Talk:Fall of Phnom Penh: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 119: Line 119:

::That was what I originally wanted to do; somehow {{u|Mztourist}} found fault with this and forced this tortuous process. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 20:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

::That was what I originally wanted to do; somehow {{u|Mztourist}} found fault with this and forced this tortuous process. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 20:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

:::[[User:Daniel Case]] ”’you”’ “forced this tortuous process” by insisting on changing the wording. I am simply making sure that a proper discussion takes place to reach a binding consensus. [[User:Mztourist|Mztourist]] ([[User talk:Mztourist|talk]]) 03:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

:::[[User:Daniel Case]] ”’you”’ “forced this tortuous process” by insisting on changing the wording. I am simply making sure that a proper discussion takes place to reach a binding consensus. [[User:Mztourist|Mztourist]] ([[User talk:Mztourist|talk]]) 03:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

::::As the progress of the RfC that you ”insisted” on is showing, this is a slam-dunk open-and-shut case for an edit clearly in line with the MOS, an edit that on 99.9999% of other articles would be without controversy, much less reversion. You, for some reason I am no longer interested in bothering to discern, said [[MOS:REDUNDANCY]] was “[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fall_of_Phnom_Penh&diff=prev&oldid=1300421207 not good enough]”, and yet (see above) when I queried you on exactly ”what” your reason was for this extraordinary take on our style guidelines, you cited [[WP:COMMONNAME]] which applies to article ”titles”, not lede wording, as I pointed out, which then led you to tell me to get an RfC so there would be binding consensus (as if the binding consensus behind the MOS was somehow insufficient). So I did that because, as an admin who frequently reviews [[WP:ANEW|edit-warring complaints]], I am the last user who should edit war. So, I did as you asked.

::::I view the idea that “a binding consensus” is necessary for this edit as about the same thing as saying that “a binding consensus” is necessary for citing a previously uncited statement with a reliable source. There is not, and never has been, ”any” need for a discussion on this edit or any others like it.

::::You have, however, indirectly alluded on more than one occasion to what I now think is the ”real” reason you are fighting this so hard: that ”you” wrote this article that way, and ”you” got it to GA. That’s great for you and Wikipedia, but recognition of an article does ”not” confer on the editor who developed it to that point ”any” unique authority over its content, including its wording. [[WP:OWN|Because we don’t, and never have, recognized the existence of such authority]].

::::Your editing of this article, ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fall_of_Phnom_Penh&diff=prev&oldid=1308915444 and not just in this instance]), smacks of [[WP:OWNBEHAVIOR]] (see 1–4 especially). I consider your use of the RfC procedure here to be little more than [[WP:GAME|gaming the system]], the equivalent of [[frivolous litigation]], in order to protect ”your” version of the article. I suppose when this is all done we might want to see what others have to say about this. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 03:56, 24 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:

: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:

Good article Fall of Phnom Penh has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 8, 2020 Good article nominee Listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia’s Main Page in the “On this day…“ column on April 17, 2020, and April 17, 2025.

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)[reply]


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

@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)[reply]
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?
Excellent. I have changed the source to that in commons.
  • “Lt. General Sak Sutsakhan” Could you give Lieutenant in full, and link lieutenant general.
  • “of the city for 3 days”; “Thai border arriving 4 days later”: Numbers up to nine should be spelt out.
  • There is an almost complete absence of Khmer Rouge PoV. Did they not at least make official statements or issue proclamations?
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?
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”?
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?
  • “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.
  • “Aftermath”: There are three single sentence paragraphs. Would it be possible to run at least some of them together?

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cites 3 and 9 need either ISBNs or OCLCs.
  • Cite 2: I think there should be a colon in the title.
  • Cite 7: the title should be in title case.
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks, I did expand the lead, not sure what else there is to say there. Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Thanks Gog the Mild much appreciated, all relatively painless! Best regards Mztourist (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


===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)[reply]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

“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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I suggest you open an RFC then. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think 3O would be sufficient. Are you OK with that? Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, RFC is binding consensus, 3O isn’t. Mztourist (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then … Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How should the lede be worded?

  1. “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“.
  2. “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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Daniel Case, gentle reminder to add your !vote below the survey line. Some of above is RFCBEFORE and I didn’t want to attempt to summarize your argument. Feel free to “Support #1 per” one of the other users or use your own words. Dw31415 (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

Support #1 reads more neutral and per Daniel Case 2 seems to violate MOS. IndrasBet (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support #2 as major contributor to this GA. Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not a valid reason for a stylistic choice. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sometimes they are; most “fall of”s are generally not, at least in every context. I have no problem with it being included in bold whether capitalized or not, as long as the sentence isn’t too contorted.

