![]() | Cambodian–Vietnamese War has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on January 7, 2012, January 7, 2014, January 7, 2015, January 7, 2017, January 7, 2018, January 7, 2019, and January 7, 2024. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cambodian–Vietnamese War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 October 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Thhsalgado.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I attempted to bring a measure of clarity and organization to the page that I felt was lacking (it was also a class assignment). That said, I realize that I need to work out all of the absent citations in order to legitimize the information. However, I'm still very new to Wikipedia, and felt completely lost encountering the system of references in the paper. The red error flags in the reference portion seem due to the fact that I erased some of the corresponding text. But I don't quite understand how to fix that. I'd appreciate any help or suggestions. Over the next few days I will begin to insert all of my citations and finish cleaning up brackets, etc. [User:IR393.awc211|IR393.awc211]] ( talk) 06:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
This article should be taken with a grain of salt. Its totally lacking foot notes and other references.
-Bill Sept 22, 2007
True - The whole 'they started it' argument looks a lot like the one that China uses for their 'counter attack' against Vietnam, or at least it would if we were talking about anyone but Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge.
52.000 kill, 200.000 wounded, HAHA. total number of VN troops in Cambodia from 1979 to 1989 about 300,000 Bui Tin is a former officer with the last save ideas against Comunist. His data did not reliably 116.99.43.158 ( talk) 12:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about it. -- 84.234.60.154 ( talk) 13:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldnt this war (Cambodian-Vietnamese War 1975-1989) be called the Third Indo-China War because it began before the Sino-Vietnamese war in 1979. The Sino Vietnamese war should be considered the Fourth Indo China War not the third. Thats my opinion does anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.2.82 ( talk) 22:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
This article sort of fades out at the end. An interesting sidenote to make would be of the US's support for KR forces later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.56.120 ( talk) 13:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I may be wrong but I highly doubt the US supported a communist regime in the middle of the Cold War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.2.82 ( talk) 22:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Miacek, I would argue that the genocide ceased because of the invasion, not despite it. Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 03:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone here said that the US wouldn't support a communist regime in the middle of the Cold War. More accurate to say that they wouldn't support a Russian-backed regime in the middle of the Cold War. The Khmer Rouge was allied with China, and yes, the US supported them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.227.228.186 ( talk) 18:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
"With the direct Chinese support lost after Vietnamese recapitulation, the Khmer Rouge..."
I am confused. Surely the Vietnamese did not [re]capitulate. According to the rest of the article the Khmer Rouge capitulated. Forgive me if I have misunderstood but it makes no sense that the Vietnamese capitulated - again according to the rest of the article. I am just unsure as to whether I have the knowledge to correct the article myself.
If I am mistaken, the end of this article needs to be rewritten to match the main body. Then maybe I am just missing something"
W1 m2 ( talk) 21:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. RHM22 ( talk) 19:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Cambodian–Vietnamese War →
Cambodian-Vietnamese War — I do not believe that the endash is appropriate for the title, as it should not represent a range. For this reason, I believe it ought to replaced with a hyphen.
RHM22 (
talk) 18:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.IMHO, we could have two separate articles : one about the Cambodian-Vietnamese war of 1978-1979 (all of the Khmer rouge government) which deserves its own page, and one about the continuing conflict, starting in 1978, going on until the 1991 peace talks, then resuming after the 1993 elections and ending with the Khmer rouge defeat in 1998-1999 (Ta Mok's capture in 1999 being the last blow to the movement). Also, it is a bit misleading to call the conflict going on until 1989 a "Cambodian-Vietnamese war". It sure was in 1978-1979, but in 1979-1989, it was Vietnam and the Vietnamese-supported cambodian government vs the Khmer rouge and their allies. So it was more a "Cambodian/Vietnamese-Cambodian war". Also, since the conflict continued after Vietnam's withdrawal, it is also misleading to have it end in 1989, if we change the current title. IMHO, Cambodian-Vietnamese war should be about the 1978-1979 campaign, and the rest of the conflict should appear under a different title. Maybe Conflit in Cambodia (1978-1999) ? Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 09:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hchc2009 ( talk • contribs • count) 06:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll have a good read of the article and do the review over this weekend. Hchc2009 ( talk) 06:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
1. Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
Some thoughts listed below:
Lead:
Background:
Diplomacy and military action:
Aftermath:
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
(c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:PolPot.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
I tried to edit the date of the war with the beginning of the Vietnamese invasion in December 25 1978 and the end of the Vietnamese withdraw in February 26 1990. Can someone tell me why it is not an acceptable edit? -- 124.148.127.77 ( talk) 10:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Even while United Front for the Liberation of Oppressed Races was being crushed, attacked, and persecuted by the Khmer Rouge, it persisted in fighting against Vietnam, with Chinese support.
http://www.chamtoday.com/index.php/history-l-ch-s/79-post-fulro-events-1975-2004
http://www.chamtoday.com/index.php/history-l-ch-s/80-from-the-f-l-m-to-fulro-1955-1975
http://books.google.com/books?id=2_zKFyHlBk0C&pg=PA262#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=xAKbllE5bioC&pg=PA255#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=CgwOi-5JrBYC&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=BtmrZYAag58C&pg=PA97#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.chamtoday.com/index.php/91-news-world/139-vietnam-s-hidden-hand-in-cambodia-s-impasse
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/SEA-02-091013.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=xAKbllE5bioC&pg=PA255#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.montagnard-foundation.org/comm-070402.html
http://montagnard-foundation.org/wp/2011/07/08/1458
http://www.mhro.org/montangards-history/conclusions
http://www.unpo.org/members/7898
http://chamtoday.com/index.php/ngonngu/77-the-uprising-of-the-central-highlanders-in-february-2001
http://www.degarfoundation.org/
Rajmaan ( talk) 05:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
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 04:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
United States national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski openly and unashamedly admitted that he told China and Thailand to support Khmer Rouge because it was anti-Soviet
http://books.google.com/books?id=7i0jGxysUUcC&pg=PA194#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan ( talk) 03:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The source for this claim, a short article titled "SEVENTY YEARS OF EVIL: Soviet Crimes from Lenin to Gorbachev" in an American conservative publication, has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. It is clearly non-specialist, propagandistic, horribly biased, and wastes no time on things like "footnotes" and "evidence". Some of the claims in there are true of course, but all propaganda contains truth to make the distortions and lies more credible. It's exactly like citing Pravda. But this is standard fare for en.wikipedia.org. The title itself is ridiculous, implying that every "communist" leader from Lenin to Gorbachev was a mass murderer. Let's check out one of its supposed "crimes of Communism": "August 28, 1977 - Two years earlier, CBS News reports that some 7,000 lobotomies were performed on Soviet citizens to cure patients of “wrong political belief.†" I hope no comment is necessary here. This source will be deleted. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 01:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
discussion here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Khmer_Rouge#650.2C000_famine_deaths_after_the_fall_of_Pol_Pot Guccisamsclub ( talk) 01:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Tag pertains to the section, not the entire article.
- huge numbers of victims are deduced from a dated, biased, rushed, and error-ridden CIA report.
- demographically impossible (using most sources) 650,000 famine deaths reported as fact.
- chemical weapons reported as fact from a laughably unreliable, non-documented, and non-specialist source.
- virtually all sources share a severe anti-PKK bias, which leads to strong and dubious claims being presented as fact. almost no discussion from more neutral or sympathetic observers.
- Etcheson's damning discussion of the K-5 Plan is cited, but is misrepresented using inflammatory language to advance a POV. Military conscription becomes "enslavement" and the hardships of working on the front line (disease, land-mines, military attacks) turns into being worked to death. As usual, one estimate of the number of victims is presented as fact without discussion. The K-5 plan should be discussed, but without inflammatory POV-laden language.
- PKK's anti-KR struggle is only mentioned once, with the KR being presented as the victims.
- etc, but I don't have the time to list them all. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 01:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cambodian–Vietnamese War. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
It's widely known and reported that the US provided money, intelligence and materiel to first the Khmer Rouge and then the DK "coalition". Between 1980 and 1986 the US funneled over $85 million to Pol Pot alone. They provided food and "humanitarian aide" to Khmer Rouge held territories/camps and provided satellite intelligence, military strategic planning and other war materiel to the DK coalition. After 1986, Congress approved another $26 million to fund "the resistance" in Cambodia. Here's an article in The Statesman. Much of the previously classified documentation was made public by Wikileaks. Here's a summary by Ben Norton. Here's another article describing the US support for the DK (remember: the war was between the Vietnamese and the resistance coalition, which included more that just the Khmer Rouge). A quote from that article: "U.S. funding to the KPNLF and ANS armies allied with the Khmer Rouge was handled by a working group composed of representatives from the United States, Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia. CIA satellite intelligence was provided, as were weapons..."-- William Thweatt Talk Contribs 04:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
"satellite intelligence."I've seen no reliable sources that state the CIA gave the non-communist opposition
"satellite intelligence"—let alone the Khmer Rouge directly! TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 05:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I suggest the article's name to change to Khmer Rouge-Vietnamese War. The 1979 war and subsequent insurgency is between KR forces and Vietnam, not between the people or government of Cambodia and Vietnam. The People's Republic of Cambodia was on Vietnamese side and fought consistenly. The same of Vietnam War cannot be simply called "American-Vietnamese War". Sgnpkd ( talk) 11:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Romania should be removed from the infobox as a supporter of DK. I tried to do it but I just can't make the Wiki syntax function.
The reason for removal is that Romania was just one of the many countries (most of the countries represented in the UN), which continued to recognize the Khmer Rouge/DK regime diplomatically. They didn't offer any material support, unlike Singapore and Thailand which are rightly listed there. Potugin ( talk) 12:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
It could be naive, but is it a problem for the references on this page? for example the reference "Mei p. 78" for
"The following day, China announced that it would not move deeper into Vietnam, apparently after meeting unexpectedly harsh resistance by well-trained Vietnamese forces equipped with Soviet and captured American weapons. Furthermore, Vietnam's politburo had ordered a general mobilization and begun planning for full conscription. The Chinese subsequently withdrew their forces"
I mean, where to find the source of "Mei p. 78"? Thanks :-) 142.68.85.220 ( talk) 13:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
This page is persistently being vandalized by User:å共抗ç¨å…‰å¾©æ°‘國, who seems to believe Canada supported the Khmer Rouge for some reason. The sources they keep inserting do not support this conclusion:
- One is a report of a vote at the U.N. related to Cambodia where Canada is not mentioned in the article.
- The second is from the autobipgraphy of a Canadian diplomat. In the passage the diplomat compares the Khmer Rouge to the Nazis; it's unclear how this constitutes support for them.
Please revert and report any edits by this user. Loquacious Folly ( talk) 04:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Cambodian–Vietnamese War has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on January 7, 2012, January 7, 2014, January 7, 2015, January 7, 2017, January 7, 2018, January 7, 2019, and January 7, 2024. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cambodian–Vietnamese War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 October 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Thhsalgado.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I attempted to bring a measure of clarity and organization to the page that I felt was lacking (it was also a class assignment). That said, I realize that I need to work out all of the absent citations in order to legitimize the information. However, I'm still very new to Wikipedia, and felt completely lost encountering the system of references in the paper. The red error flags in the reference portion seem due to the fact that I erased some of the corresponding text. But I don't quite understand how to fix that. I'd appreciate any help or suggestions. Over the next few days I will begin to insert all of my citations and finish cleaning up brackets, etc. [User:IR393.awc211|IR393.awc211]] ( talk) 06:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
This article should be taken with a grain of salt. Its totally lacking foot notes and other references.
-Bill Sept 22, 2007
True - The whole 'they started it' argument looks a lot like the one that China uses for their 'counter attack' against Vietnam, or at least it would if we were talking about anyone but Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge.
52.000 kill, 200.000 wounded, HAHA. total number of VN troops in Cambodia from 1979 to 1989 about 300,000 Bui Tin is a former officer with the last save ideas against Comunist. His data did not reliably 116.99.43.158 ( talk) 12:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about it. -- 84.234.60.154 ( talk) 13:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldnt this war (Cambodian-Vietnamese War 1975-1989) be called the Third Indo-China War because it began before the Sino-Vietnamese war in 1979. The Sino Vietnamese war should be considered the Fourth Indo China War not the third. Thats my opinion does anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.2.82 ( talk) 22:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
This article sort of fades out at the end. An interesting sidenote to make would be of the US's support for KR forces later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.56.120 ( talk) 13:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I may be wrong but I highly doubt the US supported a communist regime in the middle of the Cold War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.2.82 ( talk) 22:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Miacek, I would argue that the genocide ceased because of the invasion, not despite it. Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 03:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone here said that the US wouldn't support a communist regime in the middle of the Cold War. More accurate to say that they wouldn't support a Russian-backed regime in the middle of the Cold War. The Khmer Rouge was allied with China, and yes, the US supported them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.227.228.186 ( talk) 18:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
"With the direct Chinese support lost after Vietnamese recapitulation, the Khmer Rouge..."
I am confused. Surely the Vietnamese did not [re]capitulate. According to the rest of the article the Khmer Rouge capitulated. Forgive me if I have misunderstood but it makes no sense that the Vietnamese capitulated - again according to the rest of the article. I am just unsure as to whether I have the knowledge to correct the article myself.
If I am mistaken, the end of this article needs to be rewritten to match the main body. Then maybe I am just missing something"
W1 m2 ( talk) 21:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. RHM22 ( talk) 19:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Cambodian–Vietnamese War →
Cambodian-Vietnamese War — I do not believe that the endash is appropriate for the title, as it should not represent a range. For this reason, I believe it ought to replaced with a hyphen.
RHM22 (
talk) 18:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.IMHO, we could have two separate articles : one about the Cambodian-Vietnamese war of 1978-1979 (all of the Khmer rouge government) which deserves its own page, and one about the continuing conflict, starting in 1978, going on until the 1991 peace talks, then resuming after the 1993 elections and ending with the Khmer rouge defeat in 1998-1999 (Ta Mok's capture in 1999 being the last blow to the movement). Also, it is a bit misleading to call the conflict going on until 1989 a "Cambodian-Vietnamese war". It sure was in 1978-1979, but in 1979-1989, it was Vietnam and the Vietnamese-supported cambodian government vs the Khmer rouge and their allies. So it was more a "Cambodian/Vietnamese-Cambodian war". Also, since the conflict continued after Vietnam's withdrawal, it is also misleading to have it end in 1989, if we change the current title. IMHO, Cambodian-Vietnamese war should be about the 1978-1979 campaign, and the rest of the conflict should appear under a different title. Maybe Conflit in Cambodia (1978-1999) ? Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 09:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hchc2009 ( talk • contribs • count) 06:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll have a good read of the article and do the review over this weekend. Hchc2009 ( talk) 06:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
1. Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
Some thoughts listed below:
Lead:
Background:
Diplomacy and military action:
Aftermath:
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
(c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:PolPot.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
I tried to edit the date of the war with the beginning of the Vietnamese invasion in December 25 1978 and the end of the Vietnamese withdraw in February 26 1990. Can someone tell me why it is not an acceptable edit? -- 124.148.127.77 ( talk) 10:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Even while United Front for the Liberation of Oppressed Races was being crushed, attacked, and persecuted by the Khmer Rouge, it persisted in fighting against Vietnam, with Chinese support.
http://www.chamtoday.com/index.php/history-l-ch-s/79-post-fulro-events-1975-2004
http://www.chamtoday.com/index.php/history-l-ch-s/80-from-the-f-l-m-to-fulro-1955-1975
http://books.google.com/books?id=2_zKFyHlBk0C&pg=PA262#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=xAKbllE5bioC&pg=PA255#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=CgwOi-5JrBYC&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=BtmrZYAag58C&pg=PA97#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.chamtoday.com/index.php/91-news-world/139-vietnam-s-hidden-hand-in-cambodia-s-impasse
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/SEA-02-091013.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=xAKbllE5bioC&pg=PA255#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.montagnard-foundation.org/comm-070402.html
http://montagnard-foundation.org/wp/2011/07/08/1458
http://www.mhro.org/montangards-history/conclusions
http://www.unpo.org/members/7898
http://chamtoday.com/index.php/ngonngu/77-the-uprising-of-the-central-highlanders-in-february-2001
http://www.degarfoundation.org/
Rajmaan ( talk) 05:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
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 04:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
United States national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski openly and unashamedly admitted that he told China and Thailand to support Khmer Rouge because it was anti-Soviet
http://books.google.com/books?id=7i0jGxysUUcC&pg=PA194#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan ( talk) 03:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The source for this claim, a short article titled "SEVENTY YEARS OF EVIL: Soviet Crimes from Lenin to Gorbachev" in an American conservative publication, has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. It is clearly non-specialist, propagandistic, horribly biased, and wastes no time on things like "footnotes" and "evidence". Some of the claims in there are true of course, but all propaganda contains truth to make the distortions and lies more credible. It's exactly like citing Pravda. But this is standard fare for en.wikipedia.org. The title itself is ridiculous, implying that every "communist" leader from Lenin to Gorbachev was a mass murderer. Let's check out one of its supposed "crimes of Communism": "August 28, 1977 - Two years earlier, CBS News reports that some 7,000 lobotomies were performed on Soviet citizens to cure patients of “wrong political belief.†" I hope no comment is necessary here. This source will be deleted. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 01:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
discussion here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Khmer_Rouge#650.2C000_famine_deaths_after_the_fall_of_Pol_Pot Guccisamsclub ( talk) 01:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Tag pertains to the section, not the entire article.
- huge numbers of victims are deduced from a dated, biased, rushed, and error-ridden CIA report.
- demographically impossible (using most sources) 650,000 famine deaths reported as fact.
- chemical weapons reported as fact from a laughably unreliable, non-documented, and non-specialist source.
- virtually all sources share a severe anti-PKK bias, which leads to strong and dubious claims being presented as fact. almost no discussion from more neutral or sympathetic observers.
- Etcheson's damning discussion of the K-5 Plan is cited, but is misrepresented using inflammatory language to advance a POV. Military conscription becomes "enslavement" and the hardships of working on the front line (disease, land-mines, military attacks) turns into being worked to death. As usual, one estimate of the number of victims is presented as fact without discussion. The K-5 plan should be discussed, but without inflammatory POV-laden language.
- PKK's anti-KR struggle is only mentioned once, with the KR being presented as the victims.
- etc, but I don't have the time to list them all. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 01:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cambodian–Vietnamese War. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
It's widely known and reported that the US provided money, intelligence and materiel to first the Khmer Rouge and then the DK "coalition". Between 1980 and 1986 the US funneled over $85 million to Pol Pot alone. They provided food and "humanitarian aide" to Khmer Rouge held territories/camps and provided satellite intelligence, military strategic planning and other war materiel to the DK coalition. After 1986, Congress approved another $26 million to fund "the resistance" in Cambodia. Here's an article in The Statesman. Much of the previously classified documentation was made public by Wikileaks. Here's a summary by Ben Norton. Here's another article describing the US support for the DK (remember: the war was between the Vietnamese and the resistance coalition, which included more that just the Khmer Rouge). A quote from that article: "U.S. funding to the KPNLF and ANS armies allied with the Khmer Rouge was handled by a working group composed of representatives from the United States, Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia. CIA satellite intelligence was provided, as were weapons..."-- William Thweatt Talk Contribs 04:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
"satellite intelligence."I've seen no reliable sources that state the CIA gave the non-communist opposition
"satellite intelligence"—let alone the Khmer Rouge directly! TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 05:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I suggest the article's name to change to Khmer Rouge-Vietnamese War. The 1979 war and subsequent insurgency is between KR forces and Vietnam, not between the people or government of Cambodia and Vietnam. The People's Republic of Cambodia was on Vietnamese side and fought consistenly. The same of Vietnam War cannot be simply called "American-Vietnamese War". Sgnpkd ( talk) 11:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Romania should be removed from the infobox as a supporter of DK. I tried to do it but I just can't make the Wiki syntax function.
The reason for removal is that Romania was just one of the many countries (most of the countries represented in the UN), which continued to recognize the Khmer Rouge/DK regime diplomatically. They didn't offer any material support, unlike Singapore and Thailand which are rightly listed there. Potugin ( talk) 12:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
It could be naive, but is it a problem for the references on this page? for example the reference "Mei p. 78" for
"The following day, China announced that it would not move deeper into Vietnam, apparently after meeting unexpectedly harsh resistance by well-trained Vietnamese forces equipped with Soviet and captured American weapons. Furthermore, Vietnam's politburo had ordered a general mobilization and begun planning for full conscription. The Chinese subsequently withdrew their forces"
I mean, where to find the source of "Mei p. 78"? Thanks :-) 142.68.85.220 ( talk) 13:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
This page is persistently being vandalized by User:å共抗ç¨å…‰å¾©æ°‘國, who seems to believe Canada supported the Khmer Rouge for some reason. The sources they keep inserting do not support this conclusion:
- One is a report of a vote at the U.N. related to Cambodia where Canada is not mentioned in the article.
- The second is from the autobipgraphy of a Canadian diplomat. In the passage the diplomat compares the Khmer Rouge to the Nazis; it's unclear how this constitutes support for them.
Please revert and report any edits by this user. Loquacious Folly ( talk) 04:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)