Talk:Dangrek Incident
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
QhairunSugar TaxMaterialscientist
There's currently one Dangrek Genocide survivor (Mengly Jandy Quach) mentioned in the section titledJune 1979: the Dangrek genocide. The experiences of survivors Teeda Butt Mam and Kassie Neou are available to read online ('To Destroy You is No Loss : the Odyssey of A Cambodian Family'[1] andTo Bear Any Burden: the Vietnam War and Its Aftermath in the Words of Americans and Southeast Asians[2] respectively), in their entirety, free of charge. Would including these names be considered Original Research?MoonsMoon (talk)02:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
References
The events described involve documented violent refoulements and possible war crimes, but the term “genocide”, the casualty figures, the intent, and the alleged motivations are not established by courts or academic consensus and are presented as facts without sufficient reliable sourcing.~2026-45015-0 (talk)08:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I initially commented here using a temporary account before registering this one. I will continue from this registered account for clarity.
I am not saying that news articles, books, or reports are illegitimate sources.
My concern is whether the cited sources explicitly support the specific claims being presented as settled facts, particularly the use of the term “genocide”, the casualty figures, inferred intent, and alleged motivations.Multiple sources describing violent events do not automatically establish a legal or historical qualification unless those sources themselves clearly and consistently make that qualification.
For this reason, I believe broader community input is appropriate, and I am opening an RfC.Mumu1942 (talk)09:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion 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.
This Request for Comment seeks community input on whether the current article framing accurately reflects what reliable sources explicitly establish.
Specifically:– Do the cited sources explicitly and consistently support presenting the events as “genocide”, including casualty figures and inferred intent, as settled facts without attribution?– Or should these elements be more carefully attributed or contextualized in line with WP:V, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, and WP:LABEL?
Mumu1942 (talk)11:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these comments.
They highlight the core concern behind this RfC: the difference between documenting violent events and presenting a specific legal or historical qualification as a settled fact.
If reliable sources do not explicitly and consistently characterize the events as “genocide”, then presenting that label without clear attribution raises WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV issues.
I look forward to additional community input.Mumu1942 (talk)00:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given the absence of additional scholarly sources supporting the use of “genocide” as a settled conclusion, and the identification of circular sourcing issues, it appears that the current framing of the article gives undue weight to a contested interpretation. A reworking of the lead and structure to accurately reflect the state of reliable sources seems necessary.Mumu1942 (talk)03:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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]
As per the RfC above, I removed/replaced the instances refering to this as a "genocide". However, it is still listed as being a part of theCambodian genocide. Is that a problem?Wikieditor662 (talk)18:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand not using the word "genocide." But Henry Kamm's coverage revealed Thai authorities were quite aware of the danger below yet still somehow insisted that it offered the "best" chance of survival. The same coverage revealed Thai authorities lied to the refugees to get them into busses, which survivor accounts also make clear, and we know from survivor accounts that Thai soldiers executed refugees who refused to descend, tried to bribe the soldiers, begged, or even attempted to climb back up the mountain. This included children. Yet the passive "incident" is used and there's zero mention of these murders.MoonsMoon (talk)04:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for raising these concerns.
The use of the term “incident” reflects the outcome of the recent RfC and follows Wikipedia’s requirement to use neutral, descriptive terminology when no clear scholarly or legal consensus exists regarding stronger characterizations (WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE). The intent is not to minimize the severity of the events, but to avoid presenting interpretive or contested conclusions as settled fact.
Regarding Henry Kamm’s reporting and survivor accounts, these can certainly be historically valuable. However, Wikipedia policy requires that individual testimonies and journalistic reporting be carefully attributed and, when used to support broader claims about systematic actions, intent, or state responsibility, be supported by high-quality secondary or historiographical sources. Without such synthesis, presenting these accounts as generalized or undisputed facts risks violating WP:SYNTH and WP:RS.
If reliable academic or historiographical sources analyze these testimonies and conclude that Thai authorities knowingly exposed refugees to lethal danger, misled refugees, or that soldiers executed refugees, then such conclusions can be included with proper attribution and context. The recent edit did not remove discussion of violence or humanitarian consequences but addressed how the event is characterized in the lead to reflect RfC consensus and maintain neutrality.
I would support expanding the article to include well-sourced material on survivor accounts and contemporary reporting, provided these are supported by high-quality secondary sources and presented with appropriate attribution, context, and balance.Mumu1942 (talk)08:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MoonsMoon (talk)20:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the recent efforts to improve sourcing and remove unsupported claims, particularly regarding landmine attribution.
However, I would like to raise a concern regarding the increasing reliance on survivor testimony to support broader historical claims.
Survivor accounts are extremely valuable, but per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, they are generally considered primary sources and should usually be used with clear attribution rather than to establish general factual conclusions about intent, systematic behaviour, or responsibility unless supported by reliable secondary historical analysis.
Could editors clarify whether there are secondary academic or historiographical sources that explicitly corroborate the more general claims currently supported mainly by individual testimony?
I am raising this purely as a sourcing and neutrality question to help ensure the article remains consistent with Wikipedia sourcing standards.
Mumu1942 (talk)02:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Incident?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
The Nanjing Incident?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre
The My Lai Incident?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre
The Columbine Incident?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
The Sandy Hook Incident?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shootingMoonsMoon (talk)21:15, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Several recent edits have expanded the article with material derived primarily from survivor testimonies, memoirs, and journalistic accounts. These sources can be historically valuable and important for documenting personal experiences. However, I would like to raise a content-policy concern regarding how such material is currently being used and weighted within the article.Wikipedia generally relies on high-quality secondary sources, particularly scholarly or historiographical works, when presenting conclusions about historical events, patterns of behavior, or institutional responsibility (WP:RS, WP:HISTRS). While memoirs, interviews, and survivor narratives can provide important perspectives, they are typically considered primary or narrative sources. Per policy, primary sources should be used with caution and should not be used to draw analytical or interpretive conclusions without support from reliable secondary analysis (WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTH).Some passages in the current version of the article appear to present descriptions derived from individual testimony or narrative reporting as established historical fact, rather than clearly attributing them to the individuals or sources making those claims. This may risk giving undue weight to specific narrative accounts if they are not supported or contextualized by broader academic or historiographical literature (WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT).In addition, the article contains highly detailed descriptions of individual actions and events that may exceed what secondary historical analysis has synthesized. Wikipedia articles generally aim to summarize how reliable secondary sources interpret events rather than reconstructing narratives directly from multiple primary or testimonial sources. Without secondary synthesis, combining multiple testimonies or narrative accounts may risk editorial synthesis, which is discouraged (WP:SYNTH). In addition, the article contains highly detailed descriptions of individual actions and events that may exceed what secondary historical analysis has synthesized. Wikipedia articles generally aim to summarize how reliable secondary sources interpret events rather than reconstructing narratives directly from multiple primary or testimonial sources. Without secondary synthesis, combining multiple testimonies or narrative accounts may risk editorial synthesis, which is discouraged (WP:SYNTH).This concern is not about excluding survivor accounts or contemporary reporting. Such material can be appropriate and valuable when:
Clearly attributed to the source or narrator
Contextualized within reliable secondary or historiographical analysis
Presented in proportion to how these sources are treated in the overall body of historical scholarship
I would welcome input from other editors on whether the current balance between testimonial, journalistic, and scholarly sources appropriately reflects Wikipedia’s sourcing and due-weight policies, and whether some sections may benefit from clearer attribution or additional secondary academic support.Mumu1942 (talk)02:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 | It has been proposed in this section thatDangrek Incident berenamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below. Abot will list this discussion on therequested moves current discussionssubpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see theclosing instructions). Please base arguments onarticle title policy, and keep discussionsuccinct andcivil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Donot use{{requested move/dated}} directly.Links:current log |  |
Dangrek Incident → ? – Neutrality: First, forcing 45,000 unarmed, desperate refugees down a cliff and into a minefield at gunpoint, after lying to get them there, and shooting anyone who refused or tried to climb back, resulting in thousands (or tens of thousands) of deaths, and then using the euphemism "incident" for it isnot neutral.https://daily.jstor.org/the-ethical-life-of-euphemisms/ Furthermore, consider these Wikipedia article titles: Nanjing Massacre; My Lai Massacre; Columbine High School Massacre; Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting; September 11 Attacks, and Srebrenica Massacre. There's a reason it's not the NanjingIncident, isn't there? I chose to make a Requested Move instead of a Bold Move because the use of "incident" shows a choicehas already been made that downplays the atrocity and it'll become a Move War. Second, it goes way beyond the singular "incident," as it was planned and then carried out over about five days. Also, I'm aware the discussion closed before I saw it, but it took me maybe 40 seconds to find a peer-reviewed publication by a Ph.D, specifically Thai researcher Khathaleeya Liamdee, that uses "Dangrek Genocide" in her footnotes to refer to this atrocity (https://www.berghahnbooks.com/downloads/OpenAccess/OsanlooCare/OsanlooCare_04.pdf). I'm not suggesting we must use that term, I'm using it to bolster my concern that there may not have been an honest, sincere effort to title this article appropriately, intentionally or not, when there are more accurate ways its been described over the last 45 years.MoonsMoon (talk)03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
