This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Menu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 18, 2013. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't have a problem with the Chomsky source as such, though since it refers to a public press conference there should be no problem supplying other sources if required. The central problem with this edit is that a paragraph about what was happening in 1967 has just been dumped and replaced by one about events in 1969. The paragraph after that, which refers to 1967, thus comes to have a totally illogical relationship to the one that precedes it. It surely should not be difficult to give an outline of changing attitudes over the 1967-69 period, and this explain why initial acquiescence or tolerance of the attacks was changed to public condemnation: internal public unrest?; changing US methods?; the rise of support for communists in Cambodia? This is hardly an obscure topic in which sources are thin on the ground. Paul B ( talk) 18:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
As a possible compromise, I don't see any problem with citing Sihanouk's public opposition to the bombing, while also citing the position of some historians and U.S. officials that Sihanouk gave his tacit approval. That is enough to notify readers and allow them to investigate further if they wish. - Darouet ( talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with User:Darouet above, and I will let User:TheTimesAreAChanging make the aforementioned changes first since they don't seem to like my changes. If it is not changed in a few days, then I will make the change myself. Balgill1000 ( talk) 03:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Wonder if we should have a new section discussing only the differences of estimates. Note also that in 2000, a whole bunch of new documents were released from the US Government regarding the bombing including maps showing populated areas that were bombed.
Raquel Baranow ( talk) 18:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It would seem that the latter two-thirds of the Aftermath section more properly belongs to the Operation Freedom Deal article rather than the Operation Menu article. Much of this section is about the impact of all the bombing of Cambodia rather than just the small percentage of bombing that occured during Operation Menu. Are there comments about transferring and adapting this material to Operation Freedom Deal? Smallchief ( talk 21:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello. There appears to be some inconsistencies between sources about the condemnations of the American bombings (during Operation Menu).
The latest installment of this issue is the following sentence in the "Exposure" section:
"Although Sihanouk's government protested "American violation[s] of Cambodian territory and airspace" on innumerable occasions, it "specifically protested the use of B-52s" only once, following an attack on Bu Chric in November 1969." (Clymer, Kenton (2013). The United States and Cambodia, 1969-2000: A Troubled Relationship. Routledge. pp. 19–20. ISBN 9781134341566.)
Other sources talks about both the UN condemnations - which isn't mentioned in this article at all at the moment - and elaborates more on Sihanouk's public condemnations in mass-media at the time. Take a look here for example:
Many other sources can be found about the subject, but they appear to differ in their treatment, with some sources going into more details and other sources not mentioning it at all. I am not sure there are real inconsistencies, perhaps they just differ in their amount of information.
I am not so familiar with source number two, but wanted to include it, because it is French and because it is very explicit about the public condemnation from Sihanouk. It has the problem though, that the source for the statements is almost "out of reach". If the primary sources to Sihanouks public announcements were delivered, things would greatly improve of course.
I am not completely sure how we deal with this, but there are certainly more to it than the sentence that are now up and the whole issue is much more interesting and essential than speculative thoughts from the US administration. I think my source number one could be used right away, and I suggest we build on that until more sources are brought in.
