claims of either side, which are disputed, as though they were settled facts. The claims can be referenced, of course, but they should be described rather than adjudicated. Comments on the respective claims should be reserved, and clearly labelled as comments, evaluation or analysis.Fconaway (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, actually some of those "claims" are settled facts. If you read the ICJ judgement, you would know this. A major part of what has driven this dispute for four decades has been the successive Thai governments' refusal to communicate (or publish in Thai) the full ICJ judgement, thus allowing them to pull the wool over the eyes of most of the Thai people all of the time.KhProd1 (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Addition

Should we put the part where Hun Sen criticize Thailand of not being capable of ASEAN meeting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.237.37 (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Need to be source or else it will be deleted. --125.24.79.128 (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

The infobox shows numbers for the casualties. However, the citation doesn't support any such numbers: it says only that "one Thai and three Cambodian soldiers died in last year's exchange".

Cambodian–Thai border dispute/Archive 1
Date 2008-present Location Cambodian - Thai border Status Ongoing
Belligerents
Cambodia	Thailand
Casualties and losses
154 killed 8 wounded	22 killed 27 wounded 20 captured

Has a more adequate citation been removed? Please provide documentation of the casualties from a reliable source.Fconaway (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a similar confusion in the text, under "April 2009 clashes".Fconaway (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I just read the article, and by my figures 5 thai troops have been killed, 16 wounded, as well as 5 cambodian troops willed, but 3 wounded. Somehow i dont think the article is very clear on casualties and the wounded. we need to clear this up.

Also i think we should include a little section on the weapons being used by both sides. are the only using Small Arms fire + RPG's, or have they exchanged any fire with artillery or tanks. Nath1991 (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There's been a continuous media battle over numbers of casualties and deaths after each incident. That battle has then been reflected once more here (I have this article on my watchlist). Cambodian media reports high Thai casualties, Thai media reports high Cambodian casualties, then they argue over who is right. Depending on which source you use you can probably find a news agency to support the high numbers of casualties for either side - nationalist madness doesn't only happen on the border :) This makes accurate casualty reporting very difficult for us. My suggestion would be to only use independent media sources, wait for 48 hours after each battle before updating (initial reports are often inflated), have 4 or 5 editors watchlist the article and revert unsourced changes with extreme prejudice :) I'm willing to help out with this, but beware you will be taking on ocassional POV warriors. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

True, I'sppose on both sides its a propoganda war, i woulda thought using sources from Neutral perspective, like the BBC for instance would give you a more clearer idea. i got some spare time, do you want me to leave it as it is for now, or i can try and find as many news articles as possible to get a clearer idea Nath1991 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

We need clearly reliable information, and exact citations. If this is not forthcoming, I propose to remove all unsourced numbers. Fconaway (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Nath, if you've got some time go for it! Anything sourced from the major wire services should be OK, Reuters, AFP etc. BBC should be ok as well. Let's see what can be sourced and then as Fconaway suggests, nuke the rest. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, ive had a look to see any solid sources, that arn't Thai or Cambodian, but its extremly difficult, doesn't seem like many major news services worldwide are interested. But by using simple mathmatics, reading the sources that are there, it seems that the casualty count isn't that high. By my last count it seemed that Cambodia: 5 killed 3 Wounded Thailand: 5 Killed 16 wounded Also i checked a few of the sources, and some have deleated the articles, for i can't seem to find them...which further makes this more difficult. I suppose we won't know the full casualty count until the standoff has been resolved,...Nath1991 (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As in most conflicts, one of the reported deaths was self-inflicted, and two were wounded by stepping on land mines. News reports have their limitations, with errors of both commission and omission, so that's about as good as we can do. We may never know.Fconaway (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering the info and sources we have, the Cambodian casualty's seem much more realistic, considering the amount of skirmishes they have had, unlike the Thai's which seems way too high, considering. And can we take seriously the claims of taking POWs. Nath1991 (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes we can. The Phnom Penh Post published photos (taken by a western photographer) of the Thai prisoners. However, I haven't seen those photos replicated on the web.KhProd1 (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The casualties, first added to the infobox October 15, 2008, have been challenged for lack of documentation since November, 2008. Removed as unreliable information. Fconaway (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The casualties, first added to the infobox October 15, 2008, have been challenged for lack of documentation since November, 2008. Removed, once again, as unreliable information. Fconaway (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What!? It may lacks of reliable source about the cambodian casualties ,but last time I came here they're listed as Thai govt claim.(yes, not just KIA. It included vehicles and weapons) Thet came with the source, so why it was removed as it's just listed as a claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.207.210 (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see the point why the numbers of Thai casualties are being increased(now it reached 52),since there're no accuracy in the sources someone put in. I read the news , and it said that Thailand and Cambodia claim differently.--124.120.11.225 (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. What's going on here. Someone told me yesterday that all I did to this page were just vandarism, although the fact that I faithfully editted it.Now, someone came with raging feeling and editted this page to more than unable to control. The Cambodian casualties has rise up to 200, despite the fact that there are not fully open-fire yet. Someone please delete and check the numbers of both Thai and Cambodian casulties.--124.120.11.225 (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

