Talk:Loung Ung

Untitled

Hey I've made this a cleanup article... I intend to fix it myself. I believe it needs to be wikified and perhaps expanded... a lot! Tomorrow morning I will be writing an essay about Loung, so when I get it back (and it's marked) I'll type it up here along with the content that is already here. Thanks ZPMMaker 08:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry about the delay... I have finally got my essay back from my teacher so I will upload it soon. ZPMMaker 09:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey again. Sorry re the delay - have had absolutely no access to the Internet for the last two months due to ISP errors. Will get onto the article soon. (And yes, I do realise that no one actually cares...)... ZPMMaker 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I care.  :-) I look forward to reading what you come up with! Syosset 15:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Third book

The title of Loung Ung's next book to be Fried Crickets and Margaritas? http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Fried+Crickets+and+Margaritas+Loung+Ung&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&x=wrt

Catalyst for Change?

In Ung's blog (http://www.loungung.com/ung_blog.php) she writes:

That's why I co-founded "Cathalyst for Change". The goal of C2 is to raise money to give to programs founded and staffed by Khmers in Cambodia. I believe strongly that it's not enough to support projects and build infrastructures. We must invest in the people.

Does anyone have any more information about this?

(Speaking of her blog, she hasn't updated it in almost six months. Sadness.)

Some POV and Political Commentary

I reverted some edits because they were, in my opinion, very POV and read more like a Political Commentary or a Book Review than an encyclopedic article on the author. If you disagree, please don't revert back ("edit wars" are very unproductive and a waste of time). Let's discuss it here until a consensus is reached.--WilliamThweatt 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's be civil. Believe me, if you read what I've written on the Khmer Rouge talk page you'll see where I stand. I've been to Toul Sleng, I've been to Choeung Ek, these are horrible, awful places where a great number of innocents were killed. What happened in Cambodia in the late 70's was a tragedy and an outrage, and I would never dispute that. BUT, emotionally charged descriptions of what took place do not also belong in this encyclopedia article. Rather let facts speak for themselves without all the commentary. What I took out was, in my opinion of course, original research/political commentary/overtly-emotional descriptions, that no academic article of this type would ever allow. If you can convince me otherwise, by all means, I'm all ears. --Easter Monkey 07:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

RogerK, Your edits are an improvement over your original version. Including the quote got her point across without you, the editor, making the comentary your description. It maintains the encyclopedic tone of the article. However, the image caption you keep putting in is inappropriate. The merits of land mines as "indescriminate weapons that keep killing long after the conflict is over" can be discussed in the article/talk page on landmines and belongs there, not in an image caption. I have seen first hand the misery that landmines have caused in Cambodia, but this is not the appropriate forum in which to forward that cause. This is POV and commentary on your part, not appropriate for an encyclopedic article in this context.--WilliamThweatt 03:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

By whose reasoning does this description of a landmine belong elsewhere and not here? It is certainly not POV; it is a documented fact. Your argument for POV is empty. The fact that it can be discussed elsewhere is not a prohibition for its statement here. --RogerK 03:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"That cause" happens to be central to Luong Ung's cause, and is appropriate here. --RogerK 03:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between presenting a "cause" or, in this case, an individual's stance on the "cause", and attempting to forward that cause. While the statement you wish to place in the caption may be fact, you are using it in a manner that attempts to influence the reader. Leave that to Luong Ung. It is also a fact that, in time of war, landmines are effective in defending approaches to fortifications, but just because it's a fact, doesn't mean it's appropriate to include it haphazardly. As I said, I have seen the devestation and met many amputees caused by landmines in Cambodia and I sympathize with the issue, but, nevertheless, the caption is inappropriate.--WilliamThweatt 04:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If this issue is central to Luong Ung's cause, as you yourself just stated, state it in the body of the article. For example, "Luong Ung is very active in raising the awarness of the problems caused by the tens of thousands of live landmines left in Cambodia and the very real danger they pose......". I'm not trying to be contrary or argumentative, just want to produce a quality, NPOV article. I'd like to think we can work together on this. By the way, my mistake on the spelling of Chourng, I'm not familiar with the exact spelling so I should have re-included that after my revert, an oversight on my part.--WilliamThweatt 04:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My friend, I do not edit haphazardly, and I would not forward any cause in Wikipedia; the truth about landmines is well documented internationally. I intend to contribute to this article over the long haul, and all of my contributions will be of the finest quality that I am capable of. I have addressed only the first few paragraphs thus far. Luong and her works are worthy of a fine article (POV, lol). "Chourng" is spelled properly in the second book, but not the first. I know; I've done a lot of research. In the future, if you are agreeable, I'd appreciate some discussion about your proposed changes to my edits on my user page, or at liddlebigboy@yahoo.com. If not, we may continue to be antagonists; I don't mind. Arguments are, after all, the catalysts for solutions. --RogerK 07:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur that it now looks better. Far better to include a quote such as the one that is currently there then unverifiable statements such as what may or may not be "in her heart" and whatnot. Still though, I have a problem with the caption to the picture, indeed I would prefer the picture to go altogether, I've seen much better ones of her on the web, but have as of yet not put them on due to copyright questions that I've had. Are landmines indiscriminate weapons? I would submit that it depends on your point of view. Properly emplaced, documented landmines are not indiscriminate, i.e. they are there for a purpose, to deny an enemy a route, channel an enemy into a kill zone, etc. Proper usage also dictates that when the use of that minefield is done then the mines get picked up or otherwise neutralized. Please note though, the deliberate use of the phrase "point of view" in this discussion. My point of view is, that with proper training and utlization, landmines are not necessarily indiscriminate. Of course, my POV doesn't belong, not in this article, nor in the landmine article where landimes are properly discussed in the first place. It is indeed true that landmines (and unexploded ordnance) are currently indiscriminately strewn about the Cambodian countryside. However, a blanket statement that landmines are in and of themselves indiscriminate is POV. Wikipedia users that want to know more about landmines and the controversy that surrounds them should be directed to the proper pages without further commentary. --Easter Monkey 03:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your edits and rantings are intolerable. You find fault with each and every nuance. This is not your own personal article, this is a Wikipedia article. Who appointed you as the official in charge of this article? --RogerK 05:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on, Roger. Tsk, tsk. Syosset 05:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Roger, it seems you're the only one here who resorts to rantings. You have provided no logical NPOV reason to include your caption nor any logical rebuttal to the arguments against including it. Neither is this your personal article. As the warning says below: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it".--WilliamThweatt 06:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Rantings? Wow, my wife would get a kick out of that, do you know just today she accused me of not being passionate about anything, maybe I should have you give her a call. In all seriousness though, Roger, I don't know you, and you obviously don't know me. I have never once accused you of anything. In fact I think that you are just the kind of person that wikipedia needs in order to counter a person like me, and I am not ashamed of that fact. That being said, however, I am not going to justify each and every edit through committee emails back and forth. Wikipedia's policy is to be bold, mercilessly so. So bold I shall be.

Let's work together and not get all pissed off right off the starting line. Quite frankly it seems to me that William and Syosset have taken my comments within the spirit that they were intended. I gotta be frank, I am astounded by the implications of having you say that I am ranting and taking charge of the article. I am a calm person by nature, please, as I said before, instead of jumping the gun, let's have a frank and open discussion. I have my POV, you have yours, everybody else has theirs, let's move forward and then get on with our lives. --Easter Monkey 06:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

After the Khmere Rouge forces were routed into hiding by the Vietnamese in 1979, they clandestinely attacked Cambodian villages, and continued to kill innocent peasants indiscriminately. After raiding a village, they planted landmines, not to protect their fortifications, but so that they could continue to kill anyone and everyone indiscriminately after the attack. The landmine, in the context of this article about Loung and her experiences as a child in Cambodia, was an "indiscriminate" weapon as it was used by the Khmers, and continues to be such today.

The so-called "unverifiable statements" about what may or may not be "in her heart and whatnot" appear repeatedly in her own words throughout her writings. How do you conclude that they are "unverifiable"? Have you read her books? --RogerK 06:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, thanks for the response. This is much more productive.

It doesn't matter if I've read her books or not. If a book review, or a biographical sketch written about her say these things then we need to quote those sources by saying that xyz critic says that "she has this that and the other thing weighing on her heart." The statements that I edited out may very well be issues that are thematic in her writings but for us, the editors of the wikipedia, to say that they are is original research at best.

On landmines: I understand the problem in Cambodia probably better then you think. I've met many victims, I've seen the factory where they make prosthetic legs. They way that you worded it made it out to be a blanket statement that because of what landmines are doing in Cambodia they are in and of themselves indiscriminate no matter where they are; to me this is point of view. They are indeed indiscriminately strewn about Cambodia, they kill and maim several hundreds of people in Cambodia alone each year. Then lets say these things instead and leave the controversy to another article, maybe even start Landmines in Cambodia or something similiarly worded. (Just hit "show preview", I didn't realize that there already was an article...) --Easter Monkey 08:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there are too many words about landmines in a picture that's main purpose is to show Loung Ung. Also remember there's more to Loung Ung than landmines.

The article is just a gem in the rough, a mere shadow of what it could be, and what it will be, with patience and careful attention (tender loving care, lol) over the next few months. Let's not bother to argue the minor aspects now, and proceed with the task before us: bringing this article, about an internationally-recognized author, to FA status, representative of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer. --RogerK 04:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Syosset brings up a good point above. Something that we might want to consider as this article progresses. There is a lot more to Loung Ung than landmines. As anybody who's read her books, saw her speak or met her in person will attest to, she is a multi-faceted, complex, vibrant, creative person. Not only is she an author, but she's a wife, highly involved in community and cultural associations here in the States, very positve, successful and joyful. So far this article (and the picture/caption) is painting a rather bleak picture of a solemn, sorrowful woman who seems to be living in the past...which just isn't so. If this is going to be a true biographical article, it needs to include all aspects of her life equally, and not be so issue-oriented. We should think about changing the picture. There are better pictures that capture the essence of Loung Ung better than this one (the black-and-white on the homepage of her website, for example). Just some food for thought...--WilliamThweatt 00:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for changing the picture, and changing the emphasis of the article. I think those are very good comments, William Thweatt. When you say that it should included all aspects of her life equally -- how will we get information about the other aspects of her life (other than those relating to her two books)? I would love to get this information, of course. But how? Syosset 04:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the picture. Even though the [current caption] is mine the more I think about the more I prefer the [shorter more succint version]. I did that it that way (the longer version) because I couldn't think how else to link to Landmines in Cambodia in the body of the article, the picture seemed a logical place (seeing as she is posing with one). I said above, and even before I changed the caption, that I would prefer the picture to go entirely for exactly the reasons cited by William. I also had in mind the black and white one from her website, but couldn't justify posting it due to copyright concerns? Any thoughts? --Easter Monkey 06:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Every image proposed for this article will be questioned in the peer review(s) prior to FAC. Copyright issues will be paramount, because Wikipedia demands, at the very least, a legitimate reason for fair use, but prefers that the images be in the public domain. Loung may be willing to do this, and asking her to provide pictures for this article is one approach. --RogerK 07:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Loung Ung's picture

There's an issue with the picture itself. I'm too busy at the moment to deal with this, but if someone else wants to, please do so.

The issue has been addressed. I believe that the image will now remain in the archive. --RogerK 05:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Section on Controversy

I know this probably won't be a popular addition, and I fully expect certain editors to object, but in browsing the internet and reading various reviews, I find many sources with negative opinions of Ms. Ung's work that go beyond what one would normally expect. There are also many websites and forums pertaining to Cambodia, Cambodians in exile, and Cambodian culture in which people are actually outraged with Ung. While I may not necessarily agree with all the criticisms (except maybe the accusations of Chinese ethnocentrism), I feel the criticisms are valid and mention of them is warranted. I wrote this up rather quickly because I just wanted to get some info up. Please feel free to edit for grammar, spelling, pair down the quotes, add a response from Loung (I couldn't find any), whatever will make it look a little better, but I think the section should stay.--WilliamThweatt 03:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I have heard these criticisms before. "Controversy" to me though means more, that there is an ongoing movement from one side to discredit the other, I know Roger will think I'm being to petty (just teasing Roger) but these are the kinds of things that are important to me. I don't think that there is necessarily a "controversy" but rather perhaps a term like "criticisms" might be more appropriate.

Do you know what's strange to me though? Did you know that the average Cambodian couldn't care less about the Khmer Rouge and the tribunals that might end up happening? Here's why it shouldn't be that surprising though: fully one half of the 13 million people that live in Cambodia are under the age of 15; the other half to one quarter that is actually old enough to remember, have for the most part moved on. There are certainly cases of untreated PTSD, and this is meant in no way to minimize the damage that was done, but the majority of the population is to busy to be bothered. The only people that I ever hear talk about it are Cambodian Americans (and other Barang (foreigners)) that come and visit and seem to be almost disappointed that folks aren't wallowing in the streets crying about it. Anyway, sorry for the rambling and random thoughts. --Easter Monkey 06:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This gem is beginning to take on a luster, lol :). Controversy (or criticism) is significant in any discussion, and especially in Wikipedia, where every relevant aspect of the subject should be presented to the reader. Personally, I can find no statements in her writings which denigrate the Khmers as a people; yes, she hated and wanted to kill the Khmer soldiers who killed her loved ones, and yes, she wanted to kill Pol Pot with a raging vengeance in her heart, and in an interview she expressed dismay that he died without having been brought to trial for his crimes. But perhaps I've missed something. At any rate, the article is taking shape, and let's deal with the "petty" stuff down the road - just teasing you, my friend :) - and build from here. --RogerK 05:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

One comment. It says "Loung Ung and her books have been the subject of a fair amount of controversy", but isn't it just First They Killed My Father that they are attacking, and not Lucky Child? Syosset 05:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, gentlemen. Easter Monkey, I labored over the the use of "criticism" vs. "controversy" as I was originally writing this section. Some of the objections and accusations were rather vehement and "criticism" seemed too weak to convey that. However, I do agree with you that it wasn't exactly a "controversy" either. I have changed it to "criticism" until I can think of (or maybe invent) a more appropriate word. (For the record, I also agree with you that this may, indeed, seem petty, but I too believe in being as precise as possible in writing, both in conotation and denotation. Every word should serve a purpose or it should be removed or changed.) Syosset, you bring up a good point. As I understand it, it was her first book that engendered the criticisms but those criticisms were then extended not just to her (first) book, but also to her general attitude towards and perceptions of the Khmer people. I changed the sentence a little in the hopes of better conveying that. It could still use some improvement. Feel free, one and all, to edit as you deem appropriate.--WilliamThweatt 23:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the quotations in the footnotes. The criticisms are real, and have been summarized in the body of the article. The reader can pursue the issue further by referencing the footnotes. Just my opinion, so do as you please.

We need more pictures though :) --RogerK 08:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

RIP Editing War

I'm happy to see that the editing war has stopped. Let's try not to get into one of those again. Because once they start, they tend to quickly snowball and get out of control, so, best to not start them, I think. This seems obvious, but I think it's pretty easy to forget. Peace, Syosset 22:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, good work

Hey guys... it's ZPMMaker here (I've changed my nickname...). I haven't done a damn thing for this article, but when I added the wikify tag back in October 2005 this article was only 2 sentences in length. Great work! It may be good enough for a featured article... speaking of which, how do we get that to happen?? David P. a. Hunter 01:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC).

• Furthermore, I suggest we take down the wikify, etc. tags now... What do you all think? David P. a. Hunter 01:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC).

Criticisms from Cambodians

This section brings to light the criticisms that some people have expressed about her book(s) and the way she worded what she wrote, and what her attitude may or may not have been when she wrote. But this article is about her life experiences; it is not a book review, and we are not here addressing either raves or criticisms in depth. Although the issue is relevant, does it deserve to be discussed at length in this article in this manner? I for one feel that the reader would benefit from a short summary of the criticism, such as has already been written, so that he/she is made aware that criticisms exist, and that quotations of such criticisms should not be included here except as footnotes that can be pursued by the reader if desired; better that the controversy be included, in depth, in a review/discussion of her book(s). What do you guys think? :) --RogerK 03:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me to mention criticisms briefly in summary form here, move actual quotes to an article about the individual books. --Easter Monkey 03:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you guys decide is fine by me. But, for my two cents, we should keep in mind what other biographies look like, both here on WP and in hard copy. They almost always include sections on criticism whether we're talking about political personas, like President George W. Bush, Tony Blair, etc or commentators like Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, etc or other authors like Bernard Goldberg, etc. Even the biography on William Shakespeare contains its share of criticism. It is true, this is not a book review, but the criticism is not about the book per se, it is about how what was written in the book indicates something about the author herself. It goes beyond literary criticism to personal criticism/disagreements and questioning of motives.

In short, she only became famous/noteworthy because of what she wrote. If what she wrote was a misrepresentation, or worse, that, too becomes noteworty. You say this article is about "her life experiences", but all we have to document those are the very books that she herself wrote (and that are being criticized). Where else on Wikipedia do we take what somebody says or writes at facevalue? Both sides are always presented to maintain NPOV. Like I said, I'm sure you guys will do what's right so whatever you decide is fine by me, but let's just make sure we don't whitewash this article. It's late so I hope I'm making sense.--WilliamThweatt 04:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You've probably noticed I enjoy playing the devil's advocate so here's another point to consider/justify. Following Roger's logic above, why don't we also remove the numerous long sections of her books such as:

• "Loung was playing near her home when trucks filled with Khmer Rouge troops rolled into her neighborhood. The troops forced the Ungs to abruptly leave their home with what few belongings they could stow in their truck. When it ran out of fuel, they gathered the bare essentials that they could carry and began what became a seven-day trek toward Bat Deng, amidst the throng of evacuees and the bullhorns of the soldiers. Along the way they stopped at night to sleep in the fields and search for food. Sem Ung, posing as a peasant, was fortunate to get by a military checkpoint in Kom Baul without being detained; many evacuees who were perceived to be a threat to the new government were summarily executed there. On day seven, as the Ungs neared Bat Deng, Loung's uncle found them and arranged to bring them by wagon to his village of Krang Truop."

and cite them in the references for the reader to follow up on if they wish? If she were a more widely known celebrity, this article would have been viciously edited by now. For example the phrase "bustling city of Phnom Penh" sounds more like a work of bad prose then an encyclopedia entry. Again, I'm not advocating anything now, just playing the devil's advocate to provoke a better article. Somebody above mentioned nominating for a Featured Article. The first step is Peer Review and these are the kinds of things they look at.--WilliamThweatt 17:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this before I saw the comments below, so I placed it here.

A coupla things I take issue with. (1) I don't know what you mean by "numerous long sections of her book". Nothing that I've added to this article is verbatim, or even close to verbatim. But you are welcome to rewrite it or dump it as you see fit. (2) Every WP article you've referenced includes something about criticisms, but none of them quote criticisms extensively; quotes are terse, a few words or a short sentence included in the summary of the criticism. And only the Tony Blair article has reached FA status. (3) "bustling city" is bad prose? a perfectly acceptable adjective describing something busy and active? by what standard is it bad prose? Wikipedia's?

Rewrite the article as you please, Will. It's as much your baby as anyone else's. We have no real source material here except what Loung has written, and I tried to summarize what she wrote without including any of the fluff; no doubt some of it can be improved upon. And I don't think that any one of us wants to continue without some sort of consensus among us. I've done my best to present a chronological outline of the events of her life, using the resources that I could find. --RogerK 02:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As you've probably noticed I did a basic copyedit yesterday, I nearly deleted "bustling" but didn't want to offend... :) --Easter Monkey 01:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended anybody, that wasn't my intention. I stayed up waaaaay too late last night and I was in an ornery mood. I was trying to make a point and just grabbed the first example that stood out to me.--WilliamThweatt 01:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought that your comments were very measured, thoughful, diplomatic and appropriate. I read nothing "ornery" in to them at all. BTW, I'm actually in Cambodia, UTC+7, so I'm well rested... --Easter Monkey 02:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Here I go again, beating a dead horse: Bustling = "To move or cause to move energetically and busily." What it makes me think of: something out of a bad romance novel. For example: "Fiona darted nervously about the bustling city center in order to rendezvous with Fabian for their mid-afternoon tryst." Personally, I wouldn't ever use "bustling" in my writing, but like I said, I purposefully left it alone. To each his own. --Easter Monkey 05:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for being ignorant in this this area of "bad prose". I searched for a better word, amd came up with these: energetic, lively, hustling, swarming, hectic, animated, teeming, buzzing, humming, busy, rapid-paced, zippy, dynamic, spirited, jumping, tumultuous. I probably missed the most appropriate ones, and I'm not at all certain which of these might suffice. Maybe the adjective is not even necessary in that sentence; what reader would care very much if it was omitted and his or her thought process was not stimulated by it? Some other people are also unaware of this inferior use of the word "bustling" in their writings: ABC News [1]; Associated Press writers [2]; the Boston Globe [3]; The New York Times [4]; NASA [5]; the Detroit News [6]; and Nathaniel Hawthorne [7]. If you could give me some examples of "good" prose as opposed to "bad", then I'm sure I won't make this mistake again. I'm always trying to do a better job, and have the approval of my peers. --RogerK 02:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My goodness Roger, you've been busy...obviously I'm no Nathaniel Hawthorne. --Easter Monkey 02:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Roger, I admire both your use of sarcasm and the dilligence you displayed in defending a quaint adjective like "bustling". I think Easter Monkey came closer to better describing the objection. It's more the connotation or what it makes the reader think of. It belongs in a work of fiction (bad or good) such as Hawthorne, but it somehow doesn't seem appropriate in an encyclopedia (nor would any of the synonyms you mentioned for that matter with the possible exception of "rapid-paced"). I think it is precisely because of the abstractness of the objection that nobody has edited it yet. It's more of a question of style than correct usage.--WilliamThweatt 03:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

lol :) you guys are ok. Me, sarcastic? lol. I guess that was prompted by the "beating a dead horse" thing, which I took to mean, "do we have to go over this again, Roger, duh?". It's true that I know nothing of "bad prose", and it doesn't matter to me what happens to that sentence; at the time I felt the word "bustling", which has not yet been described as archaic, aptly described the tenor of Phnom Penh in 1975. At any rate, I've contributed to this article a summary of events, and attempted to include whatever information would help the reader better understand the events as they transpired, based upon her own words in her books and interviews. I'll probably move on to something else soon; there are few resources left that I'm aware of, other than to talk with her personally on her website to request PD pictures, which I've tried without response. See you guys in the next round, lol :) --RogerK 01:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm again, lol. Here are some links to articles presented by sites which profess to be encyclopedic (we gotta let 'em know about this problem), and use this quaint but unnacceptable term "bustling":

Wikipedia [8], Britannica [9], Columbia [10], Georgia [11], Britannica [12], Grolier [13], Columbia [14], Worldbook [15], Wikipedia [16], Literary [17], Wikipedia[18], Wikipedia [19], Britannica [20], Wikipedia [21] --RogerK 03:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Far from "Roger, duh?" I meant "oh crap, here I go again, somebody please put me out of my misery." You might think me a jerk, but I still don't like the word, mounting evidence of its continued usage in professional encylopedic writing notwithstanding. Just because millions of people like rap music, doesn't mean that I have to... :) Just teasing. Well, sort of. Have you guys seen this: WP:LAME? At least we're not edit warring over the stupid word, just wasting far too much talk space on it. --Easter Monkey 04:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Runnin' outta colons, lol. Don't think you're a jerk at all, EM. I'm happy to be with you and Will. G'nite. --RogerK 05:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

