Talk:Dangrek Incident

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dangrek Incident article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.
Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources:Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WPrefs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives : 1

On 17 February 2026, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

WikiProject icon

Cambodia Mid‐importance

WikiProject icon

Dangrek Incident is part of WikiProject Cambodia , a project to improve all Cambodia-related articles. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group on Wikipedia, aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Cambodia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.CambodiaWikipedia:WikiProject CambodiaTemplate:WikiProject CambodiaCambodia

Mid

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

Cambodia To-do:

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

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

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

Thankfull for this info. [Unsigned]

WikiProject icon Crime and Criminal Biography : Serial, mass, and spree killers Low‐importance

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related

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

Taskforce icon This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Low-importance).

WikiProject icon Death Low‐importance

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath

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

WikiProject icon Discrimination Low‐importance

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject icon

Ethnic groups Low‐importance

WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

Low

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

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups }} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject icon Human rights Mid‐importance

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights

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

WikiProject icon Southeast Asia Low‐importance

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia -related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia

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

WikiProject icon Thailand Mid‐importance

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand

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

Additional Dangrek Genocide survivors and their stories (posting again cause it was ignored).

[edit ]

Latest comment: 6 months ago 1 comment1 person in discussion

Mengly Jandy Quach is the only survivor mentioned in the article despite the multiple accounts published since the atrocity. I guess I'm asking why this particular survivor is the only one mentioned, and can we include a list of other known survivors? MoonsMoon (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Use of graphic eyewitness testimony and encyclopedic tone

[edit ]

Latest comment: 13 days ago 25 comments5 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Editors expressed concerns over the article's presentation of events with regards to tone, weight, and general encyclopedic practice. The primary contributor to the article appears to have taken these on board during initial discussion; changes since then have not seen enthusiasm for discussion and so cannot be evaluated via RfC. Further concerns ought to be addressed via regular talk page discussion. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δxtalk to me 17:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Several passages in this article rely on highly graphic eyewitness descriptions presented in extensive narrative detail. Examples include descriptions such as people being shot "between the eyes", bodies falling "like dominoes", or children being killed in explicit terms.

This RfC is not disputing that the events, deaths, and suffering are historically documented. The concern is whether the current presentation gives disproportionate weight to emotionally graphic primary-source narratives, resulting in a tone that departs from standard encyclopedic style.

Relevant policies and guidelines may include:

WP:NPOV
WP:UNDUE
WP:PRIMARY
MOS:GRAPHIC

The question is whether the current level of graphic detail and narrative emphasis is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, or whether some passages should instead be summarized in a more neutral and concise manner consistent with Wikipedia’s usual historical writing style.

Input from uninvolved editors would be appreciated regarding:

whether the current wording gives undue weight to graphic testimony,
whether some passages should be condensed or paraphrased,
and whether the article’s tone remains appropriately encyclopedic.

Mumu1942 (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

— Mumu1942 (talk• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for raising this issue for discussion. This is closely related to my previous remark here on the article talk page that said "We should not base our choice on what advocacy organizations or eyewitnesses said, but rather on independent secondary sources." At that time I was talking about the article title, but the same principle applies to the article content. Individual eyewitness accounts and descriptions produced by advocacy organizations should not be treated as unquestioned fact or as summary information about what happened. I think there is currently too much of that in the article and the tone is not sufficiently neutral and encyclopedic. I just removed some of it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Comment (Summoned by bot) I haven't formed an opinion on th exact "overgraphic" issue, but the text has excess spurious 'colour' and a "breathless" story-telling quality. Perhaps that is the 'narrative emphasis' refered to above. Certainly the coverage would benefit from more concise and factual phrasing, making the tone more "appropriately encyclopedic".Pincrete (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
Now that you put it that way, I think I might understand the issue now. Sometimes it's difficult when you want to stay true to the sources - which includes the non-fiction book by respected journalist and witness William Shawcross - and not misrepresent facts, but also keep things chronological and also sound encyclopedic. I'm going to make some changes and do my best to remove the "story-telling" quality. Thanks, glad somebody was finally helpful. MoonsMoon (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I went ahead and "rewrote" the first half of the offensively-titled 'Incident (June 1979)' section. I was more mindful this time of avoiding a "narrative" tone and tried to build everything around the facts as provided by secondary sources. In this case those sources are late journalists and foreign correspondents Henry Kamm and William Shawcross, both of whom I dislike, but facts are facts and if it weren't for them, we wouldn't be discussing this, but I digress.