(PS: I have explicitly written the refs and sources without the usual ref-tags, as this is a TalkPage) RhinoMind ( talk) 17:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@ RhinoMind, Raquel Baranow, SmallChief, I was wondering how you felt about moving/merging this article with Operation Freedom Deal and changing the name to "United States bombing of Cambodia." That seems more in line with WP:COMMONNAME, and Menu already has a redirect from a similar name. It will also allow the article to fully encompass the recently declassified Johnson bombing of 1965-68. Let me know. - GPRamirez5 ( talk) 18:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC) GPRamirez5 ( talk) 18:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Russia and China's role in escalating the Vietnam War is completely missing from this article. Throughout the war Russia and China supplied the North Vietnamese with weapons, ammunition, fuel and even rice to feed the troops in the front lines. In the end the war was won by Russian-supplied T-54 main battle tanks delivered to the front line jumping off points in Cambodia via roads built in great part with the assistance of tens of thousands of Chinese volunteers. The bombings didn't happen in a vacuum. 2600:8800:4684:BD00:71AD:C7C2:D23:A2E2 ( talk) 06:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Menu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 18, 2013. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't have a problem with the Chomsky source as such, though since it refers to a public press conference there should be no problem supplying other sources if required. The central problem with this edit is that a paragraph about what was happening in 1967 has just been dumped and replaced by one about events in 1969. The paragraph after that, which refers to 1967, thus comes to have a totally illogical relationship to the one that precedes it. It surely should not be difficult to give an outline of changing attitudes over the 1967-69 period, and this explain why initial acquiescence or tolerance of the attacks was changed to public condemnation: internal public unrest?; changing US methods?; the rise of support for communists in Cambodia? This is hardly an obscure topic in which sources are thin on the ground. Paul B ( talk) 18:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
As a possible compromise, I don't see any problem with citing Sihanouk's public opposition to the bombing, while also citing the position of some historians and U.S. officials that Sihanouk gave his tacit approval. That is enough to notify readers and allow them to investigate further if they wish. - Darouet ( talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with User:Darouet above, and I will let User:TheTimesAreAChanging make the aforementioned changes first since they don't seem to like my changes. If it is not changed in a few days, then I will make the change myself. Balgill1000 ( talk) 03:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Wonder if we should have a new section discussing only the differences of estimates. Note also that in 2000, a whole bunch of new documents were released from the US Government regarding the bombing including maps showing populated areas that were bombed.
Raquel Baranow ( talk) 18:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It would seem that the latter two-thirds of the Aftermath section more properly belongs to the Operation Freedom Deal article rather than the Operation Menu article. Much of this section is about the impact of all the bombing of Cambodia rather than just the small percentage of bombing that occured during Operation Menu. Are there comments about transferring and adapting this material to Operation Freedom Deal? Smallchief ( talk 21:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello. There appears to be some inconsistencies between sources about the condemnations of the American bombings (during Operation Menu).
The latest installment of this issue is the following sentence in the "Exposure" section:
"Although Sihanouk's government protested "American violation[s] of Cambodian territory and airspace" on innumerable occasions, it "specifically protested the use of B-52s" only once, following an attack on Bu Chric in November 1969." (Clymer, Kenton (2013). The United States and Cambodia, 1969-2000: A Troubled Relationship. Routledge. pp. 19–20. ISBN 9781134341566.)
Other sources talks about both the UN condemnations - which isn't mentioned in this article at all at the moment - and elaborates more on Sihanouk's public condemnations in mass-media at the time. Take a look here for example:
Many other sources can be found about the subject, but they appear to differ in their treatment, with some sources going into more details and other sources not mentioning it at all. I am not sure there are real inconsistencies, perhaps they just differ in their amount of information.
I am not so familiar with source number two, but wanted to include it, because it is French and because it is very explicit about the public condemnation from Sihanouk. It has the problem though, that the source for the statements is almost "out of reach". If the primary sources to Sihanouks public announcements were delivered, things would greatly improve of course.
I am not completely sure how we deal with this, but there are certainly more to it than the sentence that are now up and the whole issue is much more interesting and essential than speculative thoughts from the US administration. I think my source number one could be used right away, and I suggest we build on that until more sources are brought in.
(PS: I have explicitly written the refs and sources without the usual ref-tags, as this is a TalkPage) RhinoMind ( talk) 17:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@ RhinoMind, Raquel Baranow, SmallChief, I was wondering how you felt about moving/merging this article with Operation Freedom Deal and changing the name to "United States bombing of Cambodia." That seems more in line with WP:COMMONNAME, and Menu already has a redirect from a similar name. It will also allow the article to fully encompass the recently declassified Johnson bombing of 1965-68. Let me know. - GPRamirez5 ( talk) 18:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC) GPRamirez5 ( talk) 18:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Russia and China's role in escalating the Vietnam War is completely missing from this article. Throughout the war Russia and China supplied the North Vietnamese with weapons, ammunition, fuel and even rice to feed the troops in the front lines. In the end the war was won by Russian-supplied T-54 main battle tanks delivered to the front line jumping off points in Cambodia via roads built in great part with the assistance of tens of thousands of Chinese volunteers. The bombings didn't happen in a vacuum. 2600:8800:4684:BD00:71AD:C7C2:D23:A2E2 ( talk) 06:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)