Jump to content

Talk:Sam Rainsy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Some of the facts in this article need checking for POV. I seem to remember he resigned from Funcinpec (not kicked out) for example. Any takers? Paxse 16:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed vitriolic personal attack. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Rainsy's Vietnamese ancestry (Thiounn link)

[edit]

On Sam Rainsy's Vietnamese ancestry, the TIME magazine post infered that Sam Rainsy's mother surname was Thiounn. CAMBODIA: Sam the Whipper, July 21, 2012, Time Magazine; "In January of this year Sary was packed off into gilded exile as Cambodia’s Ambassador to Britain. Sary’s entourage: his formidable No. 1 wife, *(Thioun) Em, a plump suffragette, and their five children, ranging in age from 8 to 18;..." I could not find a direct news/journal/book source providing details on Rainsy's maternal ancestry, but one blog (seems more like an news blog to me) mentioned that his maternal grandfather is Veang Thioun [1].........Full text at [2].

I also found numerous indications that the Thiounn family, who were descended from the palace minister Thiounn Thiouen during King Norodom's era was Vietnamese (or of Vietnamese heritage):

  1. Interview by Khmer Rouge ambassador Thioun Prasith: ".....I used to live in France; my grandfather is Vietnamese and a revisionist like him." [3]
  1. "King Sisowath spoke no French, and it was Minister Thiounn who served as his interpreter. ... the twin disadvantages of modest birth and a mixed Khmer-Vietnamese ancestry to become the most powerful official at the...." [4]
  1. "Thiounn to the Resident Superior, Phnom Penh, 15 November 1900. In this letter Thiounn gives his father's name as Hui. Tradition holds that Thiounn was of largely Vietnamese descent. " [5]

I would be grateful if you can provide other written evidence here to rebutt the claims that the Thiounn family is not Vietnamese, or that there maybe somewhere along the lineage that In (Thiounn) Em might be adopted. Mr Tan (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mr Tan. Unfortunately Mr Tan's evidence cited is questionable, at best.

1. His citation of an article from Time Magazine. In the actual article, Time Magazine 21 July 1958 (page 18, column 3, third paragraph, fourth line), there is no mention of the name Thiounn at all. Instead of going back to the original article itself, Mr Tan has cited an internet posting which has inserted the name in their transcript of the article. The role of an historian is to check the original source not rely on an inaccurate transcript.

2. His quotes from Thiounn Prasith come from Tuol Sleng. These are hardly reliable sources ? All sorts of people stated all sorts of things there. Many are recorded as claiming that they were working for the KGB and CIA at the same time, often after having their toenails or teeth pulled out.

This leaves the only 'evidence' from Mr Tan is Milton Osborne's book, which as Mr Tan correctly quotes states 'tradition holds ...' I think we need a little more evidence than this before making a claim. Members of the Thiounn family have related that the original Thiounn was adopted by a Chinese family. 'Hui', the name which Milton Osborne mentions, is, of course, a Chinese name.

Aside from the question of whether these references are of any value they only talk about his mother's family name which proves nothing. My mother's family name is English, her mother's family name is of Traveller origin, I have Danish, Jewish and Manx blood but I am an Australian. My skin identifies me as white, but the family names of my ancestors do not tell you anything much about who I am and I see no reason to consider Rainsy any different. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Pardon

[edit]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-12/an-exiled-cambodian-opposition-leader-granted-royal-pardon/4817582 "Cambodia's opposition leader, Sam Rainsy, has been granted a royal pardon and is free to return to the country ahead of elections. The Cambodian government announced the pardon Friday, paving the way for the popular Mr Rainsy, who has lived in exile in France for the past four years, to return for the July 28 general election. The royal pardon quashes the 11-year jail term handed down to Mr Rainsy in 2010 in a brace of cases that were slammed by his supporters as politically motivated. Government spokesman, Phay Siphan, has told Radio Australia the veteran opposition leader is free to return to the country that he left in 2009. The news has delighted members of the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party, who believe Mr Rainsy's presence will translate into more votes for them. Mr Rainsy announced last weekend he would return to Cambodia by July 28, and was prepared to go to jail if necessary. However he had not fixed a return date, leading to speculation a deal was being worked out behind the scenes. News of his pardon follows warnings from some donors to the country that an election lacking Mr Rainsy's participation might not be seen as free and fair." Someone want to edit this in? Djapa Owen (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... widely believed...

[edit]

This edit by User:WilliamThweatt has been reverted because it erroneously claims that the linked NYT/AP article contains an assertion that substantiates the previously included claim "[...] charges widely believed to be politically motivated". Even if the article made such claims, as an encyclopedia, we cannot entertain speculative claims or opinions of the author as factual information. Vicheat (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we can. It is widely believed also if you do a search on the motivation behind his being tried from reputable media sources that he was convicted for some goofy free speech issue that is typical of Cambodia where special interest groups rule. There are scores of good sources that give an argument that it was politically motivated. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, it is widely believed that editors are not supposed to insert random weasel words to back up their unsubstantiated claims. This is still speculative hand-waving without any appropriately included reliable sources. Instead of discussing this matter on the talk page, you have reverted my edit and re-inserted a claim that is not supported by the NYT/AP article linked earlier as well as the new GlobalSecurity link (which does not seem to qualify WP:RS) that you have included now. I ask that you revert yourself and continue discussing this on the talk page.
FWIW, Sam Rainsy himself admitted uprooting border markers at the border province of Svay Rieng. His conviction, then, does not sound like idiosyncratic behaviour on the part of the Cambodians as you seem to be asserting in your statement above. Try doing this at the US-Mexico border and see what happens to you. :) Vicheat (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar at all with Cambodian politics? Have you ever even been to Cambodia? Sam Rainsy is Hun Sen's most serious rival since Ranariddh and remains the biggest challenge to the CPP's power. Whether he "admits uprooting markers" or whether we could do the same on some other border is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. This sentence is about his 2010 conviction in absentia, which was for the crime of "spreading false information" (not moving a border marker), or more precisely, for publicly accusing Hun Sen's government of colluding with Hanoi to "cheat" Cambodia out of land. Those charges were obviously (almost by definition!) politically motivated and meant to discredit Sam Rainsy and his growing movement. In fact, the only way they were able to bring charges in this case is that his parliamentary immunity had been stripped by the CPP-dominated Assembly five years earlier for similar reasons, namely because he publicly accused the CPP of corruption and suggested Hun Sen's involvement in (or, at the least, foreknowledge of) the assassination of union leader and SRP affiliate Chea Vichea. To everybody who studys/follows the politics of the region, it is simply taken as fact that the stripping of his immunity and the 2010 conviction were "politically motivated". One political faction convicting a rival politician for expressing his rivaling political views is political motivation. That is neither "weasel words" nor an "unsubstantiated claim"; it is merely definition and, imho, is so obvious doesn't even need citing. However, I do believe in providing cites for challenged material so if you want more authoritative sources, I can provide them in the upcoming days (I am a bit busy irl at the moment). Or, alternatively, you could simply do a google scholar search and find them yourself (they are really easy to find) instead of tagging or deleting long-standing consensus.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 07:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The place of my residence or your personal and private opinions on what should be or should not be "obvious" to observers of Cambodian politics is completely irrelevant for this discussion. Wikipedia finds use for information that tis verifiable and backed by reliable sources only. Remember "verifiability, not truth". You will need to provide substantiation for your claims or revert yourself. You will also need to refrain yourself from using weasel words such as "widely believed", as I have highlighted in the heading of this section. Since you do not have the time right now, I recommend reverting yourself until you do. Once you are able to produce reliable sources that are fit for use in this article, we can discuss them on the talk page. At the same time, please bear in mind to attribute opinions to respective authors. Also note that some of the content may not be suitable for the lead section and may have to be included in the body text instead. Vicheat (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears also that you are a single purpose editor but with some obvious skills at editing. I don't want to jump to any conclusions but if you are pro or con on this person and desire to influence popular opinion with your opinion, it is suggested that you not. Your track record indicates this. It is noted that you are against the consensus which is small right now Vicheat. Being aggressive with demanding reversion is not really going to help your case either. [[6]] Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked new users/returning users were not only permitted but welcomed on this project. Unless you have proof to establish sock puppetry or some other form of project abuse on my part (I don't know what you are getting at), please keep your opinions about my intentions to yourself and focus on the content. FWIW, I am demanding that reliable and authoritative sources be produced to back up unsubstantiated assertions that continue to be included on the article. Vicheat (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, (but you apparently refuse to see it and want to continue making demands and accusations instead of making helpful contributions) they're not weasel words. We can't say "the charges were politically motivated" in Wikipedia's voice - that would not be NPOV. We have to use phrases such as "widely believed to be politically motivated" to indicate that it is the conclusion of others, not Wikipedia itself. As for sources, an admittedly quick search yielded:
  • the book Human Rights in Asia 2011, edited by Thomas W.D. Davis & Brian Galligan (specifically, chapter 8 by Sorpong Peou)
  • Karbaum, Markus. "Cambodia’s Façade Democracy and European Assistance." Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 30.4 (2012): 111-143.
  • Curley, Melissa. "7 Developments in Cambodian democracy." Democracy in Eastern Asia: Issues, Problems and Challenges in a Region of Diversity (2013): 138.
all of which describe both the 2004-2005 and the 2010 trials in absentia as "politically motivated". If that's not enough, I (or, as I said above, you) can find more...there are literally hundreds, which does indeed, as Earl King Jr. points out, make it seem rather curious that you choose this particular phrase to dispute.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 08:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two against one does not a consensus make, so there is no question of me not getting the point. The policy clearly states that you have to back assertions, statements and claims included in the article with reliable sources, which is what you should have done in the first place instead of wasting time arguing over non-issues.
Can you please reproduce the relevant content from the journals over here so that I can review them as I do not intend to take your word for it? I believe the opinions included therein will still require to be attributed directly to the authors/source instead of the unspecific weasel phrase — "widely believed".
To make this clear once and for all, I do not have an issue with the use of the phrase "politically motivated" as long as it is specifically attributed to the people who believe these claims are "politically motivated" (the placement of such claims in the article will be up for discussion). I have a problem with the words — "widely believed" — being thrown around. This is a weasel phrase and ought not to be used on an encyclopedia without the support of proper authority – that is, not WilliamThweatt's interpretation of what or how many authoritative sources constitute widely held beliefs but whether or not other scholarly sources directly claim so. For instance, there might be some people who claim/believe that Putin is somehow connected with the death of Nemtsov, but WP will not and cannot include a standalone, unattributed claim asserting this as a widely held belief regardless of the truthfulness of such a claim. Vicheat (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "refuse to see it" has nothing to do with consensus margins but with my repeated attempts to explain the current wording and your repeated demands and accusations in place of helpful contributions - more of which you display above. The article as it stood was the result of long standing consensus. You challenged a phrase in the consensus version. Talk page explanations of the current wording and additional references from reliable sources supporting the current wording were provided. It is not my job to read those sources to you, I assume you can do that for yourself. Every treatment of this issue calls the trials/convictions/sentences "politically motivated". "Widely believed" is not a weasel phrase when something is demonstrably widely believed. Sources have been provided. If you can find a reliable source that says these trials/convictions/sentences were not politically motivated, then, by all means, please include a differing point of view (within the confines of WP:Weight, of course). Otherwise, we're done here.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 08:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats about it. Cambodian politics are messy and there are no shortage of examples of the corruption and multiple participants and political getting even with one group or another [[7]]. It is widely reported would work as well or speculated that. Feel free to change it to that if you like Mr. Vicheat if the other editors agree also. But otherwise no point in rehasing this or asking other editors to do research. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to comprehend MoS WP:WEASEL guideline is not my problem. I have informed you earlier, as I am doing again now, that this encyclopedia cannot accept your own personal interpretations and demonstrations of what constitute "widely held beliefs" as a reliable source on this project. If you have reliable, authoritative sources that say that this is a widely held belief, then please feel free to reproduce them here. I would also like to point out the lack of GA and FA level pages which use such vague and imprecise terms. (From WP:WEASEL: "Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the Neutral point of view.")
I also do not have access to the electronic resources which you have used to include a few sources today, so I cannot review them unless you reproduce the relevant content verbatim over here. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the sources say what you claim they are saying, or that you have not inserted them based on your own interpretation of what the sources are saying.
Your claim that this article has some sort of long-standing consensus is also baseless given the dearth of discussions on the talk page and editors in general on Cambodia-related topics. Try assuming good faith for once.
This discussion will be over when we have achieved consensus. You are free to leave this discussion whenever you like. Vicheat (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ordering people around is not going to help your case. Consensus does not depend on one particular editor dissenting or acclaiming something. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kampong Cham

[edit]

The lede presently states that Sam Rainsy has been an MP from Kampong Cham province since 1998. This may not be a factual statement since he spent a substantial amount of time in self-exile after his conviction until he received the royal pardon. Vicheat (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

House minority leader

[edit]

User:Earl King Jr. says in his edit summary: "Check other recently tagged things that do not need to be tagged as they are sourced in the article already."

This edit summary is a misrepresentation because the assertion that Sam Rainsy is the minority leader of the National Assembly was unsubstantiated prior to my addition of the {{cn}} tag.

The current citation includes a news report from Radio Free Asia which makes an erroneous claim that Mr Rainsy's minority leader status was the result of a constitutional amendment. This is patently untrue as there have been no recent constitutional amendment to effect the creation of a new constitutionally recognized position of a "minority leader". The minority leader position is the result of changes being proposed and made to the internal regulations of the National Assembly at the behest of the President of the National Assembly, Mr Heng Samrin, passed with absolute majority in the body. Therefore, I will replace the RFA news link with these reports from the Phnom Penh Post and the Cambodia Herald – [8], [9] — shortly. Vicheat (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sam Rainsy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sam_Rainsy&oldid=1209952431"