Does this address the issue you raised?

I'll work on the second half as well. MoonsMoon (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
My above comment was for @Pincrete:. Apologies for not being clear about that.

MoonsMoon (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think this is a significant improvement over the previous version. The events are now more clearly attributed to specific sources, and the text reads much less like a narrative account and more like a summary of what the sources report. That addresses the main concern I had raised.

My only remaining reservation is that some passages may still be more detailed and emotionally framed than is typical for an encyclopedia article. For example, descriptions focusing on individual reactions, emotional states, or dramatic circumstances could potentially be condensed further if editors feel they place undue emphasis on particular accounts. However, this is more a question of balance and weight than of the fundamental issue I raised previously.

Overall, I appreciate the effort you've put into the rewrite, and I agree that it is a substantial step in the right direction.

Mumu1942 (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

My reply was to @Pincrete: alone. The replies preceding their's are much too vague for me, and also seem to focus on the same excerpt.MoonsMoon (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Observations 1) the lead is too short, typically they summarise the article in about 4 paragraphs, this one says very little about what the incident was or why it is significant, but it is probably better to improve the body first ... 2) early parts of the article cite no sources and are insufficiently succinct (sweep through the country etc) ... 3) there are basic errors in the text, the WP:COMMONAME of the governing regime is probably the Khmer Rouge regime, Democratic Kampuchea was the name of Cambodia at that time and could be linked thus: Cambodia at the first mention. I don't know what the correct name for Khmer Rouge troops is, but that term is generally used for the party itself and party members, not specifically soldierly. ... 4) The main section labelled 'timeline' does not need that title and isn't really a timeline, which is ordinarily a bullet-point style summary of events covered in expanded form elsewhere.

In general, the early part of the article would benefit from an extensive pruning and the addition of more citations. I haven't got as far yet as reading later parts.Pincrete (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

The fact that the opening simply refers to what happened as a "border incident," coupled with the fact that the article title was allowed to be called 'Dangrek Incident,' where "incident" is a euphemism that masks and whitewashed what was a deliberate, calculated series of actions where deception was used, mass shootings/massacres were carried out, and people were death marched into a mine field officials knew was there, over the course of several days, is just an example of the double-standard on this article. MoonsMoon (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Events of this kind sometimes never acquire an accurate, adequate name by which they are commonly written about, and we are therefore stuck with a seemingly inadequate or euphemistic descriptor. Even an event as notorious as the killings at Srebrenica, was for a long time referred to simply as "The fall of Srebrenica" (it still is called that on some non-English WPs). We can't 'fix' the lack of an adequate COMMONNAME for a not-very-well-known event, and in this instance, its complexity makes it hard to see what a neutral factual title would be, probably clumsily long. Pincrete (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I agree, there's no Common Name and I noted that before. There is some consistency across scholarly discourse with terms like "massacre" and "atrocities." A Thai scholar used Preah Vihear Massacre.

That said, Common Name isn't the only policy Wikipedia has for article titles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title

There's also Wikipedia consistency. They don't call it the My Lai Incident - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Consistency

There's also a policy against whitewashing -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_means_neutral_editing,_not_neutral_content#Censorship_and_whitewashing

Other than lacking a Common Name, I guess I don't understand what the complexity is?

"Dangrek Incident" should be held to the same standard as "Dangrek Genocide" and it isn't. "Dangrek Incident" is not neutral, nor is it even accurate. Edited because it got cut off.MoonsMoon (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

The question raised in this RfC concerns article content and presentation, not article naming. Since naming issues have already been discussed separately, I would prefer to keep this discussion focused on narrative emphasis, proportionality, and encyclopedic tone.Mumu1942 (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Since the RfC was opened, a number of substantial changes have been made to the article. Several editors expressed concerns regarding narrative detail, storytelling, and the need for pruning. The article has nevertheless continued to expand and additional eyewitness material has been added.

I would be interested in hearing whether editors feel that these changes address the concerns raised in this RfC, particularly regarding narrative emphasis, proportionality, and encyclopedic tone.