There is, as far as I can see, no blanket exception for proper nouns at REDUNDANCY, only the OED one, which has language specifically explaining that there’s no way to get around reusing “dictionary”, and shows how that works by qualifying it as the “principal historical dictionary” of English. And that exception is permissive, not mandatory. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daniel Case stop WP:BLUDGEONING the process, you’ve commented enough. Mztourist (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As this RFC was reopened and Users have been criticizing my almost month-old position above, I will spell it out in more detail. WP:MOSFIRST applies. “Fall of” has at least three slightly different meanings: (1) physical collapse of a structure e.g. the Fall of the Berlin Wall (both a structure and a system); (2) capture of a place (e.g. Singapore, Berlin, Phnom Penh, Saigon, Kabul etc.); (3) decline and collapse of a political system or empire (western Roman Empire, Assad Regime). MOSFIRST requires that the title is described. The only MOS:REDUNDANT wording in #2 is “Phnom Penh” which I regard as completely trivial, but as its apparently so offensive to some Users the wording can be changed to: “The Fall of Phnom Penh was the capture of the capital of the Khmer Republic (present-day Cambodia), by the Khmer Rouge on 17 April 1975, effectively ending the Cambodian Civil War.” Fall of Phnom Penh is the WP:COMMONNAME for this event, though Fall is variously capitalized or uncapitalized. Mztourist (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

“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)[reply]

some others: Fall of Tenochtitlan, Fall of Antwerp, Fall of Manerplaw Leemyongpak (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are actually closer to #1. Daniel Case (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s see the fifth opinion. Leemyongpak (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

This variant sounds good too. Gawaon (talk) 11:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Neither of those constructions comply with TITLEABSENTBOLD. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or “The Fall of Saigon marked the end of the Vietnam War.” (As an example) Dw31415 (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

User:Daniel Case you “forced this tortuous process” by insisting on changing the wording. I am simply making sure that a proper discussion takes place to reach a binding consensus. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the progress of the RfC that you insisted on is showing, this is a slam-dunk open-and-shut case for an edit clearly in line with the MOS, an edit that on 99.9999% of other articles would be without controversy, much less reversion. You, for some reason I am no longer interested in bothering to discern, said MOS:REDUNDANCY was “not good enough“, and yet (see above) when I queried you on exactly what your reason was for this extraordinary take on our style guidelines, you cited WP:COMMONNAME which applies to article titles, not lede wording, as I pointed out, which then led you to tell me to get an RfC so there would be binding consensus (as if the binding consensus behind the MOS was somehow insufficient). So I did that because, as an admin who frequently reviews edit-warring complaints, I am the last user who should edit war. So, I did as you asked.
I view the idea that “a binding consensus” is necessary for this edit as about the same thing as saying that “a binding consensus” is necessary for citing a previously uncited statement with a reliable source. There is not, and never has been, any need for a discussion on this edit or any others like it.
You have, however, indirectly alluded on more than one occasion to what I now think is the real reason you are fighting this so hard: that you wrote this article that way, and you got it to GA. That’s great for you and Wikipedia, but recognition of an article does not confer on the editor who developed it to that point any unique authority over its content, including its wording. Because we don’t, and never have, recognized the existence of such authority.
Your editing of this article, (and not just in this instance), smacks of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR (see 1–4 especially). I consider your use of the RfC procedure here to be little more than gaming the system, the equivalent of frivolous litigation, in order to protect your version of the article. I suppose when this is all done we might want to see what others have to say about this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Other than not conforming with TITLEABSENTBOLD, I have no problem with that either. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking. Like you, I am treating “fall of Phnom Penh” as not being a proper name. If it is a proper name, that makes a difference. Nurg (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After a little googling, it seems like historical events names are proper nouns (like the Battle of Gettysburg), but what’s a good RS to answer that question? Dw31415 (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer #1, without prejudice to the possibility that there might be some still better wording. For historical events we should not strain to repeat the article title when it doesn’t make for a natural sentence. —Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible alternative I think the clunkiness of option 2 comes from two things: First, insisting on calling an event by a fixed name, and then second, using a form of the verb “to be” to define it. As I see it this rarely leads to elegant wording for historical events. If it is desired to name the event rather than just describing it, we could say The fall of Phnom Penh occurred on 17 April 1975, when the Khmer Rouge captured Cambodia‘s capital city Phnom Penh, effectively ending the Cambodian Civil War. The second occurrence of “Phnom Penh” in the above is optional; it’s really just there to have a place to link the city article without using a pipe, but that could be done instead at the first later occurrence of the city name. —Trovatore (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1, as my all arguments here otherwise make clear and as other editors have said in support. Daniel Case (talk)

