Talk:Khmer Rouge/Archive 5

message: I have carried these forward from the archives. Neither Stargoat nor anyone else in the revert-and-propagandise camp ever replied to them. Shorne 22:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Some sources on the Khmer Rouge and the United States

message: Ruy Lopez, the article now reads "by the French name 'Communist Party of Kampuchea'". Please correct that. Shorne 08:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small change needed 

message: What, then, Stargoat? I don't see a damn thing by you on the talk page. I do see a couple of pages of text by Ruy Lopez and me in defence of his changes. Admit that you lied and that you reverted the article without even looking at the talk page.
Take note, too: I absolutely cannot work with anyone who has no integrity. No discussion is possible with a bald-faced liar. I've had enough of your nonsense. Shorne 15:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Shorne, this is another example of your disengenious behavior.  You've removed all evidence of the extensive discussion and moved it to the archive. Stargoat 15:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: First, it was Ruy Lopez who moved it. Second, he moved it before he posted his own comments above. Third, you came along later, so nothing you have written since you reverted his changes can be in the archive. Fourth, his discussion is here for all to see, so your claim of "undiscussed deletions" is true only in the sense that you haven't discussed shit. Shorne 15:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Fifth, that's a pretty lousy spelling of disingenuous.  Shorne 15:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Sixth, I am still waiting for you to say what is wrong with Ruy Lopez's changes. Shorne 16:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you deliberately trying to provoke me by bringing up minor spelling points on a talk page, or by swearing? Stargoat 16:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the song and dance, thank you. I raised six points. Forget your foul spelling and my foul language; stick to the main issue: YOU LIED. Shorne 16:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Shorne.  You are deliberately provoking a confrontation.  Your continued insults here will only harm you. Stargoat 16:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You called me a liar in front of the arbitrators. I'm only proving that you had that exactly backwards. Shorne 16:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Shorne is actively hostile and working to undermine Wikipedia's purpose.  I added the point by point response to Ruy Lopez's text less than two hours after making the reversion to the original version of the article.  Shorne seeks confrontation as distraction from his activities.  Shorne is acting in a dishonest and angry manner to hide his POV and lack of supporting documentation or productive argument. Stargoat 17:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's purpose seems to be the production of right-wing propaganda under the guise of "NPOV". I am indeed trying to undermine that. As for dishonesty, we can all see who the liar is here. Shorne 18:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Stargoat's lie: "rv: undiscussed deletions. Please refer to talk page"

message: This is also rubbishy POV. Any state's use of power could be called "morally questionable", yet the CPK is singled out for this abuse. Shorne 23:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Aw, dem poor CPKomms, singled owt. Shadow Trey 08:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Morally questionable" 

message: And the reason why there has been no attempt at dialog or substance from either Ruy or Stone is??? Stargoat 12:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  And the reason? 

message: Please stop smearing Marxoid bullshit all over wikipedia. I know you may like to blame U.S. imperocapitalism for all the world's ills, but certain unpleasant facts about your favorite regimes are just that, facts. And what is it with Khmer Rouge being "derogatory"? It is not derogatory, it is what they were commonly known as, similar to the Shining Path (Slaughtered Path?) and Viet Cong (not the Viet Gook. Maybe then you'd have a case.) And there is no one outside of the Chomskide school of thought (actually, I think even he kind of retracted his claims in the '70s, while still not admitting he was wrong) that disputes the historical fact that the Non-Maoist Opportunist "Communist" Party of Utopian Kampuchea was responsible for widespread death and despair. This isn't a place to babble revisionist about how it was really the U.S. that caused the deaths (indirectly? maybe. directly? sorry.) Trey Stone 07:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you don't know, we've been having this conversation with Ruy Lopez and his gazillions of sockpuppet accounts for almost a year.  It's impossible to get through to him.  The claim that Khmer Rouge is a derogatory term is utterly indefensible, but he repeats it everywhere, as well as providing downright bizarre arguments such as that French names are "scary". VeryVerily 18:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Swearing is not an argument.  I don't care if it offends your sensibilities.  The previous version is correct.  Now, present some proof for your changes or go away. Stargoat 11:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention Ruy Lopez