And yes, more than once, they checked and deleted cambodian casualties again.What happen to this wikipedia, for us Thai people have been decieved about just a little number of our soldiers were dead? or this wikipedia is no more wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, anymore?From the bottom of my heart, please quickly check about cambodian sources that claim about Thai casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.11.225 (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The official numbers needs to be mentioned first. Then, we can mention claims by the counterpart.

--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I support that ,but why Thai casualties continue to rise up. I added Cambodian casulties claim by Thai govt but it all have been deleted. Then, someone came and added ridiculous numbers of Thai casualties while Cambodian casualties has been delete. So, this wikipedia is not English afterall?I may call this wiki with its new name Cambodianpedia, am I right?--124.122.124.42 (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Commanders?

Despite the fact that King Bhumibol Adulyadej is the Commander-in-Chief of the Thai Armed Force by constitution, I don't think it is reasonable or appropriate to named him as the commander in this conflict as he made no real decision or planning here and since Cambodia didn't listed their King as commander too. I suggested that it should be change to Abhisit Vejjajiva as PM of Thailand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.121.39.119 (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Abhisit Vejjajiva was not the PM of Thailand in October 2008. This will need to be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.128.249 (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Black magic!

Can someone who has the time please attend to the timeline and do something about the grammar and neutrality in the assertion that Bun Rany used black magic?KhProd1 (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the black magic paragraph. The link is dead, so it was hard to figure out what to do with it. I added a citation that appears to cite to the original. Kcm323 (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

“Black Khmer magic” a threat to the Thai army?!] By Siam Voices Feb 20, 2011 9:00AM UTC. Accessed by --Pawyilee (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Name Change

Since this also took place in 2009, It should be the 2008-2009 Cambodian-Thai stand-off.

Reenem (talk)

Certainly seems reasonable.KhProd1 (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Vietnamese participation?

Since Vietnam is a close ally of Cambodia, I wonder whether or not Vietnamese forces has been aiding the Cambodian troops. Of course, this is just an idea, and I do not have a source. I was hoping that if anyone knew something about this, or have heard or read anything that indicates direct or indirect Vietnamese involvement, than they could write it here. Thanks! With regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Doubt it, there's been no suggestion or rumors I've heard of Vietnam being drawn into it. Unless the two countries break out into fall scale war, they probably won't get involved, and the chance of full scale war is pretty small it seems. Nath1991 (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Cambodian-Thai War

The reference to a "main article" on the war is to a non-existent page. -24.83.20.94 (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is a war --88.117.65.208 (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it is intended to divert attention from 2011 Egyptian protests lest they rejuvenate the 2008–2010 Thai political crisis. Otherwise, there's no sense to a war with Cambodia.Pawyilee (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Fighting is now resuming for the 4th day. If this continues, the situation might be considered a war. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My kinfolk down there do: they booked. But Cambodia is calling for a Cypress-style UN Buffer Zone. --Pawyilee (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It starts to become clearer and clearer that this is more than just a limited skirmish. This is war. When the situation becomes clearer, it might be necessary to create a separate article. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The political science term for it would be a low intensity border war. The page should probly be moved to Cambodian-Thai Border War (2008 - present)XavierGreen (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Now it seems like things have calmed down, at least temporarily. Is there still talks about war? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would be eager to see a separate page for the 2011 fighting - something like 2011 Cambodian-Thai border conflict. This was more serious than anything since the crisis began. See examples: Djiboutian–Eritrean border conflict (3 days), 2010 Israel–Lebanon border clash (1 day) --78.2.8.52 (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm supporting that. Nevertheless, it's still unclear whether or not the fighting has really ended. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It has. You add new info if it continues. C'mon, I'm an ip, I cannot do that. (+while it still is on the main page) --78.2.17.103 (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

IP-users are free to create and develop articles if they want to. However, it is strongly recommended to register. This will increase your anonymity, as well as how other users treat you. Like it or not, registered users are often taken more serious than IPs. It seems like you have a lot to offer Wikipedia, and therefore, I suggest that if you like writing and editing articles, you should register. Cheers :) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Explain to outsiders

Would someone who understands (preferably one person from either side) please explain to outsiders what the value of the temple and its surrounding lands is to each participant. Otherwise I am afraid that the whole dispute seems opaque, and difficult to understand. These explanations should address the military, economic, religious and cultural value of both the temple and the land surrounding it. Thank you. --213.202.144.49 (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

casualties section

100+ Cambodian and 1 Thai soldier dead? Doesn't look convincing. Can someone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.24.19 (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Background

I'm a bit confused about the dates in the background section. There is mention of a 1904 treaty but it isn't clear what was agreed on in that treaty. Could it be the first mention of the 1907 treaty in the text actually refers to the 1904 treaty?Calonectris (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Franco-Siamese Convention and Protocol of February 13, 1904 puts the boundary in the location of the temple along the watershed of the Dangrek mountains:

Article 1: The boundary between Siam and Cambodia starts, on the left bank of Grand Lac, from the mouth of the Stung-Rolvos river; it follows the parallel of this point eastward until joining the river Prek-Kompong-Tiam, then, ascending northward, it merges with the meridian at this juncture until the Pnom-Dang-Rek mountain chain. From there it follows the watershed between the Nam-Sen and Mekong basins, on the one hand, and the Nam-Moun on the other....

It was re-affirmed and modified by the Treaty between France and Siam relative to Frontiers and Jurisdiction, Bangkok, March 23, 1907 with attached Protocol.DLinth (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

POV-pushing

An anonymous user is constantly inserting unreferenced numbers of dead into the infobox. If this continues the article should be protected for a period of time. It has been discussed and agreed upon that we only put the numbers of killed and captured in the infobox, no numbers on the tanks or house or such that may have been destroyed. I calculated that before the February clashes 5 Cambodian and 6 Thai soldiers were killed. In the newest clashes the Thai claim is that 64 Cambodians died (which I put in the brackets) and the Cambodians claim 53 Thais died (which I also put in the brackets, two sources, one 33 for the first day the other for the second day 20), with the previus claim by the Cambodians to have killed 88 Thais that makes a Cambodian claim of 141 dead. Independent sources have stated that 4 Cambodian and 1 Thai soldier have died in the February clashes. So we will put 5+4 which is 9 that nine Cambodian soldiers died so far and 6+1 which is seven that seven Thai soldiers died so far. To update the Thai claim for the Cambodians in the brackets we will put the 64 claim for February plus the independent sources of 5 killed in the previous years for a total of 69.EkoGraf (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pedcad, 9 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please revert the changes made by 75.54.75.173 on 01:32, 9 February 2011 in the second bullet of == Civilian effects ==. He incorrectly twist the fact without any references.

Furthermore, this section has been further changes. Therefore, please change it from:

Civilian effects

• After the initial attack on February 4, 2011, the Cambodian army fired rockets using BM-21 multi-launch rocket systems into the town of Sao Thong Chai located about 5 km from the border. As a direct result, primary schools, a local hospital, and 4–5 houses were destroyed. Only minutes before the hit, the local authority had issued a warning to the locals to evacuate and close the school. Despite this, there was one civilian fatality and at least 34 injured from the attack by Cambodian forces. There are reports that 22,000 Thai citizens had to evacuate and abandon their homes.
• The Cambodian troop was utilizing the temple and its surrounding as a military base equipped with firearms and other weapons knowingly that the temple would likely be exposed to damage when exchanging of gun fires occur. This clearly is in violation of international law, in particular the Article 4 (1) of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict".
• The Cambodian government blamed the Thai army for firing onto the world's heritage temple causing severe damage. This left the Cambodian army no other choice but to fire back However, there are only a few bullet scratches on the temple.
• Cambodian media reported during the fighting in February 2011, that the Thai army ordered using even poisonous gas, if needed, to take the temple. This has however not been confirmed by any independent sources.

Please change it to:

Civilian effects

• After the initial attack on February 4, 2011, the Cambodian army fired rockets using BM-21 multi-launch rocket systems into the town of Sao Thong Chai located about 5 km from the border. As a direct result, primary schools, a local hospital, and 4–5 houses were destroyed. Only minutes before the hit, the local authority had issued a warning to the locals to evacuate and close the school. Despite this, there was one civilian fatality and at least 34 injured from the attack by Cambodian forces. There are reports that 22,000 Thai citizens had to evacuate and abandon their homes.
• The Cambodian government blamed the Thai army for firing onto the world's heritage temple causing severe damages. Whereas the Cambodian army settled that heritage temple as an army base. There is a lot of evidence such as video and photo footage from Reuters showing that Cambodian forces used the temple as a military base and fired machine guns and artillery. This left Thai soldiers no choice but to defend themselves by firing rifles at the Cambodian soldiers hiding on the temple. However, there are only a few bullet scratches on the temple. The fact that Cambodian troop station in the temple has later been verified by a group of international media including AP, CNN, Reuters, and etc. The AP reported as follow.

On Wednesday, however, hundreds of Cambodian soldiers were seen by Associated Press journalists deployed in and around the sprawling temple compound, which was fortified by sandbagged bunkers.

Dressed in military camouflage, some played cards inside the temple's shaded walls. Some rested on cots or hammocks while others poured new sandbags and stacked them up.

"We're here to defend it," said a soldier at the temple, who was inside a sandbagged bunker that was covered with a military tarp. "When the fighting stops, we will go." The soldier declined to be named because he was not authorized to speak to media. He said he and other soldiers were stationed several kilometers (miles) away but moved to the temple Friday when fighting erupted.

Weapons were visible around the complex, including rifles and rocket launchers leaned against temple walls. An 81-mm mortar tube was positioned in a pit pointed at Thailand, across a ravine from the Cambodian frontier.

Thank you for your consideration.

Pedcad (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Be prepared to discuss on this talk page if it gets reverted. -Atmoz (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

References

Maps

I have qualms about the map used on this page, see here: File talk:Preah Vihear Temple.png. TuckerResearch (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

whats the ammount of terrain involved in the conflict? Checking some other sites, id say less than 8 square kms, can anyone confirm and add the relevant source?

that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.248.228 (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bunchhel, 14 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please removed the Cambodia claims's part in the introduction section, which point to a DEAD source.

"Cambodia also claims the Ta Moan Thom complex 153 km to the west of Preah Vihear, near the border between the Thai Surin province and the Cambodian Oddar Meancheay province. Though some sources suggest otherwise, the Sdok Kok Thom Temple in Thailand's Aranyaprathet District is unlikely to become a source of dispute, as it is 1.6 km inside Thailand at a well-demarcated, undisputed section of the boundary in a heavily settled area, unlike Preah Vihear and Ta Moan Thom.[9]"

And replace it with a claim from a reliable source http://www.un.int/cambodia/Bulletin_Files/July08/Letter_18_Jul.pdf

"Cambodia claims about 50 Thai soldiers crossed into Keo Sikha Kiri Svara pagoda located in Cambodia's territory at about 300 meters from the Temple of Preah Vihear. "

Bunchhel (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No. The current paragraph (above) references temples 150 to 250 kilometers west of Preah Vihear, not the pagoda 300 meters from Preah Vihear....the two have nothing to do with each other.DLinth (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Marking as not done. In any case, the page is no longer protected, so anyone can edit. -Atmoz (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The Article should be editing from a neutral point of view

The Article should be editing from a neutral point of view. Please do not try to whitewash the article to support only Thailand View. And please giving facts and claims that is from reliable sources. A few of which to mention:

http://www.un.int/cambodia/Bulletin_Files/July08/Letter_19_Jul.pdf http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=284&code=ct&p1=3&p2=3&case=45&k=46&p3=5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunchhel (talk • contribs) 09:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Add the Feb 15th skirmish to the list.

Add the Feb 15th skirmish to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.103.51 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

February skirmishes

I believe the February 2011 skirmishes deserve an own article. This newspaper article does indeed describe the clashes as a "four-day war", and the fighting was indisputebly the worst clashes since the 80s. Do anyone share this view? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, just one news article talking about it doesn't warrant a whole new article. Besides, the February conflict fits in with the overall border dispute, so there's no need to make a whole new article, much less designate it as a "war".Dtnoip28 (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're propably right, and I was too quick. However, in case if a full-scale war breaks out, I believe it will be necessary with a separate article. Don't you think so? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thai Casualties - Notes say 17 KIA on 8/02/11, external links does not confirm casualties

As of 29th April, Notes for Citation 6 (Thai Casualties)

6^ 1 KIA on October 15, '08 [7], 1 KIA on October 18, '08 [8], 3 KIA on April 3, '09 [9], 1 KIA on January 31, '10 [10], 1 KIA on February 5, '11 [11], 17 KIA on February 8, '11 [12][13] , 8 KIA on April 22–28-29, '11 [14][15][16] that makes a total of 32 killed

NOTE THAI CASUALTIES FOR 8th Feb " 17 KIA on February 8, '11 [12][13] "

HAS REFERENCES TO SOURCES [12] and [13]

Sources [12] and [13] does not state anything about 17 Thai casualties

[12] "A Thai soldier has been shot dead and four wounded in clashes with Cambodian troops in a disputed border area."; [13] "BANGKOK, April 29 (UPI)"

Source [12] mentions only 1 casualty, Source [13] has article date that is not relevant to February 8 casualties Therefore, 17 KIA on Feb 8 CANNOT BE CONFIRMED, no references saying so.

Possible typing mistake from 1 to 17? Please review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.141.96 (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Info box post-September 2011

Recommend info box continue to show [ex]PM Abhisit Vejjajiva as political leader, as the new PM does not have a dog in that fight. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

PS Some football-diplomacy cites also say that the Thai-side negotiators for the dispute have been replaced, but it's past my bedtime. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Black Khmer Magic

“Black Khmer magic” a threat to the Thai army?! By Siam Voices Feb 20, 2011 9:00AM UTC accessed --Pawyilee (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Map

Keithrmcdaniel (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC) The map in the Background section looks like it shows Cambodia’s version of the disputed boundary. Something like this one might better show the dispute: http://www.rfa.org/english/news/cambodia/preah-vihear-04172013193602.html/cambodiaThailandSouthEastAsia042711-01.jpg

France!?

Since when does France joined the conflict? I have not read about this for a while. Could anyone provide the reference please.red_romanov (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

French maps from the time when France ruled Cambodia provide the bones the dogs fight over, but France is not messing in it now and should not be listed as a belligerent. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"Promontory"

What the heck does this word mean? Please excuse my language. sentausa (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've wikilinked the term in our article Nil Einne (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Cambodian–Thai border dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080731145517/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5h6tp2tO94iKNqIquUil4we_HH52QD91VEHA81 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h6tp2tO94iKNqIquUil4we_HH52QD91VEHA81
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081013121640/http://www.radioaustralia.net.au:80/news/stories/200807/s2318239.htm?tab=latest to http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/200807/s2318239.htm?tab=latest
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090408072118/http://www.straitstimes.com:80/Breaking+News/SE+Asia/Story/STIStory_359749.html to http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/SE%2BAsia/Story/STIStory_359749.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110501131708/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42713060/ns/world_news/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42713060/ns/world_news/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110428081541/http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=218196 to http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=218196
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090511123927/http://www.un.int/cambodia/Bulletin_Files/July08/Letter_18_Jul.pdf to http://www.un.int/cambodia/Bulletin_Files/July08/Letter_18_Jul.pdf

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Cambodian–Thai border dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110726075715/http://www.vnagency.com.vn/Home/EN/tabid/119/itemid/270628/Default.aspx to http://www.vnagency.com.vn/Home/EN/tabid/119/itemid/270628/Default.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120203164236/http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/04/28/general-as-thailand-cambodia-clash_8440886.html to http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/04/28/general-as-thailand-cambodia-clash_8440886.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716132816/http://www.startribune.com/world/115550984.html?elr=KArksDyycyUtyycyUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUokEya_tyycy_eEQDU to http://www.startribune.com/world/115550984.html?elr=KArksDyycyUtyycyUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUokEya_tyycy_eEQDU

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Cambodian–Thai border dispute. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811152659/http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=9339 to http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=9339
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.valleynewslive.com/story/13981303/thai-cambodian-clashes-resume-at-disputed-border?redirected=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719162936/http://news.brunei.fm/2010/01/31/thai-soldier-killed-in-clashes-with-cambodian-forces/ to http://news.brunei.fm/2010/01/31/thai-soldier-killed-in-clashes-with-cambodian-forces/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080929195236/http://bangkokpost.net/090708_News/09Jul2008_news13.php to http://bangkokpost.net/090708_News/09Jul2008_news13.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723113127/http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=5126 to http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=5126
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811152659/http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=9339 to http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=9339
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cambodian.info/atleast-2-thai-tank-were-destroyed-and-many-thai-soldiers-were-killed/1721/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110211103609/http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/ns_asia/2011-02-07/691049567560.html to http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/ns_asia/2011-02-07/691049567560.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8Qc5iloOjA

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) 14:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent casualty figure changes

I would ask editors 58.10.153.73 and 27.109.114.198 to please provide sources for the recent changes to the casualty figures as per Wikipedia's policy WP:Verifiable. Unsourced changes or changes that leave the info contradictory to the cited sources can be reverted at any time. Thank you in advance! EkoGraf (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)