User:Dw31415 If there’s no consensus, you don’t close it as agreeing the requested change, you take it to the next level as per procedure. Mztourist (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if there weren’t policy or style to guide to a resolution. In this case, the closure can consider the that the votes for #1 are based in the style guide, while the votes for #2 are based on preference and a few examples (without considering other examples like the Fall of Saigon), rather than referencing the MOS. There was light participation in this RfC. I wonder if you might consider accepting the change and moving on with a lead sentence that isn’t redundant, either (#1) or some other version. Otherwise the article is a very good article and an introductory sentence like #1 serves it well. Thoughts? Dw31415 (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issue must be elevated as there was no consensus as you explicitly acknowledged, meanwhile you should tell User:Daniel Case that the pre-dispute language remains until the issue is resolved per procedure. Mztourist (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“No consensus” wasn’t bolded here, which indicates to me that it is not to be considered the close. Dw’s language here reinforces my reading of their close that policy trumps preferences expressed in an RfC, thus how things turned out really isn’t relevant. The issue has been resolved. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no special policy-based meaning behind bolding or not bolding any words in a closing summary. Text formatting can be convenient for people who want to see the overall outcome at a glance, but the whole paragraph is the closing summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mztourist, @Daniel Case, I’ll revisit my closure tomorrow. Thank you both for your commitment to improving the page. Dw31415 (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mztourist, @Daniel Case, I’d like another day to review. @Mztourist, is there any phrasing that you’d accept that avoids the duplication of “the fall…was the capture”? You are certainly entitled to pursue the all the process steps, but I wonder if there isn’t a compromise that moves things forward without administrative burden. Again, this is such a good article, thanks everyone for your work on it. cc: @Leemyongpak Dw31415 (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The existing language should be retained as it is commonly used in WP, e.g. Fall of Babylon, Fall of Constantinople and Fall of the Western Roman Empire. It is a GA and I don’t see what purpose is served by arguing over this issue. Mztourist (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many things wrong with this argument:

  • “It is commonly used …” See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
  • Of the three articles you linked, Fall of Babylon actually is MOS-compliant in this regard, as it does, understanding that readers do not have cabbage for heads and can thus be expected to understand that the meaning of “Fall of …” does not need to restated and just goes on to tell us when that happened and how. Fall of Constantinople has the same problem as this one, and I thank you for bringing it to the community’s attention. Fall of the Western Roman Empire is a little subtler as it does not relate to a military defeat.
  • The article will remain a GA regardless of how the lede is worded. That is not the issue here. Recognition is not a commandment that the article be forever fixed in amber as it was when promoted. Many GAs, indeed some FAs, have benefited from work done well after they were recognized.
  • I actually agree that no purpose is served by arguing over this issue, either, since IMO the MOS is pretty clear about this, and the MOS generally requires consensus to deviate from where it is clear. This RfC did not gain that.
You know, looking over the other “Fall Of …” articles, I am despite the above willing to offer compromise wording. It seems to me that you are most upset by my taking the bolded title out of the lede entirely. So, how about instead something like this:

The fall of Phnom Penh took place on 17 April 1975, when Khmer Rouge forces entered the capital of the Khmer Republic (in present-day Cambodia), effectively ending the Cambodian Civil War.

That keeps the boldfaced title in the lede, but gets the narrative going without unnecessarily reiterating it later in the sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:FIRST the existing wording is better. Mztourist (talk)

@Mztourist: Could you elaborate under which provision of that section it is “better”? Just saying this repeatedly does not make it so (And please in the future sign your responses in full so that the reply function can be enabled). Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, I agree with you that keeping the boldfaced title in the first sentence seems like an improvement wrt MOS:FIRST, which says “If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence”. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing, MOS:REDUNDANCY is an exception to MOS:FIRST as Cinderella157 articulates better than I did.
From MOS:FIRST/MOS:REDUNDANCY
Iraq–Pakistan relations are the relations between Iraq and Pakistan.
There’s an exception to the exception for proper nouns. As you suggested, I’ll reopen the RfC and hopefully more eyes will find some consensus (potentially around updating the MOS to include some exception for synonyms in cases like “fall”.
Note that I think you mixed Daniel and MZtourist’s positions. Dw31415 (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read the page Sherman’s March to the Sea. The first sentence is “Sherman’s March to the Sea (also known as the Savannah campaign or simply Sherman’s March) was a military campaign of the American Civil War…” so the approach I support isn’t just found in “Fall of” pages. Mztourist (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dw31415 If you support Daniel, just add a vote for him in the RfC. I have no problem with #1, but Change without consensus seems like a serious problem here. Leemyongpak (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mztourist, @Daniel Case, I’ve updated my closure to be more clear that it doesn’t support changing the first sentence. @Daniel Case, please change it back. FYI: There was additional discussion on my talk and at DfD on this question. Dw31415 (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Dw31415. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2025 (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.

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top