More Criticism

I went to same school with Loung, she was not very fond of Cambodia and was thinking to cope with he problems of USA. She always reiterated her US citizenship and took speech theraphy to show that she does not have an accent. She always wanted to be a famous person and always looked down on anything Asian, I hope she changed, This is not a book of Cambodia rather a self serving and promoting hidden discrimination of the people of Cambodia who stayed behind.I do not beleive she has any traces of Cambodian culture in her, I think that Cambodia`s problem can be adressed by the people who lived through the horrors rather than the ones that escaped and continue to live in Western countries. Mark Turner, St. Michael`s College `89

Thanks for your contribution 24.87.81.52. Why not register here so we can talk to you on your talk page if we want to? Your criticism is certainly legitimate, and relevant, but does not belong in the body of the article. --RogerK 01:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, my criticism of Loung is, after all my research, that she doesn't give Meng and Eang the credit they deserve. They persevered throughout the 80s and 90s to provide money and necessities for Loung in the U.S. and her family in Cambodia, and it's because of their efforts that many of the surviving members of Meng's family are doing well today. I'm surprised by the absence of gratitude for their efforts in her writings and interviews. --RogerK 03:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional criticism

"[Loung reveals] an inherent racism against ethnic Khmers. Sody Lay, former director of the Khmer Institute and university lecturer in Cambodian American studies, also notes that her claim that the Killing Fields tragedy was an attempt at ethnic cleansing is completely misrepresentive of what happened as well as insulting to the millions of ethnic Khmers who suffered and perished under the Khmer Rouge." This criticism was added to the sentence "Her detractors also claim that, as a child of a Chinese mother and a Khmer father highly placed in the Phnom Penh government, she paints a very unfavorable picture of Khmer villagers" on 2 May 2006 by 71.129.53.112, after he or she deleted the bulk of the article. Reverted. Placed here instead, where it is more appropriate. Your contribution is welcome here in Wikipedia. --RogerK 02:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Map sites

I'd like to include Krang Truop (uncle's village), Tro Nuon (father's birthplace), Kong Cha Lat (where Keav died), Anglungthmor, and Long Deang (Vietnam, from where they departed for Thailand) on the map. But I've checked maps [22] and have been unable to find these villages. Anybody know where they are? --RogerK 20:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

I was unaware, when I tidied the article, that there had been so much debate; fortunately, my edits were largely unconnected with anything discussed above. Two points, with regard to reversions of what I did.

1. I can see nothing about going against the standard MoS approach to summaries (including the subject's nationality in the first sentence). I may have missed it, but what reason was given?
2. The edit summary stricture "grammar. You 'emigrate' FROM, but 'immigrate' TO" is simply grammatically incorrect, I'm afraid. The main difference between the two verbs (and their associated nouns) is that one tends to use "immigrate" when talking about people coming to where one lives, and "emigrate" when either talking about people leaving where one lives to settle elsewhere, or when writing neutrally between the two; thus the latter is preferable here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

My edits have been reverted again, without the courtesy of replying here, by someone who (aside from the other problems) doesn't seem aware of some of the basic points about biography-style according to the MoS. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to you. I expected comments to appear on the peer review discussion page, which I've checked frequently. As to courtesy, I try to extend such to all. With regard to "emigrate", I was certain, from my research, that "immigrate" was correct. When I found no explanation for your edit, I changed it. When I found that images were reduced in size, again with no explanation, I changed them because I disagree. When you changed them again and deleted one of the images, again with no explanation, I re-introduced the image and changed the pixel count of the others. Finally, you changed them again with no explanation, and so I applied for mediation of the matter.

I have a great deal of respect for your credentials, sir. Nevertheless, I've worked long and hard on this article, and in good faith. I am as proud of my work as you are of yours. I was unaware of your comments here; however, they do not address all of the edits you have made. As a teacher, I believe you have somewhat of an obligation to explain "why" to those of us who may be your students. Respectfully --RogerK 03:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's always wise to check the Talk page of an article if you're looking for explanations of edits — that's where editors will place them (as I did). (That I'd posted here should have showed up on your Watchlist.) With regard to image size; remember that different browsers are set up differently; by forcing a pixel size, you're forcing a sertain image size independently of a reader's font size preferences etc., which can make the page look image-heavy and even hard to read. Also, larger images take longer to load, which is why thumbnailing is used — to allow people to choose for themselves whether or not to see a larger image; that can be significant for someone on a slow dial-up connection.

Still, I'm sorry for my testy comment above. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The subject of this article and her books are discussed in classrooms by students of varying ages in several countries; I selected image sizes that would print at a suitable resolution to be viewed (and with regard to the map, read) without difficulty. If there is a means within a user's preferences to change the resolution of images, I doubt that students who come to Wikipedia to research "Loung Ung" will be aware of or utilize the feature. Therefore I feel that an increase in resolution is justified.

You also deleted the image Sem_Ung.jpg, twice, without comment. I intend to re-introduce the image, again. If you persist in deleting this image without stating your rationale, I'll pursue mediation or arbitration. Your friend in the spirit of Wikipedia --RogerK 03:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Viewing the full-size image is simply a matter of clicking on it; I'd have thought that anyone could manage that.

The image is of a book-cover, which copyrighted; fair-use rules mean that we can use it to illustrate an article on the book, but nothing else. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of viewing the images here in Wikipedia, it has to do with printing the article. My daughter is 13 years old and researches the internet for various school assignments. Because it is the most exhaustive work on Ung's life that can be found on the internet to date, I know that my daughter would print this article for reference and place it in her binder. Isn't it reasonable to display the images at a resolution that is appropriate for a printed article? The map, at it's present size, is barely readable in print. The image of Loung with victims in Cambodia is not large enough to recognize her on the printed page.

The book cover is being used in this article because a discussion of the book is included under the heading "Criticisms from Cambodians". My understanding is that fair use rules require, not that the book be the subject of the article, but that a critical commentary of the book be included in the article. --RogerK 02:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, if I may, I would like to weigh in. First off, I agree with Roger's interpretation of fair-use in this case. We use it similarly in musician-related articles by including scans of album covers in the article covering the artists as long as the album is discussed/mentioned at some point in the article. However, regarding the size of the images, Mel is correct. While I sympathize with Roger's view (I have 5 children in school myself) thumbnailing is standard practice here on WP. Our primary medium is electronic, not paper. And the vast, overwhelming majority of readers won't be printing out the articles, and of the few that do, most will be concerned with the text, not the images. And if the images do need to be printed out, they can be printed from the image's page and attached. As an electronic medium and as an encyclopaedia targeted at the end user (ie, the reader) we have an obligation to format the articles in the most user-friendly way possible, which, recognizing that there are many different browsers, using different OS's, at different screen sizes and resolutions, requires thumbnailing. The quickloading, readability and asthetics are the primary concerns. The appearance of images in the printed version is a secondary, or even tertiary, concern.--WilliamThweatt 04:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of image-size policy. With regard to the fair-use issue, there has been a crack-down on non-fair-use lately, and you'll find that album covers have been removed from many articles on musicians (though it's a big job, with many articles involved). I'll not edit war over this, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for correcting me about image size restrictions here in Wikipedia. I am, obviously, quite ignorant; I'm relatively new here.

There are some others here who don't quite understand as well. For instance, in the Featured Articles listed below, a number of editors have misinterpreted Wickipedia rules, and have specified image sizes:

Featured Article: Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve

• Image:Craters of the Moon National Monument-2000px.jpeg|thumb|300px|Craters of the Moon from U.S. 20-26-93
• Image:Big_Southern_Butte_at_Craters_of_the_Moon_NM-750px.JPG|thumb|300px|Big Southern Butte was used as a landmark by pioneers.
• Image:Craters of the Moon management sections map.jpg|thumb|300px|Management sections. Together the NPS Developed Area and NPS Wilderness Area made up the 1970 to 2000

Featured Article: Glacier National Park (US)

• Image:Mountain Goat USFWS.jpg|right|thumb|270px|The Mountain Goat is the official symbol of Glacier National Park.
• Image:Map of Glacier National Park.PNG|thumb|270px|Map of Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park.
• Image:Chief Mountain.jpg|right|thumb|270px|Chief Mountain is an isolated peak on the easternmost boundary of the park.
• Image:GlacierNP L7 20010701.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Landsat 7 image of Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park
• Image:Big Drift.jpg|right|thumb|270px|The Big Drift
• Image:Beargrass.jpg|right|thumb|240px|Beargrass