Mumu1942 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I would be interested in hearing whether editors feel that these changes address the concerns raised in this RfC, particularly regarding narrative emphasis, proportionality, and encyclopedic tone.. After a very quick look at the additions, I would say that overall the additions are somewhat overwritten, that is NOT generally phrased in the clearest, simplest, most concise and neutral fashion which sometimes results in 'clumsy' English (eg Thai soldiers, who took both buckets before then bombarded the group with bullets). One can literally bombard someone/somewhere (ie fire explosive shells at them/it), you can metaphorically bombard someone (eg the students bombarded the teacher with questions), but bombarding people with bullets is just clumsy and confusing (why not just say "shot at them"?). If I have time later, I will have a closer look, I emphasise that I know almost nothing about the event or the sources and will be merely copy-editing. Pincrete (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Part of the reason for the clumsy English is trying to avoid plagiarism and also I'm autistic and my word patterns can be weird. I often return to my own edits for things like brevity (look at the Cambodian Royal Ballet page). As far as "bombarded," Shawcross uses "opened fire on the refugees," which is (I think) the most concise phrasing, but I can't plagiarize him. Or do you think I'm overthinking it? I struggled with it and return to it a lot. "Shot at them" seems too close to "opened fire," but since you think that'll be fine I'll go ahead and edit it in, thank you. I also discovered falsified references, and caught that sentence plagiarized from 'Survivors: Cambodian refugees in the United States.'

If you look at the article's history, there's been a continual effort at removing sourced information. I'm not saying it's deliberate, though there are multiple instances of editors misleading people in edit summaries to justify deletion of sourced facts. One of the editors retaliated by creating a sock and trying to get my photos removed from Wiki Commons. I just don't want a poorly-worded edit to be used as an excuse to delete sourced content.

As I've been the one adding content from the reliable secondary sources, and there's a lot of information, help with wording and being concise is appreciated. You've been the most helpful and fair uninvolved editor to come here.

I've known about this atrocity since 1995 and read 'The Quality of Mercy,' which is a reliable secondary source on the topic. Even if you're not familiar with it, 'Quality' is available (for now) free online if you want to look at it (it's also in the article) - https://archive.org/details/qualityofmercyca00shaw_0/page/90/mode/2up)

I purchased the ebook of 'Refugee Workers in the Indochina Exodus, 1975-1982,' another reliable secondary source, and if I can figure out how, I can make it available for editors. I've also registered JSTOR and Oxford Journals to read and/or purchase some of the sources; I'll try to make those available too. MoonsMoon (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm not a copyright or plagiarism expert, but IMO using someone's exact words in a very standard short phrase, such as "opened fire on the refugees" is perfectly admissable. What, I believe, is not acceptable are longish (whole longish sentences) exact word-for-word copies, close paraphrasing of whole paragraphs or using very 'distinctive' phrasing without attribution. Pincrete (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

You're right, that would have been fine to begin with. I went ahead and quoted Shawcross, thank you. Appreciate help. MoonsMoon (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

To keep the RfC focused, I would like to return to the original question: do editors feel that the recent changes address the concerns raised regarding narrative emphasis, proportionality, and encyclopedic tone?

Mumu1942 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

As there have been no new comments for some time and the discussion appears to have run its course, could an uninvolved editor please close this RfC? Thank you. Mumu1942 (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

(削除) The Move request has been relisted yesterday after I asked that an uninvolved editor relist the Move Request. So please do not close this Move Request right after it has been relisted (削除ここまで).

Wrong thread, sorry! MoonsMoon (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC) MoonsMoon (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Once again, I would like to keep this discussion focused on the subject of this RfC. I have deliberately avoided discussing the article title here, as that is the subject of a separate requested move. Each issue has its own discussion, and I would appreciate keeping them separate. Mumu1942 (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, this was a mistake on my part, I misread the notification since it's similar to the other thread. Sorry about that. MoonsMoon (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just purchased the ebook version of Larry Thompson's 'Refugee Workers in the Indochina Exodus, 1975-1982'

[edit ]

Latest comment: 1 month ago 1 comment1 person in discussion

'Refugee Workers in the Indochina Exodus, 1975-1982' is used as a source in this article as well as others, but Google Books limits the number of pages available for preview. Currently the cited pages are no longer accessible.

