Talk:Khmer Rouge/Archive 4

message: I'd like to move towards some kind of mediation on this article.
The categories below are the subjects that I think are being disputed. Please state your arguments under the appropriate header.
I ask that all users follow wikiquette and completely avoid personal attacks. Make your arguments on the content of the article, not on the character of those with whom you disagree. Cite a source whenever possible. Feel free to add categories and sub-categories for clarity. -GuloGuloGulo 06:32, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
:If the others are seriously interested in coöperating on the preparation of a factual, NPOV article, I shall be happy to cite some sources. Otherwise, I shall not waste my time. See below, however, for a summary of the issues. Shorne 07:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oct. 1st-2nd Dispute 

message: Hello,
After slugging my way through the mess that is this discussion page, I have one thing I'd like to bring up.  Part of the famine in Cambodia was caused by the Khmer Rouge having to send food shipments to China in return for arms.  This was discussed in Loung Ung's "First They killed My Father".  Also, I do not support a Wikipedia article turning into a ground for a political battle ground.  I am not saying that the US did not arm or involve itself with the Khmer Rouge, but references to support such a bold statement is required.  It is not necessarily incorrect, but merely bold.  It is something that I have never encountered in my reading on Cambodian history, which is not to say that it is incorrect, I just want to know where such a theory came from before it is included.
Also, there is absolutely no need for anyone to be taking pot shots at anyone.  This is an encyclopaedia article, people!  I also wanted to say That yes, it is established that the US bombed Cambodia, but that the scale of the bombing is disputed between different sources, and a conclusion between different sources must be reached instead of trying to out claim one another.  Let's all find sources about the US involvement in Cambodia.\
128.122.90.121 23:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've "never encountered" US support of the Khmer Rouge post-1979, then you haven't read much about Cambodia (or perhaps you have, but they're all from Readers Digest books or something). Ruy Lopez 00:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to concur. This is public information now (it got leaked). There's really no need for sources any more than there is a need for references to the fact that Cambodia is in Asia. Anyway, I provided some sources above. Happy reading. Shorne 05:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mess 

message: In an effort to bring opposing opinions into the discussion, I'd like the protection of this page to be lifted in hope that:
* Changes are made incrementally, so that objections can be made more specifically.
* Any changes that are reverted are not re-reverted, but rather moved to the discussion section where assertations and objections can be voiced.
* Any user reverting changes and refusing to participate in discussions is entered into mediation.
* True disagreements also seek mediation.
Yea:
# GuloGuloGulo 01:57, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
# Shorne 02:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have been wholly coöperative, fair-minded, and honest from the beginning, I have no objections whatsoever to the proposal. Shorne 02:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Anyone want to make a bet on how long this article will remain open before the people who had neither references of their own nor comments on the ones that I cited will go back to their old POV-pushing ways? Shorne 23:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Lift protection straw poll

message: User VeryVerily's intransigence and impossible behaviour have left me no option but to request mediation. People who have anything to add to my request are asked to visit Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Shorne 10:59, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation requested 

message: I just want to note VeryVerily has reverted this page six times on October 11th (so far).  This is in violation of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, which he has previously been banned for violating.  VeryVerily is currently being considered for arbitration, with both arbitrators who have weighed in so far saying he was in need of arbitration. Ruy Lopez 20:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ruy Lopez, or whatever your name is today, I will revert if need be a hundred times your attempt yet again to whitewash the Khmer Rouge. VeryVerily 21:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I shall cite that in my mediation/arbitration proceedings. Kindly state on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation whether you agree to mediation. "Yes" or "no" is all that you have to write. Shorne 21:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text:  Well you're up to eight reverts within 24 hours.  Nice to let everyone know you're aware of your rule-breaking and just don't care. Ruy Lopez 02:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  VeryVerily's reversions 