Featured Article: People's Republic of China

• image:Timedengxiaoping.jpg|thumb|left|120px|Time cover September 26, 1983, "Banishing Mao's Ghost: Deng Xiaoping"
• image:Greathallpeople.jpg|thumb|200px|The Great Hall of the People
• Image:Bushhujintao.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Presidents Hu Jintao and George W. Bush
• Image:Karakorum-carretera-d08.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The Karakoram Highway
• image:Shanghaipolice.jpg|thumb|150px|Chinese police officers in uniform. Alleged human rights violations in China is a sensitive issue for the West.
• Image:Saihanba5.jpg|right|thumb|110px|Grasslands of Chengde, Hebei Province, North China.
• Image:TaiShan.jpg|right|thumb|110px|Mount Tai in Shandong Province, East China.
• image:Milopengtibet2.jpg|thumb|110px|Lake Yamdrok Tso on the Tibetan plateau.
• Image:Porcelain_Workshop,_Jingdezhen,_Jiangxi,_China.jpg|right|thumb|200px|A porcelain workshop in central China. Entry into the global economy has given many people opportunities to rise economically.
• image:Shanghai port, Waigaoqiao.jpg|left|thumb|200px|Loading cranes at one of the world's busiest ports in Shanghai.
• image:sciencemuseumshanghai.jpg|thumb|200px|The newly opened Shanghai Science and Technology Museum|Shanghai Museum of Science and Technology.]] Innovations are emphasized and high-tech industries are becoming increasingly common.
• image:Central_Jingshi_Expressway9.jpg|left|thumb|200px|G030 northbound in Hebei province
• Image:Shanghai Metro platform.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Shanghai Metro platform, line 2 (green line). More subways are built as cities expand and develop.
• image:Pmorgan xinjiang.jpg|thumb|200px|A classroom in the poor western region of Xinjiang. Good education is highly praised in Chinese society and competition to top ranked schools is fierce, even at an early age.
• image:incenselonghua.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Incense burning in China is a common religious ritual in ancestor worship, Taoism and Buddhism.
• image:Onechildpolicy.jpg|150px|thumb|Sculpture in Tianjin symbolising the one-child policy.

Of course, their articles, and several hundred others, are of greater import than those that I contribute to; nevertheless, perhaps they should be advised of their mistakes. --RogerK 10:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has over a million articles; the argument "this article shouldn't be corrected because you haven't corrected all of the hundreds or thousands of other articles that make the same mistake" doesn't wash, I'm afraid. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe that it does wash. This has nothing to do with a million articles, or even thousands. The three cited articles are but a sampling of Featured articles which have been scrutinized by the Wikipedia community, including administrators, and have been deemed the very finest that Wikipedia has to offer. A few more, in the style of biographies, are:

Featured Article: Linus Pauling

• Image:Kilowatt.jpg|thumb|250px|Pauling contributed to the development of the first modern electric car - the Henney Kilowatt.

Featured Article: Matthew Brettingham

• Image:Holkham Hall South.gif|thumb|right|350px|Holkham Hall
• Image:Gunton Park. Print 1819. by JP Neale..jpg|thumb|left|350px|Gunton Hall, designed by Matthew Brettingham.
• Image:Kedleston Hall, Derbyshire.gif|thumb|right|350px|Kedleston Hall

Featured Article: Michael Woodruff

• Image:Kidtransplant.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A diagram illustrating a typical kidney transplant such as the ones Woodruff performed in Edinburgh

I believe the argument should be "the images in the article "Loung Ung" shouldn't be restricted to thumb size because of your adamant stance; Wikipedia's finest articles have been formatted with the inclusion of images of specified sizes, and have been approved for display on the Main Page." --RogerK 04:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:IUP#Displayed_image_size says that, generally, one should use the thumb option to display images, but you can set it manually to 200-250 pixels. I will say that the thumb option is working fine for me. Why not use the default? fetofs ^Hello! 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Intro

The ethnic background of Loung Ung is not of sufficient import to be discussed in the intro to the article. It has been placed as a reference. RogerK 06:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

More Criticism

This criticism of Loung Ung was placed in the article by "Khmerletter" on 12 Sept 2006. Its truthfulness is not in question here; the statement does not comply with Wikipedia's NPOV policy and is not accompanied by any corroborating links. The image is also not acceptable without a copyright tag. The crtiticism has been deleted from the article and placed here. Your contributions are welcome here in Wikipedia. -RogerK 03:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"The picture below is in 'First they killed my Father'. In the book, Ung claimed that this picture was taken during a family trip to Angkor Wat in 1973 or 1974. The country was fighting a civil since 1970 and the Khmer Rouge was in control of Siem Reap since 1973 so it was not plausible that her family would be vacationing at that time or in that region of Cambodia. The picture was taken at Wat Phnom, a temple in Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia and not anywhere near Angkor Wat".

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Loung Ung. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060525145451/http://www.thehoya.com:80/guide/033100/guide4.htm to http://www.thehoya.com/guide/033100/guide4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050514182330/http://www.scrypticstudios.com:80/index.php/articles/396 to http://www.scrypticstudios.com/index.php/articles/396

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Loung Ung. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.khmerinstitute.org/articles/art04.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.khmerinstitute.org/reviews/rev2.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.khmerinstitute.org/comments/comr6.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051215103320/http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2005/04/20050418_b_main.asp to http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2005/04/20050418_b_main.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060106211825/http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/listings/2005/04/airtalk_20050425.shtml to http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/listings/2005/04/airtalk_20050425.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051112024449/http://wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/04212005 to http://wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/04212005

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) 02:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)