Talk:Khmer Rouge/Archive 1

message: Text moved frrom Votes to deletion I think this can be useful.
Khmer Rouges 
likely just a misspelling, nothing points to it and it simply redirects to the correctly spelled Khmer Rouge -- User:Maury Markowitz 
I don't think this will hurt. And it might catch some links from the internet. -- JeLuF 10:48 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC) 
This is correct in French. "Le parti Khmer Rouge" for the parti or movement vs. "les Kmher Rouges" for the people who support "Khmer Rouge". Khmer does'nt need a s because it's non-French. I wonder if "Khmer Rouge" was corrected because "les Kmher Rouges" is much more commonly used in French. A rapid search on Google saw that "Khmer Rouge" is more common in english but I've found some occurences for "Khmer Rouges" in english text. 
Maybe some precision should be added in the main article. 
Ericd
Is "genocide" the most suitable word to describe what happened? I can't think of a better word, but genocide doesn't seem quite right. The dictionary says this: 
:The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.</I>
It just may be possible that the stationing of American service personnel in Cambodia near the DMZ and performing military action to prevent the Vietcong
from circumventing the DMZ with no regard for civilian Cambodians may have had
something to do with Pol Pot's anger since this had been going on since at least 1966.  This is first hand information and it is no doubt buried at the
highest level of security.
Your "first hand information" is self-contradictory: Pol Pot (an intellectual) shows no regard for Cambodian civilians as an angry reaction to American soldiers showing no regard for these same citizens? What could be "buried at the highest level of security" that could bring logic to this? -JCB 1/4/2004
::Genocide fits. The policy was elimination of intellectuals - scientists, teachers and anyone who might have been motivated to resist. A little unusual to select the most educated part of the population for death but humans can come up with almoist any idea given enough time. Jamesday 15:06, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks, here's my proposal: actually the edits you are battling over are not mutually exclusive so I wonder why you are reverting back in forth instead of editing things together.  There seems to be one sentence in dispute, which is the reason for evacuation of Phnom Penh.  I'm going to weave them together and hope you will provide constructive feedback in the article.  I've been to Cambodia, and have friends who work in the media, schools and government there, and they do not much fondness for the CPK of that era. So any history of the CPK should reflect this truth, heard from both folks inside the country and the outside community. Fuzheado 00:26, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I tried to merge versions. I hope that helps. Note also that the common name of this subject is Khmer Rouge, so this page should be at Khmer Rouge to conform to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --mav 00:28, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mav, good job.  I've also tried to take out some hemming-hawing in the language, which makes it more direct. Fuzheado 00:46, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Text moved

message: The infobox states 1981 as the year of the dissolution of the Khmer Rouge. This does not match the rest of the article, which notes that they lost their power over Cambodia in 1979, but remained active until 1996, when they were disbanded by Pol Pot. Could someone fix this? Elanguescence (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong date in infobox? 

message: A minor correction, in the section titled "Crimes Against Humanity" reference is made to 'pickaxes' being used in order to save bullets at The Killing Fields. With reference to a tour of the Chaoung Ek site and comments by the onsite guides (15/09/2010), 'garden hoes' would be a more correct term for the tools used most predominately for executions. 
Without wishing to make the article appear overly brutal or descriptive, there are also references provided at the site and by guides that babies were killed by swinging them head first into a particular tree, again with the intent to conserve ammunition. This is a much more representative view of the crimes being committed, and I mention here only as a suggested alternative or addition.
110.74.197.37 (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimes againt humanity 

message: The current text on the page uses the word "REPULSED" at the end of the paragraph copied below. The word should be changed to "REPELLED" because the word "repulsed" implies disgust, and that is not at all what is intended to be communicated regarding a military conflict. The Vietnamese REPELLED the Cambodian MFers.
"By December 1978, because of several years of border conflict and the flood of refugees fleeing Cambodia, relations between Cambodia and Vietnam collapsed. Pol Pot, fearing a Vietnamese attack, ordered a pre-emptive invasion of Vietnam. His Cambodian forces crossed the border and looted nearby villages. These Cambodian forces were REPULSED by the Vietnamese."
Timbalanderx (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Timbalanderx, 14 November 2010 

message: I ran into a youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/AhmekKhmer
According to this person, he/she insists that the Vietnamese were responsible for the khmer rouge and its genocide.
Anyone agree with this or not? Looks fishy to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tank893 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnamese Khmer Rouge???? 

message: Why does this lede not mention either the US support for the Khmer Rouge (or at least 'alleged' support), nor the fact that the Vietnamese overthrew the regime? That last is pretty important. The lede simply says the regime fled, not from what or why, which seems pretty clear lack of NPOV introduced by somebody who cordially dislikes Vietnam. It needs to be fixed, else it definitely would merit a POV tag. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Lede 

message: *(cur | prev) 07:21, 18 April 2014‎ 10stone5 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (90,849 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (This user 03:34, 2 April 2014‎ 2602:306:c445:52c9:218:f3ff:fef1:1346 
*(talk)‎ . . (84,612 bytes) (+544)‎ . . (wiki style; punc fix; minor clarif; ref req) (undo) added countless citation required tags, he obviously doesn't want to be
*identified !) (undo)
---------------------------------
I made the above notation in an edit. The above user made something on the order of 50-75 citation requests. I have no choice but to assume this is a subtle attempt at sabotage. The user clearly doesn't want to be identified based on his odd sign-in. I made a lot of these citation changes and removed the citation request tag from this article 10stone5 (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning on user 2602:306:c445:52c9:218:f3ff:fef1:1346 

message: In the last paragraph of the section "Life Under The Khmer Rouge" is the sentence "Several Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians were killed for exercising their beliefs". I'm guessing that there is supposed to be a word following "several", like "several hundred thousand" or some such, but I don't have access to the source. As it stands, the use of "several" makes it read as if ten or twenty were killed, which is obviously not the case. If someone with access to the source, or a comparable one, would take a look, it would be greatly appreciated.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Word? 

message: The last paragraph of this section does not seem to fit, it has nothing to do with language - though it is relevant. Also, I don't follow the sentence about Khmer Rouge cadres preventing aid if it is talking about people having fled the country (presumably, they would no longer be in the reach of the Khmer Rouge). At any rate, this is not a subject I am deeply familiar with, so I would feel uncomfortable trying to rewrite that paragraph or to move it around - I also apologize for starting two sections back to back, but they are both on different matters. Thank you to anyone who takes a look at this:-) Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language Reforms 

message: Hello, I noticed there was a gap in the former states of Cambodia so I created Kingdom of Cambodia (1975-76); any help in expanding this stub would be much appreciated. Cheers, walk victor falk talk 04:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with stub: [[Kingdom of Cambodia (1975-76)]] 

message: Apparently vickery should not be cited? Why? Alyxr (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Vickery is a former KR supporter whose books are published by South End Press, a front for political activists with the slogan "Read. Write. Revolt." He should not be used as the sole source for alleged quotations that fly in the face of everything mainstream academic experts have to say. Your claim that the KR never mentioned the works of Marx or Lenin is transparently false and should be reverted immediately. "We will be the first nation to create a completely communist society," Mao is "the most eminent teacher...since Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin", ect. Pilger had to pay libel damages for his accusations; Cambodia specialist Nate Thayer says there is "no credible evidence" that the US gave "any material aid whatsoever to the Khmer Rouge". The rest of your edit was your own unsourced Marxist agitprop. The view that the KR did not murder millions or were not communist is, quite simply, WP:FRINGE.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "The view that the KR did not murder millions" is not my view. Mentioning those names is different from mentioning the theory they produced. If you had read the statement (it is not my statement, it comes from chandler! -- again, actually read it please), you would have realised that it is not contradicted by your point. Regardless, if that statement alone (and not a bastardised interpretation of it) is false, revert it, and it alone; don't revert the entire edit. A slogan by the publisher of the book is not a refutation of the book. Logical fallacy 101, please. Alyxr (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit is not consistent with WP policy to represent mainstream views neutrally, and you are misusing sources. Pol Pot is plainly referring to the theories of his teachers in the quote I provided above. Pilger does not say the KR were not communist; that is your personal spin. Chandler and Kiernan have repeatedly affirmed that the KR were communist; here's another KR slogan praising Lenin and Mao (from Kiernan). If Kiernan and Chandler said otherwise in 1983, their more recent books are more reliable. Your personal commentary about the killing of peasants is ridiculous and does not belong in the article, as if all communist regimes did not massacre peasants in the most extraordinary numbers. Your edit has been challenged, and your failure to adhere to BRD will be met with continued reversions. If there is no consensus, there is no change.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

text: To be even clearer, your entire edit is unacceptable because it is entirely unsourced original research. The KR kept their communism officially secret prior to 1976, just as they never announced Pol Pot's existence prior to 1977, so people would think they wanted to restore Sihanouk. It's ludicrous to conclude that the Communist Party of Kampuchea, founded as an extension of the communists in North Vietnam and widely known as the "Red Khmers", were not communist because of that. Your whole paragraph tells us what communists think about the KR, but not what communists or why we should care. WP doesn't have to "balance" what RS say with what communists say, and the only communist we're hearing from is you. This is clear-cut WP:Synthesis and WP:Original research. The accepted scholarly view is that the KR committed mass killings based on Pol Pot's Marxist education in France and an extreme communist ideology urging disproportionate revenge against the rich, and abolished all private property making their ideology irreconcilable with fascism. It's misleading and disingenuous to readers to pretend otherwise, although you are free to opine with your own personal theories on your blog.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You ***still*** misunderstand Chandler's point. Praising Mao, or saying that Cambodia will reach communism is not the same as actually mentioning or expounding on the theoretical line of Marx or Lenin. "Reaching communism" or saying that Mao was nice is not the same as mentioning the dictatorship of the proletariat, the labour theory of value, democratic centralism, or any of the other myriad theoretical things. Statements to the effect of "reaching communism" or praising Mao are incredibly empty. Unless you can provide me with a statement of more substance than that, your point is false. Did the Khmer Rouge spokespeople ever mention any of Marx or Lenin's theoretical works? Das Kapital, What is to be Done?, Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, etc? Read the point Chandler made. Read it and understand it. You're attacking thin air. You're attacking nothing, Chandler did not make the point you are refuting. Provide me with something more concrete than "Mao was quite nice" -- provide me with the Khmer rouge spokespeople saying anything about the theory of communism, rather than vague niceties about famous people or communism, and I will revert that statement myself. I am not wedded to this point by Chandler, and I would very much welcome a refutation of it. Alyxr (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

text: In addition, I never, ever, made any "personal commentary" about "the killing of peasants". I never made any commentary, or sourced any statements, about the killing of peasants. I never mentioned the peasants. I never touched the peasants. I never even thought about the peasants. Please, read what I say, your argument will work better then. Alyxr (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

text: It is not outsourced original research. I am not editing the article to say that the Khmer Rouge was not communist. I am creating a small paragraph correctly stating that ***communists themselves*** do not say that the Khmer Rouge was communist. There is an absolutely ***huge*** difference between those two things, one is OR, and the other is not. Alyxr (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

text: If it was OR, the paragraph would begin with "The Khmer Rouge is not communist". The paragraph actually begins with "Communists deny claims that the Khmer Rouge were communists". One is putting forward a view, and the other is describing a view held by the vast majority of communists around the world. Alyxr (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed your "middle class" to "peasants" to see just how much of a Wikilawyer you are, and the results are not promising. RS do not generally consider whether the KR met your definition of a "true" communist. Here's another source about the importance of Marxist theory to the KR. "The Khmer Rouge ideology has its roots in Marxism with the vision of creating a dictatorship of the proletariat" and they frequently denounced foreign "imperialism". You have no source for what the "vast majority" of communists believe, nor is what they believe relevant. You are pushing your non-neutral communist POV.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

text: You changed my "middle class" to "peasants"? Explain. I cannot make sense of that sentence. I never uttered the words "middle class". And you're pushing your non-neutral view as well! Everyone is biased. Everyone is non-neutral. You're throwing utter banalities at me. The communist interpretation of the ideology of people said to be communist is relevant in a section dedicated to giving information about their ideology. There is no way of pretending otherwise. Just one, small, paragraph about the ideology in one single section that discusses the ideology is relevant. There is no way of pretending otherwise. Huge numbers of pages have a "criticism" section. Huge numbers of pages mention the alternative viewpoint. Go onto the "Stalinism" page, and you will see mentions of the trotskyist take on stalinism. Go onto the "communist" page and you will see mentions of the liberal take on communism. Alyxr (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, you're just playing games, now. Other pages are irrelevant. Without consensus for your poorly informed propaganda, you will be reverted. You have no sources whatsoever for what communists believe or for how KR "attempts to liquidate the working class" prove they were not communist.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How am I playing games? Please explain the "middle class" thing. Other pages were relevant to making my counterpoint to you that it, in fact, is a wikipedia policy to mention opposing views and interpretations occasionally. Have you even read the article we're arguing about? The preceeding paragraph even explains the "liquidate the working class" bit -- "The Khmer Rouge's social policy focused on working towards a purely agrarian society. Pol Pot strongly influenced the propagation of this policy. He was reportedly impressed with how the mountain tribes of Cambodia lived". Maybe I could have phrased that better, I will accept improvement of a more nuanced statement there. Alyxr (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: One possible reason for your misunderstanding of me is that you consider "working class" to include the peasantry. I do not. Alyxr (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no source for that statement, so its automatically out per WP:V and this conversation is utterly pointless.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No source for which statement? Alyxr (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

text: You allege that I don't have sources for so many of my sourced statements, I cannot tell with you any more. Alyxr (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that KR attempts to liquidate the working class are cited by communists as disproving the Communist Party of Kampuchea's communism. Synthesis, OR, and source misrepresentation by reading between the lines is a separate but related issue to your unsourced personal opinions. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I already admitted that was sloppy wording on my part. Although the article already states numerous things to roughly the same effect, I have removed that sentence. Alyxr (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting ridiculous. How dare you accuse Stumink of inserting his own opinion, when you are personally claiming to speak for the communist movement! Your continued reverts are a flagrant violation of WP:OR, and, combined with your tendentious deletion of maintenance tags, constitute clear-cut WP:IDHT. Also, why are you unable to provide page numbers for alleged quotes from sources that are already dubious? TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

text: How dare I? Is this paragraph about stumik's personal opinion? No. Therefore stumik's personal opinion does not belong there. The only one claiming I'm personally speaking for the communist movement is you. I'm simply describing what the communist movement says. For the record I'm not a communist. I don't know where you got that from. I'm an ex-communist, so I happen to be an expert on the subject, having been involved in the movement for over 20 years. I just looked at the edit history and deleting those tags was a mistake when I was reverting stumnik's (a user recruited through malicious canvassing. you made false claims about my ideology in an obvious effort to get likeminded editors on your side) clear bias. You seem to have some sort of personal vendetta against vickery. I have yet to actually see a concrete source for vickery lieing, other than fallacious mentions of the publishers motto. This is what started the discussion, and many messages later you still refuse to actually justify your position. The page number is 288. Alyxr (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

text: You have no source for what the communists supposedly say, as Stumink and I pointed out and you are well aware. Per WP:V, I intend to delete this unsourced commentary. Is that clear enough for you?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Before I take this any further, I would like you to post the entire paragraph and list the page numbers for both books you are using. I strongly doubt Kiernan and Chandler put forth the emphasis that you do. I'm also curious about who exactly Leng Sang is supposed to be, because we have articles about all sorts of Khmer Rouge cadre such as Nuon Chea, Ta Mok, Ieng Thirith, Son Sen, Hu Nim and so on and so forth yet this is the only mention of Leng Sang anywhere on Wikipedia (I couldn't find anything on Google scholar, either). That your sources are outdated and Vickery is clearly fringe with almost no hits on Google scholar is a separate but related matter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Vickery

message: The use of all these acronyms is confusing for the right wing rebel groups can we designate the term royalist and nationalist before the acronym to designate which side that body is on.  --J intela (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disorienting Acronyms 

message: What is the source for this?  Is it true?  All hits on the web are wiki copies.  Didn't colonial French powers in Cambodia favor Vietnamese immigrants in both education and government?  Which contradicts this quote --which needs sourcing.
85.182.97.61 (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a pretty bogus statement. Btw.: Why not mention that the Khmer Rouge's ideology was one of especially radical egalitarianism?--2003:5B:E547:1577:6CC4:B570:B912:387A (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ideology was also influenced by colonial French education, which posited Khmers as "Aryans among Asians"" 

message: Is there any source for the population of Cambodia being 910 million at the beginning of the regime.  Even with a death toll of 4 million, the population would have still been over 900 million.  Considering Cambodia's estimated population in 2011 is just under 15 million I have a feeling there is either an extra zero in there or the number is just wrong.  JMV290 (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Population before genocide

message: "which participated in the 1955 and the 1958 National Assembly elections"
"with the support of the National Assembly"
What National Assembly? 66.234.58.131 (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "National Assembly: term used in the article is ambiguous 

message: TTC: Your position is clear. There is no amount of scholarship or facts I can present that will convince you otherwise.
Now, I ask the following:
Would you accept discussion of the following evidence anywhere on wikipedia:
1) Brzezinski often-cited interview? If so where? (Including Brzezinski's letter, where he states that the US did not participate physically in arranging aid, not that Becker was guilty of libel and a fraud.)
2) Winer's authentic letters, citing CRS data, to VWA and Chomsky? If so where? (Including a factual mention of CRS' retraction)
3) Discussion of favourable food aid policy toward the Khmer Rouge ? If so where (including Bruce Sharp's opinion - which you will have to provide yourself).
4) Any citations from Vickery? (IMO: He has done a lot of orginal research and is cited and taken seriously by many scholars? Of course a few of Vickery's conclusions do not agree with those of most contemporary scholars, but there is no consensus among scholars that his work as fringe and unfounded. It is hard to read Vickery's most important book and consider it as anything but a dossier on Khmer Rouge terror and insanity.)
You've already explained your reasoning, so there is no need for any more of that.
My own vote is in favor of discussing all four in Cambodia–United States relations, while cursorily mentioning this evidence (including retractions and whatnot) in the main Khmer Rouge article. 
Anybody else can and should chime in on a point by point basis, and so that a consensus can be reached.Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The first two I'm absolutely opposed to as they are mere footnotes; in the case of the latter two, I wouldn't mind knowing exactly what text you propose adding before signing on. There is a dedicated article on this topic, Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge, which is where any such allegations belong, if they belong anywhere.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CRS data, Brzezinski quote, and Food Aid Evidence, Vickery

message: The party's ideology is given as "Agrarian socialism, Khmer nationalism, and Left-wing nationalism". What about the obvious ones: Marxist-Leninist and Communist?Royalcourtier (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khmer Rouge. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111110165813/http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/0823iraq_rodman.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/0823iraq_rodman.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified