This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
That will do for now.
I hope the case is clear. One side quotes miscellaneous death counts that don't even match and that have no context to explain them; the other has extensive evidence of death counts and a hell of a lot more besides. Shorne 22:07, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
With the Wikipedia arbitrators now more hands on, perhaps we can finally get to a point where this page can resemble an encyclopedia article and not an article from the John Birch Society's New American.
This article is riddled with false notions, POV and so forth. If I've made large changes its because so much of this article is not facts but a just a POV rant. In the midst of the long POV rant, when something vaguely looking like a fact appears, it is usually wrong.
I should point to a group of sentences in a paragraph I am leaving in:
"The exact number of people who died as a result of the Khmer Rouge's policies is debated. The regime which succeeded the Khmer Rouge claimed that 3.3 million had died. The CIA estimated that between 50,000 and 100,000 people were executed by the Khmer Rouge, but executions represented only a minority of the death toll, which mostly came from starvation. Three sources, United States Department of State, Amnesty International and the Yale Cambodian Genocide Project, give estimates of the total death toll as 1.2 million, 1.4 million and 1.7 million respectively. R. J. Rummel gives a figure of 2 million."
These are facts! Someone said Amnesty International put the death toll at 1.4 million. This remains in, I have not verified it, but I have no reason to doubt it. If you know of information about the CPK of a negative (or positive) nature, please present it as facts, preferably with some source instead of some POV rant strewn with "facts" that are incorrect. The above sentences make the CPK look bad, but they are NPOV, sourced and factual. I have no problem with them! Most of this article is rot, but the above is not, so I left it.
These issues have been discussed to death, but let's go back to them:
1) Khmer Rouge is not the name of the organization, that name is a slur given to them by their enemy. Of course, it is well known, so should be mentioned, as should the name of their party, the Communist Party of Kampuchea
2) We should come to a consensus over who was to blame in any deaths, how they died and how many were there in Cambodia before mentioning it in the opening. Who was to blame? The US air force bombardment of Cambodia? The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia? How did people die? Execution? Starvation because during the civil war farmers fled to the cities and crops were not growing (and international food aid was cut off when the CPK took over)? How many died? This should be spelled out instead of all jumbled together
3) This is a minor point, but it says the CPK was aided by North Vietnam. Was it? Or was the CPK aiding North Vietnam? I've removed this, even though it is a minor point. If you have any examples of how North Vietnam aided Cambodia, please explain it. I should note that North Vietnam did not border Cambodia, "South Vietnam" did - so which Vietnamese are being talked about anyhow?
4) I dispute the reading of the CPK's philosophy. Where did this come from? The CPK were much more practical it seems - they did manage to take over a country after all.
5) The CPK takeover is filled with inaccurate and misleading information. For example - the relocating of people from urban areas to farms. This was sending farmers back to farms they had fled during the war. It is made to sound nefarious. This stuff really needs to be sourced and spelled out, you can't just made a dozen accusations in a row without any sources and expect them to stand. I also sense POV - it says the CPK were determined to create their society "by force". Well, the US has an army, and policemen who maintain the society "by force". Every modern society is maintained by force, except perhaps some isolated primitive tribes. Mentioning this is POV.
6) I dispute that Khieu Samphan ever said 1 million were killed. Despite the quote not being sourced, I know the source, it was in a very small, obscure Italian Catholic magazine. And the presented number was by the interviewer. This is about as vague as you can get, people are left with the impression that Khieu came out and said one million died publically, which he did not, and I don't believe ever happened anyhow.
7) As the US executes dozens of people every year, Cambodia under the CPK executed people. Putting pictures of their faces on the page are as POV as putting the dead bodies on say the US Republican party page. Two pictures! Utterly ridiculous. This whole article is the worst mud-slinging on Wikipedia.
Ruy Lopez 07:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ruy Lopez, the article now reads "by the French name 'Communist Party of Kampuchea'". Please correct that. Shorne 08:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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)
Just to make it clear: The comments that Stargoat interspersed with Ruy Lopez's text were added just a few minutes ago, after I pointed out that Stargoat had said nothing. The edit history will prove this if any question arises. Shorne 16:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
VeryVerily is banned from editting this page, so he sought ways around this, and Stargoat rose to his task. Fine. This article deserves a full-scale reversion, but with VeryVerily still manuvering behind the scenes for an edit war, with Stargoat (and perhaps some others he is recruiting for one of the tag teams he denounces on his arbitration pages) as his hands, I see this is not to be done.