message: It seems to me that if there is a disagreement over whether the article is NPOV or not, then there is a de facto NPOV dispute.  I am restoring the NPOV tag.  Play nice now, discuss and if necessary fix the perceived NPOV problems. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me see if I understand you: Even though the person who added the NPOV tag did not bother to say why here on the talk page, you think it should stay?  That makes zero sense.  Let the fellow put it back and post here a synopsis of what he thinks is wrong with the article.  Just putting an NPOV tag on the article says nothing.  Does he think the article portrays the Khmer Rouge in too harsh a light, or too kindly?  And why?  A2Kafir 02:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Feel free to add info about U.S. bombings. Just remember not to go too in-depth because it is more a subject about the History of Cambodia and the Vietnam War. J. Parker Stone 04:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not remove NPOV tag again until you all agree to do so

message: I'm working through the deleted material verifying and restoring as I go.  Any comments about the new/old version of the second paragraph in Rise to power?  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring some of the recently deleted material

message: I removed the NPOV template as I think the article is a neutral article. The person who placed the template (I won't be naming name/s) has not even attempted to state a full reason. All the information (except for a few parts) are factual information is based on that, the article is not POV. Squash 04:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Tagging is not appropriate

message: There is absolutely nothing in this article that actually talks of the agricultural, political, industrial reforms brought about by the KR. The article is approximately no use whatsoever to anyone looking for factual information on the Khmer Rouge, hence should it really be on wikipedia? Can I make a suggestion that someone other than a go-happy yankee looking to show the drastic measures of communism, rewrite this article. Preferably with information on economic reforms, facts, figures, what was expected, what was the outcome (which appears to be the only topic picked up in this article.)Not just rants about death, which, just to put the fly in the ointment, is nothing compared to the amount of death the US government and other capitalist countries have "distributed" in their time. Thankyou 
Disgruntled Wikipedia Reader 
Firstly the people working on this article in recent times have been a Cambodian (Squash) and an Australian (me). Secondly there were no "reforms" worth talking about, unless you call closing down the entire urban economy and putting the population to forced agricultural labour a "reform" (try it some time and see how you like it). Thirdly the only significant legacy of the KR regime was the number of people they killed and the immense damage they did to the country, so that is what the article is mainly about. Fourthly anonymous rants will be ignored. Adam 10:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The article says in one place that the KR no longer exists (and that is certainly my understanding), and in another place that Ta Mok is its current leader. What is the source for this? Adam 08:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. It seems that the source I checked (Infoplease) was dated, so I checked another source (MIPT Terroism Knowledge Base) and it states that Ta Mok was the final leader of the Khmer Rouge. Squash 21:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ta Mok

message: *Khmer Rouge military commander Ta Mok, charged with crimes against humanity, held in detention since 1999
*Kaing Kek Ieu, aka Duch, the directer of the group's infamous S-21 torture camp
*Unrelated charges: Sam Bith, senior Khmer Rouge general charged with abducting Briton Mark Slater, Frenchman Jean-Michel Braquet and Australian David Wilson in 1994 after a train ambush. Sentenced to life in jail by Sok Sethamony, a judge in the Phnom Penh municipal court.
:That is a perfectly valid change, thanks for taking time to go to the facts :) Squash 00:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaders who have been charged or tried 

message: This page has a lot of misinformation about 1970-1976.  Little is talked about Sihanouk's role in fighting Lon Nol, GRUNK, FUNK and whatnot.  Cambodia was not immediately renamed DK after April 30, 1975 - it was renamed in January of 1976, over eight months later.  A lot of information in this article is wrong.  Also, Sihanouk's role from 1970 on is mostly ignored.  For example his 1973 visit to Cambodia.  I can cite sources for my changes, if anyone has other sources differing with my changes please cite them, thanks. One of my sources is the US Library of Congress country study of Cambodia which is actually on Wikipedia. Tou Samouth 03:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1970-1976