Since I don't own the book and have never read it before (I read 'The Quality of Mercy' in my teens and was able to track down a free version linked in the article), I bought the ebook version in order to verify the information and also possibly use any information that is Wikipedia-friendly. MoonsMoon (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Section names.

[edit ]

Latest comment: 1 month ago 1 comment1 person in discussion

A couple paragraphs above, @Pincrete: helpfully noted the 'Timeline' title for what's not actually a timeline. I went further back and @Theeverywhereperson: helpfully made an effort to fix what they noted appeared LLM-generated; an LLM explains the title 'October 1979 (Geneva Conference)' for a conference held in July, among other things. Further, the 'Aftermath' section title should probably start after the Preah Vihear part. I want to work on the titles for anybody who wants to help. @KConWiki: MoonsMoon (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Article lead, 'Context,' and section titles (reposted from closed discussion).

[edit ]

Latest comment: 1 month ago 1 comment1 person in discussion

(Pincrete)

"Observations 1) the lead is too short, typically they summarise the article in about 4 paragraphs, this one says very little about what the incident was or why it is significant, but it is probably better to improve the body first ... 2) early parts of the article cite no sources and are insufficiently succinct (sweep through the country etc) ... 3) there are basic errors in the text, the WP:COMMONAME of the governing regime is probably the Khmer Rouge regime, Democratic Kampuchea was the name of Cambodia at that time and could be linked thus: Cambodia at the first mention. I don't know what the correct name for Khmer Rouge troops is, but that term is generally used for the party itself and party members, not specifically soldierly. ... 4) The main section labelled 'timeline' does not need that title and isn't really a timeline, which is ordinarily a bullet-point style summary of events covered in expanded form elsewhere."

@Pincrete:,

Would you be willing to help or even give advice for working on the lead and that strange 'Context' section in the article? Few people work on this article - somewhat understandable since it's not well-known - and when they do it's only to remove information or nitpick. It's likely why the falsified reference, the verbatim plagiarism copyright violation, and the incorrect information about which refugee camp Carter visited in 1979 remained overlooked this entire time. I also want to discuss the double-standard with the article title and the policies it violates as well but may open a Request for Comment on it. MoonsMoon (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Requested move 30 June 2026

[edit ]

Latest comment: 1 day ago 15 comments4 people in discussion

It has been proposed in this section that Dangrek Incident be renamed and movedto Preah Vihear massacre.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move }}. Do not use {{requested move/dated }} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Dangrek Incident → Preah Vihear massacre – "Dangrek Incident" is fundamentally broken under multiple Wiki policies and guidelines:

1.) "Dangrek Genocide" was moved only some five months ago to "Dangrek Incident" because the former doesn’t exist in historical texts, or Google Books/Scholar. However, neither does "Dangrek Incident" but it was adopted anyway. This is a double-standard. Further, fabricating a title, especially a proper noun name that scholarship doesn’t recognize, violates WP:NOR Furthermore, "Incident" is just plain inaccurate for describing multiple actions and events commenced June 8th and then was still transpiring into July. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C23&q=Dangrek+Incident&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C23&q=Preah+Vihear+incident&btnG=

2) "Dangrek Incident" violates Wiki’s article name conventions for 'precision.' "Incident" could be any dispute or minor clash. In scholarly sources and reports, "incident" is often used to refer to border skirmishes between Cambodia and Thailand. Similarly, "pushback," also used in the lead, does nothing to distinguish the atrocity at Preah Vihear from the other pushbacks mentioned in the article that occurred before and after. A vague term for border control does nothing to tell readers why this Wikipedia article exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Precision

3) "Dangrek Incident" fails to comply with Wiki’s article name conventions for ‘naturalness’ and ‘recognizability.’ Dangrek is a 199mile/320km-wide mountain range, not a specific area. Understandably the mountains are significantly less known than Preah Vihear, a Khmer archeological site that denotes a particular area of the mountains, and cycles in and out of the news. Readers researching the atrocity won’t search "Dangrek," they’ll search "Preah Vihear" with words like "massacre" and "refugees." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Naturalness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names

4) ‘Dangrek Incident’ violates Wiki's ‘Manual of Style/Words to Watch-Euphemisms’ (WP:EUPHEMISM) Using the euphemism "Incident" to describe a death march and mass murders is a textbook example of whitewashing, even if unintentional. A title that minimizes atrocities is just as biased as one that exaggerates atrocities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Euphemisms

5) "Dangrek Incident’ violates WP:CONSISTENT. Wikipedia articles don’t use "My Lai Incident," "Srebrenica Incident," "September 11th Incident," "Sandy Hook Elementary School Incident," "Nanjing Incident," or "Bataan Incident" instead of "Bataan Death March" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Consistency

6) ‘Dangrek Incident’ is already under 'Massacres in Thailand', 'Death marches,' and 'War crimes in the Third Indochina War.' Use of "Incident" is a blatant logical contradiction.

7) ‘Dangrek Incident’ violates NPOV. Neutrality doesn’t mean choosing the most vague and sanitized words possible, it means reflecting the facts. Coupled with this, the policy when no Common Name exists is to come up with an accurate descriptive title utilizing factual vocabulary one finds in reliable sources. That didn’t happen when "Incident" was chosen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names

Using "incident" actively distances the terminology from the way experts have addressed the Preah Vihear atrocities over the past decade -

"Massacre at Mount Dangrek" from Google Books/Scholar in 2015, plus the term is used in the search index - https://www.google.com/books/edition/Unsettled/bE9mCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Dangrek+massacre&pg=PA217&printsec=frontcover

The Preah Vihear Foundation was launched in 2016 and the documentation thoroughly contradicts Wikipedia’s whitewashed, flattening framing of what happened - https://www.pvfund.org/

Of course the 2019 PBS documentary using the term "second killing fields" - https://www.pbs.org/show/ghost-mountain-second-killing-fields-cambodia/

Google Books "Massacre of Khmer refugees" and "Thai army atrocities at Mount Dangrek" from 2020 - https://www.google.com/books/edition/Humanitarianism_and_Human_Rights/z0UBEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Dangrek+massacre&pg=PA279&printsec=frontcover

A Thai Ph.D that refers to the atrocities with the proper "Preah Vihear Massacre" in her peer-reviewed text published in 2024 - https://www.berghahnbooks.com/downloads/OpenAccess/OsanlooCare/OsanlooCare_04.pdf

Anthropologists/scholars/professors use "Preah Vihear Massacre" in 2024 - https://www.google.com/books/edition/Care_in_a_Time_of_Humanitarianism/0_TeEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Preah+Vihear+Massacre&pg=PT156&printsec=frontcover

Described as an atrocity in 2026 - https://teachitct.org/lessons/responding-to-horrors-u-s-refugee-policy-in-the-post-vietnam-war-period/

Tellingly, the term used in Japanese nationalist denials (not Japanese people in general) of the Nanjing Massacre, including Japanese Wikipedia, is Nanjing Jiken, or the ‘Nanking Incident.’

Preah Vihear massacre is precise, neutral, natural, concise, descriptive, recognizable, consistent, reflects the verbiage used in scholarly sources, and is based on documented facts. MoonsMoon (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ {\displaystyle \lor }investigateᛅ} 00:13, 11 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath ^talk 10:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ {\displaystyle \lor }investigateᛅ} 11:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Support

Per nom ButteyFelicity (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Because it's been more than seven days and there's only been two responses, I was wondering if an uninvolved editor can relist this request? MoonsMoon (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you. Can somebody advise on how to notify Wiki Projects related to this article in a neutral manner? MoonsMoon (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

For the purposes of a move request, could editors identify the reliable secondary sources that actually use "Preah Vihear massacre" as the name of the event, and indicate how common that usage is relative to other names? The previous RM already discussed whether "incident" was an ideal descriptor; what would be most helpful here is evidence of common usage in the literature.

Mumu1942 (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Sorry, I forgot to include the search results for 'Dangrek Incident' in Google Books as well. This was not intentional - https://www.google.com/search?q=Dangrek+Incident&sca_esv=5115c3e3b1d4c789&rlz=1CATSMI_enUS1206US1206&udm=36&biw=1536&bih=695&sxsrf=APpeQnvhzWnlgLi4bO5OegqZsfnLsbimvA%3A1782859307409&ei=K0ZEavrOGL-7p84Pr5q68A0&ved=0ahUKEwi6kM-9hLCVAxW_3ckDHS-NDt4Q4dUDCBI&uact=5&oq=Dangrek+Incident&gs_lp=EhBnd3Mtd2l6LW1vZGVsZXNzIhBEYW5ncmVrIEluY2lkZW50SKYwUMQVWMQucAF4AJABAJgBd6ABmQqqAQQxNC4yuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIKoAK-B6gCAMICChAAGIAEGIoFGEPCAggQABiABBixA8ICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIFEAAYgATCAhEQABiABBiKBRiNBhixAxiDAcICDhAAGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIEEAAYA8ICEBAAGIAEGIoFGEMYsQMYgwHCAg4QABiABBiKBRiNBhixA8ICCxAAGIAEGIoFGJECwgIMEAAYgAQYChgLGLEDwgIHEAAYgAQYCsICBhAAGBYYHsICBRAAGO8FwgIIEAAYgAQYogTCAggQABiJBRiiBJgDAvEF6dHmQ2KsXjOSBwM3LjOgB7kwsgcDNy4zuAe-B8IHBzItMy42LjHIB2WACAE&sclient=gws-wiz-modeless

MoonsMoon (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Also adding Wikipedia:Article titles to 7), which I cut off by mistake. MoonsMoon (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Apologies if it isn't clear. I posted these two reliable, secondary sources above. Words like "incident" and :"events" are used in passing but the term they give the atrocity is (capitals) Preah Vihear Massacre -

‘Khao-I-Dang Refugee Camp Local Hosts and Hauntings of the Third Indochina War in a Transit Zone,’ by Khathaleeya :Liamdee (2024)

https://www.berghahnbooks.com/downloads/OpenAccess/OsanlooCare/OsanlooCare_04.pdf

‘Care in the Time of Humanitarianism,’ by Arzoo Osanloo, ‎Cabeiri deBergh Robinson (2024)

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Care_in_a_Time_of_Humanitarianism/0_TeEAAAQBAJ?:hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Preah%20Vihea:r%20Massacre

Aside from the other criteria an article title is supposed to meet, can you identify the reliable, secondary sources that use (capitals) "Dangrek Incident"? And indicate the usage relative to other names? Do you have any evidence of it's regular usage in iterature? MoonsMoon (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The sources presented so far appear to show that "Preah Vihear massacre" is used by some authors, but not that it is the predominant name in the literature. More broadly, I am not aware of evidence that either "Preah Vihear massacre" or "Dangrek Incident" is clearly the common name. If the discussion is to focus on article titles, evidence of comparative usage across reliable secondary sources would be particularly helpful. Mumu1942 (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Apologies if it wasn’t clear, but it's already been established that there isn’t a Common Name. In that case, we choose an accurate descriptive title that reflects the terminology of reliable sources and best meets the ‘Article Titles’ criteria (Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision, and Consistency):

7) Coupled with this, the policy when no Common Name exists is to come up with an accurate descriptive title utilizing factual vocabulary one finds in reliable sources. That didn’t happen when "Incident" was chosen. Wikipedia:Article titles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names

MoonsMoon (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

If there is no clearly established common name, then the question becomes which descriptive title best satisfies WP:AT. In that case, it would be helpful to compare "Preah Vihear massacre" not only to "Dangrek Incident", but also to other names found in reliable sources, such as "Preah Vihear pushback", rather than assuming a single alternative.Mumu1942 (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I understand my speech-patterns may be odd as I have Level One ASD so I'm happy to clear things up if so. But you keep bringing up points already addressed in my original post so I don't know if it's just me or what. This will be my final reply because doing this is discouraged and I don't want to get in any trouble.

I addressed "pushback" in "2)" because use of a general term for border patrol violates WP:AT for 'precision.' It also isn't logically consistent with an atrocity already categorized under Wiki's 'Massacres in Thailand', 'Death marches,' and 'War crimes in the Third Indochina War,' which I pointed out in "6)". Nor does it reflect how the atrocity has been discussed and addressed over the past decade.

~~"Dangrek Incident" is just WP:OR you fabricated. The term "Dangrek Incident" doesn't appear in reliable sources and would be considered Wiki WP:OR. MoonsMoon (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Reply~~

My comments were directed at the proposed move, not a defence of any particular title. If there is no clear common name, the question remains whether "Preah Vihear massacre" is demonstrably the best title under WP:AT when compared with other names used in reliable sources.

I believe I have said all I wish to say on the matter and will leave the discussion here so that other editors may comment and the RM can proceed on its merits. Mumu1942 (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Note: WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject Cambodia, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Human rights, WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Southeast Asia, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, and WikiProject Thailand have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath ^talk 10:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
Thank you for notifying WikiProjects. I was afraid I'd be accused of canvassing. But it had already been nine days since the Move Request was relisted and still only two people who replied. Can you or another uninvolved editor relist the request? MoonsMoon (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Infobox classifications

[edit ]
Latest comment: 4 days ago 8 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to raise a separate question regarding the recent changes to the infobox.

The infobox now classifies the event as a death march, massacre, mass murder, and war crime, and also identifies the Royal Thai Army as the perpetrator.

Could editors identify the reliable secondary sources that explicitly support each of these classifications?

I have found reliable secondary sources describing the events themselves, but I have not yet found sources that explicitly classify the event as mass murder or war crime. Since these are significant historical and legal characterizations, I think they should be directly supported by the literature rather than inferred from the events themselves.

Regarding massacre, this terminology is currently the subject of an ongoing Requested Move, where editors are discussing whether it reflects the terminology most commonly used in reliable sources. Until that discussion is concluded, I'm not sure it is appropriate for the infobox to present "massacre" as an established classification unless there is clear sourcing supporting its inclusion independently of the title discussion.

The same applies to identifying the Royal Thai Army as the perpetrator. If reliable secondary sources explicitly attribute responsibility to the Royal Thai Army as an institution, then that should be cited. Otherwise, it may be more appropriate to use the terminology employed by the sources.

Since an infobox is intended to summarize well-established information rather than synthesize it, I think it would be helpful to review these classifications and ensure that each is directly supported by reliable secondary sources. Mumu1942 (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

To keep the discussion grounded in facts, I've added two reliable secondary sources I’ve mentioned here multiple times to the article per Wikipedia:Verifiability. These use "massacre/Massacre" to describe the events. Now that it's updated to reflect the reliable secondary sources, I’ll leave it per Wikipedia:BoldRevertDiscuss process.

MoonsMoon (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The issue is not whether the term "massacre" appears in reliable sources. It clearly does. The question is whether it represents an established classification or the predominant terminology used in reliable secondary literature, which is the relevant point for the requested move and for presenting it as a settled classification in the infobox. Mumu1942 (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The massacre at Preah Vihear is categorized as a "Death march," "war crime," and "massacre" by Wikipedia, though 'mass murder' was just an error and superfluous and I removed it. The Infobox is supposed to summarize the article which itself is still being written. Furthermore, "massacre" alone reflects the terminology used by reliable, secondary sources over the past decade:

Professor Eric Tang uses "massacre" to describe the atrocities in his 2015 book ‘Unsettled.' I was somewhat familiar with his book which focuses on refugees but other than a brief peak at limited pages on Google, I had no choice but to purchase the book in order to verify. So I did and added it -

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Unsettled/bE9mCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Dangrek+massacre&pg=PA217&printsec=frontcover

Dr. Khathaleeya Liamdee refers to the atrocities with the proper "Preah Vihear Massacre" in her peer-reviewed text published in 2024. I actually added this source to the article but not the part she uses "Preah Vihear Massacre" yet - https://www.berghahnbooks.com/downloads/OpenAccess/OsanlooCare/OsanlooCare_04.pdf

PBS uses "massacre" to describe the massacre, also 2024. https://www.ctpublic.org/show/where-we-live/2024-05-21/looking-beyond-the-killing-fields-unpacking-the-cambodian-genocide

This is contrary to Wikipedia’s current whitewashed title that’s not supported by reliable, secondary sources. Unless you found reliable, secondary sources for the proper name 'Dangrek Incident' and thus the title is no longer in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies?

Also, reliable, secondary sources already attribute responsibility to the Royal Thai Army. Henry Kamm quotes a high-ranking Thai military official in literally the first two sentences of the first of his reports that's found in the first paragraph of the 'June' section. The officer explains they made the choice in response to the West not helping with Thailand's burden, that they already sent refugees back, and also that more refugees are still coming and they’re forcing them back as well. Nobody was shy about this, the entire point was to get the world to react. Same thing with William Shawcross’s reporting on pages 88-90, also in the 'June' section. The reporting makes clear it’s a top-down decision and even the Supreme Command was cited on page 90 of Shawcross's book, though I didn't want to bog the article down by including literally every detail or piece of information about why this was happening and by whom. But if it isn't already clear in the article then I can fix it. This was not a group of rouge soldiers, it was systematic and everything from drawing up busses to where they refugees would be dumped off was planned.

MoonsMoon (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

To clarify, I am not questioning that the Thai military carried out the forced return of refugees. My question concerns the classifications currently presented in the infobox, and whether each of them is explicitly supported by reliable secondary sources.

I also wasn't intending to reopen the Requested Move discussion here. Whether "massacre" is the most appropriate descriptive term or article title is still being discussed in the RM, so I would prefer not to duplicate that discussion in this thread. Likewise, I am not defending the current title, which I did not choose. My previous involvement in the title discussion was limited to opposing "genocide", and I have previously suggested "Preah Vihear pushback" as a possible alternative.

For that reason, I would prefer to keep this discussion focused on the infobox. If further discussion about the article title is needed, I think the Requested Move is the appropriate venue.

My remaining question concerns the other classifications currently included in the infobox, particularly "mass murder" and "war crime". Could you identify the reliable secondary sources that explicitly support those classifications? Mumu1942 (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
I didn’t choose ‘Death March’ or ‘Royal Thai Army,’ I just restored it after the article was what appears to be vandalized using an LLM that created falsified sources. Because the article is categorized as a ‘death march’ and it appears in the Infobox, I just added the other categorizations without thinking much about it. I’m fine with removing content from the Infobox when it's not found in the article. ‘Mass murder’ was an error on my part.

You said you want to focus on the Infobox and not the title, yet you mention the title/Move Request as a reason "massacre" shouldn't be included. The Infobox classifications are independent from Naming/Move Request and should reflect the article’s content and by extension reliable, secondary sources. I’ve mentioned numerous times that the most recent reliable, secondary sources use "massacre" and similar terminology, and two of those sources - Tang 2015, Liamdee 2024 - are part of the article since I was able to locate and purchase an ebook version of the former verification. Since "massacre" is used in reliable, secondary sources, it should remain.

I'm noting you had a problem with ‘Dangrek Genocide’ based on a lack of reliable, secondary sources. Yet immediately you didn't care once replaced with the whitewashed ‘Dangrek incident’ that violates multiple Wiki policies, including original research, and the fact that it's not found in reliable, secondary sources.

Now you care about reliable, secondary sources again, just so we're clear.

As for ‘Royal Thai Army,’ again I just restored it. The whole point is just to summarize the article. Thai Military Supreme Command/Supreme Command and/or Thai border authorities, both of whom are cited in reliable, secondary sources, also works. I guess I didn't accurately and completely convey what the sources say about the perpetrators from what you're saying. My writing style can be strange so I'll go ahead and clarify. MoonsMoon (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'd prefer to keep this discussion strictly focused on the infobox. My comments are about the content itself, not about revisiting previous discussions, article titles, or individual editors' past positions. I think those are best addressed in their respective discussions if needed.

For the purposes of this thread, I'd simply like to focus on whether each infobox entry is explicitly supported by the article and by the reliable secondary sources cited for it. The fact that a classification is already present in the article or used by Wikipedia is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that it should remain. As with any other content, it should be supported by reliable secondary sources that explicitly support that specific classification. Otherwise, there would be little point in discussing or improving articles, which is a fundamental part of how Wikipedia works.

Mumu1942 (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Based on this thread, I’ve updated the Infobox to match the terminology used in the reliable, secondary sources.

The perpetrators are now listed as Thai Supreme Command and Thai border authorities to align with Shawcross’s 1985 ‘The Quality of Mercy,' 88-90, and ‘Thais Deport 30,000 Cambodians While Others Continue to Arrive,’ Henry Kamm, 1979.

I left "death march" alone because it was already present and I'm not sure if it was based on consensus. ‘Massacre’ is retained since it’s supported by the newer secondary sources, including ‘Unsettled’ by Eric Tang (2015), since I’ve finally verified use of "massacre,’ and Khathaleeya Liamdee’s 2024 contribution. Liamdee reports Thai soldiers shot refugees who refused to descend and explicitly uses the proper "Preah Vihear Massacre," which I am currently integrating into the article body with ongoing editing.

MoonsMoon (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dangrek_Incident&oldid=1367256402"~~