So I will do one edit at a time. Doing many at once just serves to confuse people. I will start with Khieu Samphan's supposed admission that 1 million people died under the Khmer Rouge. I am removing this. This is presented as an encyclopedic fact yet it did not happen. Stargoat reverted it even though I am sure he has no idea who Khieu Samphan is at all, he is just hitting the revert button. He says I am citing "first sources". What a conundrum for him to say, I doubt he could ever find a first source for this supposed admission. Perhaps he should learn a little more about the topics he is editting.
It is not a first source, since where is the reference to a first source? And it's no more up to me to not be able to remove unsourced, unreferenced material from an encyclopedia unless I find a reference to someone saying it never happened, then it is to removing a reference to the moon being made of green cheese unless I can find someone saying it is not. The onus is on the person making the claim, not the one disputing it.
While I dispute needing to provide a reference in subsequent edits, I just so happen to have one, which I will provide even though I don't have to. It is said Khieu Samphan never said this in After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology ( ISBN 0896081001) by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman p. 172-178. One of the persons agreeing he never said this is Father Ponchaud, who is the "first source" that most of the charges on this page comes from. If his veracity is doubt, that brings the veracity of almost everything said on this page into doubt.
I am removing the sentence. It has no basis being in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, I'm sure the person who reinserted it knows nothing about the subject matter, but is just blindly following VeryVerily (as shown above in a link), who also knows very little about the subject matter. Ruy Lopez 19:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In terms of the CPK philosophy, program, politics, plan and so forth, this stands out:
"The ideology of the Khmer Rouge combined a revised form of Maoism with the anti-colonialist ideas of the European left, which its leaders had acquired during their education in French universities in the 1950s. To this was added resentment against the Cambodian Communists' long subordination to the Vietnamese. The zealous Khmer Rouge apparently believed that they could, through their own interpretation of Maoism, build communism in Cambodia within a relatively short period of time."
The first sentence is ridiculous, with the last being the most ridiculous. Regarding the first one - the Indochinese learned anti-colonialism from the European left? What a joke. This statement is ridiculous although I'm not touching it for now. I am working on this slowly, so I'm removing the most nutty stuff first.
"The zealous Khmer Rouge apparently believed that they could, through their own interpretation of Maoism, build communism in Cambodia within a relatively short period of time." What is the source for the CPK thinking it could build communism in Cambodia - and quickly to boot! Even the most optimistic communists worldwide talked in general about "socialism in one country", never mind "communism in one country", never mind in a relatively short period of time. I've never seen anything referring to the CPK thinking this.
Nuon Chea made a statement in 1978 [6] describing party philosophy, plans and so forth. He says the CPK was considered ultra-left during the initial armed struggle, because of the armed struggle, but this attributed idea would put their ultra-leftism off the charts. The linked to statement spells out the CPK philosophy and plan better than anything I can find, and it contradicts the "communism in one country - quickly" claim. While this is a coherent statement, I have seen more fragmented discussions of the CPK philosophy and plans as well, and they did not support the "communism in one country, quickly" idea. Just the opposite, most of them show the CPK worried about whether the country would continue to be socialist or would become capitalist (which is smart because that is what eventually happened). Where did this idea that the CPK was seeking to create communism immediately in one country come from? Why do all their statements about their plans contradict this? Where did this idea come from? I am removing this sentence. Ruy Lopez 20:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"The Khmer Rouge apparently believed that they could, through their own interpretation of Maoism and in justification of the brutal use of power, build a form of communism in Cambodia within a relatively short period of time."
Well, denoting that they were not strict Maoists removes one of the contradictions here. We have a new problem with your rewording:
And we still have the old problem:
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)
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)
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)
Also, I'm not going to have it revert back to "they used Communism because it was expedient." This is a pathetic attempt to dissociate the Utopian Party of Kampuchea from Communism/Maoism. It's indisputable that the Khmer Rouge were far, far more brutal than, say, the relentlessly ideological Sandinistas. It's also indisputable that Hitler was far more brutal than Franco, but they're still both called fascists, as they were both associated with the ideology, to different extents. Trey Stone 07:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am going by the Khmer Rouge's actions, which were getting rid of anyone who opposed their rural (Maoism always drew its support from peasant guerrillas, distinct from the indsutrial wage laborers Marxism's supposed to draw) "Year Zero" dream, where Cambodia would be a self-sufficient, happily egalitarian community of cooperative peasants. It is fine to mention that their Maoism was more extreme, perhaps revised from Mao's Communism, but that convoluted explanation (defense) just doesn't cut it. Like I said, there are different types of communism, just like there are different types of fascism. Shadow Trey 07:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article has been a mess forever. I look recently and see only ad hominem attacks, and mud thrown at the CPK, although the vaguer the better (the CPK is "responsible for widespread death and despair" - what would one say the people carpet bombing the Cambodian countryside were responsible for? When Americans protested this at Kent State, Jackson State and elsewhere they were killed by the government). And then there's the claim that the CPK were "utopian" although of course any proof or even reason to think so is not offered. Ruy Lopez 08:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is very interesting. On the one hand, you have people disputing that the Khmer Rouge were that bad because of their anti-American, anti-imperialist, and Communist bearings. At the same time, they're attempting to deny that they were Communist (or at least Maoist) precisely because of the reputation they have as Nazi Germany redux. Trey Stone 22:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 02:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The edit history over the past month clearly shows that the article is the subject of hot dispute. This alone is enough to justify the NPOV template. I agree that it is the duty of all editors to resolve such disputes, and I have urged Stargoat to engage in discussion to iron out the differences. However the NPOV template should only be removed when all are happy that the subject of the article is covered from a reasonably neutral point of view. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 03:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Significant material is being deleted from the article. Instead of modifying the article, and restoring all the information that has been deleted, I am merely slapping a NPOV tag on the article. I do not have the time to fight over this now. That the tag was placed at all, and with all the activity that has been taking place should be reason enough for it to be there.
Furthermore, the tag was up less than a day before being removed. The POV pushing that is taking place here by both sides is obscene and demonstrates a disengenious view of how Wikipedia, and the truth, should work. Both sides (Shadow Trey, Trey Stone, VV, Kafir vs. Shorne, Lopez, Hanpuk) should be ashamed of themselves. The real loser here is a person who does not know any better coming to look at this half baked article.
There is no mention of the Cambodian refuges being forced into the city by US bombing, and North Vietnamese aggression. An estimate of 1.5 million is low-balling the deaths, and the manner of the deaths should be made more clear. Percentages of those who had died should also be given, and the deaths caused by US bombing and North Vietnamese activity should be made more clear. There is no mention of the starvation caused by the Khmer Rouge's policies, or the denial of land use that occurred because of NV and US activities, or the loss of international aid. There is no mention of Pol Pot's crackpot ideas about how to restore the country of Cambodia, or the increase in farming that was to be his miracle. No mention is made of the greater role that occurred in the Soviet Union's support for a Pan-Indochinese state, or the PRC opposition to this, and the suffering of the people of Cambodia as a result. In fact, no mention of China is made at all. No real discussion of the type of Communism the Khmer Rouge practiced takes place. There is no mention of the Nixon Administration's desire to enter Cambodia to help the Cambodians, and the US Congress' opposition to this. No mention is made of the fact that there are still places in Cambodia westerners cannot travel without taking their lives into their hands, due to Khmer Rouge holdouts. US and UN activities in Cambodia from 1975 to present are glossed over with POV wording. This article is suffering from serious POV problems and is very incomplete. The tag belongs. Stargoat 04:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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? --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 04:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Apologies, I screwed up and inadvetently restored a lot of material in bulk, instead of just a single paragraph. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 05:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This page is ridiculous and POV. Imagine if the US Democratic Party or Republican party began with how many millions were killed (Indians, black, Iraqis, whoever) during their time in office and with a picture of say some of the hundreds of people one state alone (Texas) kills every year. The US is torturing people in Abu Ghraib, and in this country of Cambodia, where up until 1975 the US bombed hundreds of thousands when it wasn't invading it (or shooting Americans protesting the invasion like at Kent State) and then became best friends with the CPK who supposedly were so awful in 1979, yet the US current murders, tortures and so forth are not to be cataloged, yet let's make this whole article about a handful of people executed during the CPK's time in power decades ago. Sorry, I don't think so. Ruy Lopez 01:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No-one who knows or cares anything about Cambodia takes your stupid rants seriously, so I suggest you save your keystrokes. Any edits you make to this article will be reverted. Adam 10:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Exile 16:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
Keep your right wing emotivism out of the articles - that is what Point Of View is. Anything that constitutes as change counts as reform. Informtion about the actual what they did, how they did it, what was it to achieve, how was it structured. These factors are important information, it has nothing to do with me not liking agricultural farming. Would it be better to remain ignorant of such things, so mistakes can be repeated. Is this to sort of ideology you promote? If so don't write on an encyclopedia based on knowledge and learning. Yes fine thats great they killed a lot of people. Anyone with any knowledge of Cambodia could have told you about Pol Pot blah blah etc etc. Quite frankly I don't care about how unhappy you are with what happened, simply the neutrality of articles. But once again maybe you prefer right wing skewed indoctrination to suit your own purposes? Finally remaining anonymous is the right of anyone on Wikipedia, when since has this become an exclusive club for members. The FREE encyclopedia where ANYONE can submit. So why don't you reconsider what you wrote previously, and have a long think about what this place is about. Leto
Why does this article seem to attract so many idiots? Adam 16:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly Adam, a well structured positive argument you have there. How enjoyable it is to know that I share the world with people like you. Leto
There is no explanation for why some of the leaders are referred to as "Brother Number X"... the name just appears all of a sudden. I have no idea whwhy they are called "Brother..", and an explanation would be a great help. plattopus is this thing on? 16:33, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
GRUNK and FUNK were always fronts for the KR. They should be mentioned, but not described as though they were autonomous bodies, where they were not. Sihanouk was a figurehead sitting in Beijing or Pyongyang. His name was an important asset for the KR but he had no control over them, as he painfully discovered after 1975. I have reversed some of Tou Samouth's edits accordingly. Adam 04:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone fix that? I do not know the date, but I do know that the date has to be wrong as it has not happened yet MrSpam 05:58, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
That will do for now.
I hope the case is clear. One side quotes miscellaneous death counts that don't even match and that have no context to explain them; the other has extensive evidence of death counts and a hell of a lot more besides. Shorne 22:07, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
With the Wikipedia arbitrators now more hands on, perhaps we can finally get to a point where this page can resemble an encyclopedia article and not an article from the John Birch Society's New American.
This article is riddled with false notions, POV and so forth. If I've made large changes its because so much of this article is not facts but a just a POV rant. In the midst of the long POV rant, when something vaguely looking like a fact appears, it is usually wrong.
I should point to a group of sentences in a paragraph I am leaving in:
"The exact number of people who died as a result of the Khmer Rouge's policies is debated. The regime which succeeded the Khmer Rouge claimed that 3.3 million had died. The CIA estimated that between 50,000 and 100,000 people were executed by the Khmer Rouge, but executions represented only a minority of the death toll, which mostly came from starvation. Three sources, United States Department of State, Amnesty International and the Yale Cambodian Genocide Project, give estimates of the total death toll as 1.2 million, 1.4 million and 1.7 million respectively. R. J. Rummel gives a figure of 2 million."
These are facts! Someone said Amnesty International put the death toll at 1.4 million. This remains in, I have not verified it, but I have no reason to doubt it. If you know of information about the CPK of a negative (or positive) nature, please present it as facts, preferably with some source instead of some POV rant strewn with "facts" that are incorrect. The above sentences make the CPK look bad, but they are NPOV, sourced and factual. I have no problem with them! Most of this article is rot, but the above is not, so I left it.
These issues have been discussed to death, but let's go back to them:
1) Khmer Rouge is not the name of the organization, that name is a slur given to them by their enemy. Of course, it is well known, so should be mentioned, as should the name of their party, the Communist Party of Kampuchea
2) We should come to a consensus over who was to blame in any deaths, how they died and how many were there in Cambodia before mentioning it in the opening. Who was to blame? The US air force bombardment of Cambodia? The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia? How did people die? Execution? Starvation because during the civil war farmers fled to the cities and crops were not growing (and international food aid was cut off when the CPK took over)? How many died? This should be spelled out instead of all jumbled together
3) This is a minor point, but it says the CPK was aided by North Vietnam. Was it? Or was the CPK aiding North Vietnam? I've removed this, even though it is a minor point. If you have any examples of how North Vietnam aided Cambodia, please explain it. I should note that North Vietnam did not border Cambodia, "South Vietnam" did - so which Vietnamese are being talked about anyhow?
4) I dispute the reading of the CPK's philosophy. Where did this come from? The CPK were much more practical it seems - they did manage to take over a country after all.
5) The CPK takeover is filled with inaccurate and misleading information. For example - the relocating of people from urban areas to farms. This was sending farmers back to farms they had fled during the war. It is made to sound nefarious. This stuff really needs to be sourced and spelled out, you can't just made a dozen accusations in a row without any sources and expect them to stand. I also sense POV - it says the CPK were determined to create their society "by force". Well, the US has an army, and policemen who maintain the society "by force". Every modern society is maintained by force, except perhaps some isolated primitive tribes. Mentioning this is POV.
6) I dispute that Khieu Samphan ever said 1 million were killed. Despite the quote not being sourced, I know the source, it was in a very small, obscure Italian Catholic magazine. And the presented number was by the interviewer. This is about as vague as you can get, people are left with the impression that Khieu came out and said one million died publically, which he did not, and I don't believe ever happened anyhow.
7) As the US executes dozens of people every year, Cambodia under the CPK executed people. Putting pictures of their faces on the page are as POV as putting the dead bodies on say the US Republican party page. Two pictures! Utterly ridiculous. This whole article is the worst mud-slinging on Wikipedia.
Ruy Lopez 07:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ruy Lopez, the article now reads "by the French name 'Communist Party of Kampuchea'". Please correct that. Shorne 08:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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)
Just to make it clear: The comments that Stargoat interspersed with Ruy Lopez's text were added just a few minutes ago, after I pointed out that Stargoat had said nothing. The edit history will prove this if any question arises. Shorne 16:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
VeryVerily is banned from editting this page, so he sought ways around this, and Stargoat rose to his task. Fine. This article deserves a full-scale reversion, but with VeryVerily still manuvering behind the scenes for an edit war, with Stargoat (and perhaps some others he is recruiting for one of the tag teams he denounces on his arbitration pages) as his hands, I see this is not to be done.
So I will do one edit at a time. Doing many at once just serves to confuse people. I will start with Khieu Samphan's supposed admission that 1 million people died under the Khmer Rouge. I am removing this. This is presented as an encyclopedic fact yet it did not happen. Stargoat reverted it even though I am sure he has no idea who Khieu Samphan is at all, he is just hitting the revert button. He says I am citing "first sources". What a conundrum for him to say, I doubt he could ever find a first source for this supposed admission. Perhaps he should learn a little more about the topics he is editting.
It is not a first source, since where is the reference to a first source? And it's no more up to me to not be able to remove unsourced, unreferenced material from an encyclopedia unless I find a reference to someone saying it never happened, then it is to removing a reference to the moon being made of green cheese unless I can find someone saying it is not. The onus is on the person making the claim, not the one disputing it.
While I dispute needing to provide a reference in subsequent edits, I just so happen to have one, which I will provide even though I don't have to. It is said Khieu Samphan never said this in After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology ( ISBN 0896081001) by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman p. 172-178. One of the persons agreeing he never said this is Father Ponchaud, who is the "first source" that most of the charges on this page comes from. If his veracity is doubt, that brings the veracity of almost everything said on this page into doubt.
I am removing the sentence. It has no basis being in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, I'm sure the person who reinserted it knows nothing about the subject matter, but is just blindly following VeryVerily (as shown above in a link), who also knows very little about the subject matter. Ruy Lopez 19:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In terms of the CPK philosophy, program, politics, plan and so forth, this stands out:
"The ideology of the Khmer Rouge combined a revised form of Maoism with the anti-colonialist ideas of the European left, which its leaders had acquired during their education in French universities in the 1950s. To this was added resentment against the Cambodian Communists' long subordination to the Vietnamese. The zealous Khmer Rouge apparently believed that they could, through their own interpretation of Maoism, build communism in Cambodia within a relatively short period of time."
The first sentence is ridiculous, with the last being the most ridiculous. Regarding the first one - the Indochinese learned anti-colonialism from the European left? What a joke. This statement is ridiculous although I'm not touching it for now. I am working on this slowly, so I'm removing the most nutty stuff first.
"The zealous Khmer Rouge apparently believed that they could, through their own interpretation of Maoism, build communism in Cambodia within a relatively short period of time." What is the source for the CPK thinking it could build communism in Cambodia - and quickly to boot! Even the most optimistic communists worldwide talked in general about "socialism in one country", never mind "communism in one country", never mind in a relatively short period of time. I've never seen anything referring to the CPK thinking this.