message: I have protected the article in order to put an ongoing edit war to rest. To all the involved parties, please settle this dispute here on talk. 172 08:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How the hell can we settle anything? I'm the only one who provided any data. No one else even discussed the issues. Shorne 09:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that from this page. You can add that to a case against the users revering your edits at random on arbitration. 172 09:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I sure as hell hope that this will go to arbitration soon—and that something will be done. It seems to take an eternity for the arbitrators just to decide whether or not to accept a case. Shorne 09:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: ====Include====
*The photo is of the victims of the Khmer Rouge.  To remove it is to whitewash the crimes of the Khmer Rouge. Furthermore, it is also indicative of a racist nature of the people attempting to remove it.  The first image of the holocaust article is a picture of jews lined up.  Removing this picture says that the Cambodian dead in the Khmer Rouge's killing fields are not worth as much as the Jewish dead in Nazi Germany. Stargoat 13:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about the political party that formed in Cambodia; while the atrocities committed by it absolutely should be covered, it is not the main topic. For example, the Holocaust article does indeed have a photo of its victims, but the article on Nazi Germany does not. There is much to be said about Nazi Germany besides that it instituted genocidal programs; likewise with the KR. GuloGuloGulo 23:23, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
====Remove====
*It is my opinion that using another image not so manipulative of one's emotions would be more in the spirit of NPOV. GuloGuloGulo 06:08, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
*The image is indeed out of place. Without denying that a lot of people were killed, I have no way to know who the people depicted are and why they were killed (if they were), and I certainly don't think this is an appropriate image for a political party. Shorne 07:55, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: KR Victim Photos

message: *It is my opinion that using another image not so manipulative of one's emotions would be more in the spirit of NPOV. GuloGuloGulo 06:08, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
*The image is indeed out of place. Without denying that a lot of people were killed, I have no way to know who the people depicted are and why they were killed (if they were), and I certainly don't think this is an appropriate image for a political party. Shorne 07:55, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove

message: ====Include====
*I can't tell what the heck it is you're talking about until you get down to "Stalin Maoism used as a model".  But basically, the changes, the deletions, Shorne is attempting remove basic information about the history of the Khmer Rouge, without replacing it with anything.  Shorne has provided no documenation for the deletions here.  We cannot just delete material, and replace it with nothing.  It must stay.  Stargoat 13:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "To this was added resentment... ever envisaged by a party in power."

message: *I can't tell what the heck it is you're talking about until you get down to "Stalin Maoism used as a model".  But basically, the changes, the deletions, Shorne is attempting remove basic information about the history of the Khmer Rouge, without replacing it with anything.  Shorne has provided no documenation for the deletions here.  We cannot just delete material, and replace it with nothing.  It must stay.  Stargoat 13:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Include

message: This has been recently changed.  Some of the officials in Cambodia have recently been brought before courts.  A news search in Google would give more information. Stargoat 13:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Trials of KR leaders

message: * The link is improper. We should give a proper bibliographic reference to the book, complete with ISBN, in a section called "References and further reading". I shall add some other references, too. Shorne 00:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Noam Chomsky Book as External Link

message: I came here via RfC. Can someone summarize the dispute? Maurreen 05:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is none. A few people here keep reverting factual and well-documented changes by me and others, but they have failed time and time again to raise a dispute here on the talk page, despite numerous requests from me to do so. I don't want to be a burden, but I'm afraid the best way to understand this matter is to read through the discussion on this talk page from the past month or so. Shorne 05:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Shorne wants to delete half the article, that half that says anything unflattering about the Khmer Rouge and their murderous rule, and replace it with a hollowed out version where their well-documented atrocities are treated as mere rumor.  He has been citing half-baked "sources", which have been rebutted by several users now and in the past (when sockpuppet armies trolled this article), to justify deleting what is clearly a historical consensus about this time period. VeryVerily 06:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone with two eyes can see through this tissue of lies by merely reading the discussion here. Shorne 07:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Your dispute has apparently moved to Requests for Arbitration, is that right? If so, should I remove it from the page for Request for Comment? Maurreen 06:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about any request for comment on this page. VeryVerily is currently the subject of four requests for arbitration because of his brazen insistence on having every article revolve around what VeryVerily happens to believe. Shorne 07:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: At this point, I'm at a loss for how to engage Shorne in discussion (and with events picking up in real life, I probably won't have time anyway). His skepticism of witness accounts seems to deny the very possibility of historical research. Sadly, given the tendencies of various parties, I don't see the article being normalized in the near future. Gazpacho 11:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary?