# Talk:Fall of Phnom Penh

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fall of Phnom Penh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 07:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Another for me.  Gog the Mild (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Hi, just a friendly ping as this one doesn't appear to have moved for a couple of weeks. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi From Hill To Shore. Apologies for that. On it now. Mztourist, apologies for the delay. I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check. Flag any issues up here.
The photograph's source seems to be a dead link. Any chance that you could fix it?
Can't find it online, the Marines, like all the US military, have been progressively restricting free access to Vietnam war photos. Its featured on page 118 of the official Marines history  https://books.google.ae/books?id=9Gbp6LJW63oC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=Department+of+Defense+Photo+(USMC)+A150857&source=bl&ots=5CpiW2oUKW&sig=ACfU3U18KYqUSfUMWZPfceMqAeyOhjZbww&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigi_y_yPDmAhXC8-AKHSxmCioQ6AEwEnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Department%20of%20Defense%20Photo%20(USMC)%20A150857&f=false Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Excellent. I have changed the source to that in commons.
"Lt. General Sak Sutsakhan" Could you give Lieutenant in full, and link lieutenant general.
Done Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
"of the city for 3 days"; "Thai border arriving 4 days later": Numbers up to nine should be spelt out.
Done Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
There is an almost complete absence of Khmer Rouge PoV. Did they not at least make official statements or issue proclamations?
None that I can locate, the Khmer Rouge were not known for their diligent record-keeping in this period. Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
You don't say. I wondered if there was some triumphalist propaganda. Ah well, if there isn't, there isn't.
"Lacking the numbers necessary to openly control Cambodia, emptying Phnom Penh of those of its population who were indifferent or openly hostile to them was essential for securing Khmer Rouge control." That's a bit PoV. Possibly insert 'they felt that' or similar - assuming that the source supports this?
That's what Becker says Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Nice attribution.
The lead seems brief. Perhaps you could expand the last sentence a little and add a new paragraph based on the last paragraphs of "17 April" and on "Aftermath"?
Done Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Am I missing something?
That's fine. For some reason it wasn't showing before.
"Aftermath": "18 April" twice in two sentences doesn't flow well. Could one of them be tweaked?
Done Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
"Also evicted were Princess Mam Manivan Phanivong, one of Sihanouk's wives, Khy-Taing Lim, the Minister of Finance, and Loeung Nal, the Minister of Health." Some semi colons to separate out the individuals would help this to flow.
Done Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
"Aftermath": There are three single sentence paragraphs. Would it be possible to run at least some of them together?
Done Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Cites 3 and 9 need either ISBNs or OCLCs.
Done Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Cite 2: I think there should be a colon in the title.
Done Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Cite 7: the title should be in title case.
I don't understand Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The infobox states "Start of the Cambodian Genocide", but this isn't covered in the main article.
While its not explicitly stated, the execution of captured FANK forces and captured Government officials as well as emptying the city, including those who wouldn't survive the trek to the countryside, was the start of the genocide. Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
See my comments above re the lead and the infobox, and the three points on cites. I think that's all. A cracking article. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I did expand the lead, not sure what else there is to say there. Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Yep. See my comment above. It's fine.
Genocide. It is normal in an aftermath section to explicitly mention any long term consequences of what is described in the article. This aftermath effectively ends on 30 April. But the fall of Phnom Penh has a number of further consequences, which I think could do with mentioning, even if briefly. The start of the genocide is one, which I think would merit at least a short sentence. (Otherwise the article looks good to go to me.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, done. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Spot on. A nice, focused, well referenced, readable article. Well done. More than happy to promote it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Gog the Mild much appreciated, all relatively painless! Best regards Mztourist (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mztourist:
Hi! About this edit I reverted it as there seems to be confusion about my edit. This is a navigational template that lists the major topics about Phnom Penh, something that is expected about a major historical event regarding the city.
I did not foresee opposition to the inclusion of a city-wide navigational template.
WhisperToMe (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mztourist:. I strongly disagree that this template is irrelevant and am confused at the rationale. As per WP:BRD I can revert once, especially when I believe there is confusion with the previous edit summary. Anyhow I would like to use Wikipedia:Request for comment. I really am confused about why this would be irrelevant and would like clarity. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Firstly it doesn't work and secondly I have never seen such a navigational template added to a battle page before. What is the policy based reason why it should be included? Happy for you to open an RFC. regards Mztourist (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Mztourist:, please review this revision. Does it work here? What browser are you using? I am using Mozilla Firefox on Windows 10 and it works on my end. Now, second: this is not just "a battle" but a traumatic event for the city of Phnom Penh that led to its emptying out. By any definition it's a major part of the city's history and relevant to the city. Thirdly, there's more than just policies, but also practice. Great Chicago Fire includes Template:Chicago, and Great Fire of London includes Template:London history (from a featured article I must add). I'm not sure a policy reason is necessary at this point. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing what it actually does to this page or anywhere else, so I'm confused as to what purpose you think it serves. I certainly agree that it was a major event in the city's history and have linked this page onto the history of Phnom Penh, while its already linked on pages about the Khmer Rouge etc. What more does adding this template do? Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
To link to other major topics about the same city for those who have an interest in learning more about Phnom Penh. I created such templates about other cities: Template:Asmara, Template:Dili, Template:Kigali, etc. If/when the area gets so many articles, sections can be split off into their own, such as Template:History of London. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I really don't see the point, but have had enough of arguments lately. You can drop the RFC and add it in if you think its an improvement. Mztourist (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

### RFC: Citywide navigational template
Should a navigational template about the city in general ([[:Template:Phnom Penh]]) be included in this article about a historical battle that took place in the city?
[[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 07:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
As per the above. Thank you!WhisperToMe (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Cambodia-1975-4-17.webp
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The two articles compliment each other and one article to cover all aspects of the topic would suffice to satisfy the needs of a reader looking for information on the Fall of Phnom Penh. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Two separate events separated by 4 years with different combatants. Fall of Phnom Penh (1979) is an unnecessary fork of Cambodian–Vietnamese War with minimal detail of the actual capture of Phnom Penh. Mztourist (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
The content that wasn't copied unattributed from Cambodian–Vietnamese War was a copyvio of web sources. I've tagged for speedy deletion. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Mztourist re this request: What would the difference be between "the fall of a city" and "its capture"? How is this phrasing different from the examples at the MOS page? Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

"Fall of Phnom Penh" is what this event is commonly known as. The wording just clarifies that Fall of Phnom Penh was its capture by the Khmer Rouge. Mztourist (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
How would anybody assume that "Fall of Phnom Penh" meant anything else? "Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article."
WP:COMMONNAME is about what we call the article. It is by no means a mandate for inclusion of the title in the lede. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I suggest you open an RFC then. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I think 3O would be sufficient. Are you OK with that? Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
No, RFC is binding consensus, 3O isn't. Mztourist (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Alright then ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

How should the lede be worded?

"Phnom Penh, capital of the Khmer Republic (in present-day Cambodia), was captured by the Khmer Rouge on 17 April 1975, effectively ending the Cambodian Civil War".
"The Fall of Phnom Penh was the capture of Phnom Penh, capital of the Khmer Republic (in present-day Cambodia), by the Khmer Rouge on 17 April 1975, effectively ending the Cambodian Civil War.
Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

See the talk page section above. Number 1 was what I changed it to a couple of weeks ago, since I believed number 2 goes against MOS:REDUNDANCY. When it was changed back as "reason not sufficient", I was told that WP:COMMONNAME was the governing policy here; when I pointed out that that applies to article titles, not lede language, I was told to open this RfC in order to get "binding consensus". So here we are. Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
I put the survey line below because there is a bit of a !vote and RFCBEFORE in the paragraph. I'll leave it to you to either move the above to the survey section or for you to put something else. Dw31415 (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)


### Survey
Is it "Fall" with a capital F or "fall"? If the former, then 2; if the latter, then 1. Some1 (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it's commonly capitalized. I also don't think that whether it's capitalized has anything to do with how we word a lede. What matters is that when a word in the title is self-explanatory, we don't devote the lede to reinventing the wheel for the reader's purported benefit.
We have a fair amount of articles about, for instance, buildings or houses where the latter word is capitalized in the title. None of them do (or should say) something like "The X House is a historic house in ..."
For a more direct parallel here, see the more recent Fall of the Assad regime, which begins: "On 8 December 2024, the Assad regime collapsed during a major offensive by opposition forces. I don't see any difference here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
@Some1, I think you hit the nail on the head from an MOS perspective. If "Fall of Phnom Penh" is a proper noun, then "Fall ... was the fall" redundancy is consistent with the MOS. I don't think it is a proper noun which I think you lead you to #1. Would you please clarify your position?
In 1995, more that 20 years after the fall of Saigon, the United States...-- NYTimes about the fall of Saigon [1] Dw31415 (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support #1 reads more neutral and per Daniel Case 2 seems to violate MOS. IndrasBet (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Support #2 as major contributor to this GA. Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
That's not a valid reason for a stylistic choice. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I think the strongest argument for #2 is that historical events are proper nouns. These are exceptions to the redundancy rule. Oxford English Dictionary is mentioned specifically in MOS. Similarly the Battle of Gettysburg begins “The Battle of Gettysburg was a three day battle“ Dw31415 (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
That to me is another one that should be changed, and the fact that it hasn't yet been does not make it relevant to this discussion. It's in the same vein as my historic-house example from earlier.
That lede has a lot of problems beside that. It tells us this was a three-day battle, and then redundantly gives us the date range from which that information could easily be deduced. It doesn't tell us what country the battle took place in. Or, more importantly, what war.
It would be better like this (Cites omitted):
The Battle of Gettysburg, part of the American Civil War, was fought by the Union and Confederate armies in and near Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, United States, July 1–3, 1863.
Or even better if we were brave enough not to feel we had to force the title into the sentence:
From July 1 to July 3, 1863, the Union and Confederate armies fought a key battle of the American Civil War at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, United States
See how that combines the first two sentences? Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
I think the relevant part is that MOS:REDUNDANT has an explicit exception for proper nouns. You haven’t addressed that. Are historical events proper nouns? Shouldn’t the title be included in bold then? Dw31415 (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support #2 since the similar formula applied in Fall of Angkor, Fall of Constantinople, Fall of Baghdad (1917), Fall of Singapore and many others. Leemyongpak (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
"Fall of Angkor", "Fall of Angkor" and "Fall of Singapore"'s ledes aren't a valid comparison since they give BOLDALTNAMES. "Fall of Baghdad (1917)" is actually just like #2. Daniel Case (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
some others: Fall of Tenochtitlan, Fall of Antwerp, Fall of Manerplaw Leemyongpak (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
All of those are actually closer to #1. Daniel Case (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Let's see the fifth opinion. Leemyongpak (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
@Leemyongpak, the RfC was reopened. I just wanted to point out that your !vote reads a little bit like OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and maybe discounted by a future closer. The outcome of this RfC might be used as precedent on other pages, so I recommend that you consider editing your position to explain if it's your read of MOS:FIRST/MOS:REDUNDANT that #2 is consistent with MOS of if there is another reason for your !vote. Dw31415 (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
At first I chose #2 mostly based my feeling. Now I know it was backed by MOS:FIRST so I keep my vote as it was. Leemyongpak (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support #1: per MOS:REDUNDANT. Others have said it better than I so I’ll probably give a “per” after they respond here. Dw31415 (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support #1. MOS:REDUNDANT is a guideline which is widely observed. Exceptions exist, but they need to be spelled out based on some policy or guideline consideration. Saying "reason provided not sufficient" is no justification for a revert; that is merely another way of saying, "I just don't like it", and that counts for exactly nothing in an Rfc. Given strong enough evidence explaining why MOS:REDUNDANT doesn't apply here, I would change my vote, but the burden is clearly on the #2 supporters to provide the evidence, and so far, it has not been forthcoming. That leaves #1 as the only possible choice here. Mathglot (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support #1 as the simpler and sufficient solution unless the expression "fall of Phnom Penh" (whether with or without an initial capital letter) is widely used in reliable sources, in which case I would instead include it per #2. But that wide usage would have to be demonstrated first, and otherwise #1 seems entirely sufficient. Gawaon (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Neither. #2 fails MOS:REDUNDANT. Also, I think it should be "the fall of Phnom Penh", not "the Fall of Phnom Penh", just as the article mentions "the fall of Neak Luong", and Fall of Saigon has "the fall of Saigon" and "the fall of Da Nang". So, the article title is descriptive, and thus the first sentence can be an exception to the preference for the page title being its subject. #1 has its own issues. It starts like it could be the start of the "Phnom Penh" article. Plus the sentence is in the passive voice. Both sentences are loaded with an overly long description of what Phnom Penh is. Given that the capital hasn't changed since its fall, it can be simplified. Neither sentence states explicitly whom the city was captured from, which is an odd omission. I assume from "in present-day Cambodia" that the border of the Khmer Republic was non-trivially smaller than the present border – is that right or wrong?
The main objective should be a well-written, natural-sounding sentence, not one written for WP's ticks, such as an awkward-sounding sentence with the page title as its subject.
Here's an alternative:
The Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia, from the Khmer Republic government on 17 April 1975, effectively ending the Cambodian Civil War.
That's just a suggestion. If someone can come up with a good sentence that has the page title as the subject, that would be fine. I've had a quick try and came close but wasn't fully satisfied with it. Nurg (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
This variant sounds good too. Gawaon (talk) 11:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
I generally like the construction Victor captured City for these articles since it eliminates passive voice. Possible alternative is Saigon fell to the NVA. Dw31415 (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Neither of those constructions comply with TITLEABSENTBOLD. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Or “The Fall of Saigon marked the end of the Vietnam War.” (As an example) Dw31415 (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
That was what I originally wanted to do; somehow Mztourist found fault with this and forced this tortuous process. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
There is more than one option for resolving it. We can use a slightly different form of the article title and boldface it to cater to the preference for that format, in this manner:
Phnom Penh fell on 17 April 1975 when the Khmer Rouge captured it from the Khmer Republic government, effectively ending the Cambodian Civil War. The Khmer Rouge surrounded Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia and one of the last remaining strongholds of the Khmer Republic, at the beginning of April, making it totally dependent on aerial resupply through Pochentong Airport.
Nurg (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Other than not conforming with TITLEABSENTBOLD, I have no problem with that either. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
I was thinking of "the page title [...] may appear in a slightly different form" at MOS:LEADSENTENCE, and that "Phnom Penh fell" is "Fall of Phnom Penh" in a slightly different form, and therefore it is allowable to bold it. Nurg (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
@Nurg, would you please consider the proper noun MOS exception I mention above with the Oxford dictionary example in MOS? Dw31415 (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)


### Discussion
I reverted my closure on advice at Wikipedia:DfD Dw31415 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Was this RfC ever opened  WP:RFCOPEN? What to do about that now? Dw31415 (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
The RFC was opened on 23 August 2025. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! I’m glad to see the history tag there, I don’t know how I missed it. Dw31415 (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)