Nuon Chea made a statement in 1978 [6] describing party philosophy, plans and so forth. He says the CPK was considered ultra-left during the initial armed struggle, because of the armed struggle, but this attributed idea would put their ultra-leftism off the charts. The linked to statement spells out the CPK philosophy and plan better than anything I can find, and it contradicts the "communism in one country - quickly" claim. While this is a coherent statement, I have seen more fragmented discussions of the CPK philosophy and plans as well, and they did not support the "communism in one country, quickly" idea. Just the opposite, most of them show the CPK worried about whether the country would continue to be socialist or would become capitalist (which is smart because that is what eventually happened). Where did this idea that the CPK was seeking to create communism immediately in one country come from? Why do all their statements about their plans contradict this? Where did this idea come from? I am removing this sentence. Ruy Lopez 20:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"The Khmer Rouge apparently believed that they could, through their own interpretation of Maoism and in justification of the brutal use of power, build a form of communism in Cambodia within a relatively short period of time."
Well, denoting that they were not strict Maoists removes one of the contradictions here. We have a new problem with your rewording:
And we still have the old problem:
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)
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)
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)
Also, I'm not going to have it revert back to "they used Communism because it was expedient." This is a pathetic attempt to dissociate the Utopian Party of Kampuchea from Communism/Maoism. It's indisputable that the Khmer Rouge were far, far more brutal than, say, the relentlessly ideological Sandinistas. It's also indisputable that Hitler was far more brutal than Franco, but they're still both called fascists, as they were both associated with the ideology, to different extents. Trey Stone 07:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am going by the Khmer Rouge's actions, which were getting rid of anyone who opposed their rural (Maoism always drew its support from peasant guerrillas, distinct from the indsutrial wage laborers Marxism's supposed to draw) "Year Zero" dream, where Cambodia would be a self-sufficient, happily egalitarian community of cooperative peasants. It is fine to mention that their Maoism was more extreme, perhaps revised from Mao's Communism, but that convoluted explanation (defense) just doesn't cut it. Like I said, there are different types of communism, just like there are different types of fascism. Shadow Trey 07:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article has been a mess forever. I look recently and see only ad hominem attacks, and mud thrown at the CPK, although the vaguer the better (the CPK is "responsible for widespread death and despair" - what would one say the people carpet bombing the Cambodian countryside were responsible for? When Americans protested this at Kent State, Jackson State and elsewhere they were killed by the government). And then there's the claim that the CPK were "utopian" although of course any proof or even reason to think so is not offered. Ruy Lopez 08:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is very interesting. On the one hand, you have people disputing that the Khmer Rouge were that bad because of their anti-American, anti-imperialist, and Communist bearings. At the same time, they're attempting to deny that they were Communist (or at least Maoist) precisely because of the reputation they have as Nazi Germany redux. Trey Stone 22:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 02:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The edit history over the past month clearly shows that the article is the subject of hot dispute. This alone is enough to justify the NPOV template. I agree that it is the duty of all editors to resolve such disputes, and I have urged Stargoat to engage in discussion to iron out the differences. However the NPOV template should only be removed when all are happy that the subject of the article is covered from a reasonably neutral point of view. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 03:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Significant material is being deleted from the article. Instead of modifying the article, and restoring all the information that has been deleted, I am merely slapping a NPOV tag on the article. I do not have the time to fight over this now. That the tag was placed at all, and with all the activity that has been taking place should be reason enough for it to be there.
Furthermore, the tag was up less than a day before being removed. The POV pushing that is taking place here by both sides is obscene and demonstrates a disengenious view of how Wikipedia, and the truth, should work. Both sides (Shadow Trey, Trey Stone, VV, Kafir vs. Shorne, Lopez, Hanpuk) should be ashamed of themselves. The real loser here is a person who does not know any better coming to look at this half baked article.
There is no mention of the Cambodian refuges being forced into the city by US bombing, and North Vietnamese aggression. An estimate of 1.5 million is low-balling the deaths, and the manner of the deaths should be made more clear. Percentages of those who had died should also be given, and the deaths caused by US bombing and North Vietnamese activity should be made more clear. There is no mention of the starvation caused by the Khmer Rouge's policies, or the denial of land use that occurred because of NV and US activities, or the loss of international aid. There is no mention of Pol Pot's crackpot ideas about how to restore the country of Cambodia, or the increase in farming that was to be his miracle. No mention is made of the greater role that occurred in the Soviet Union's support for a Pan-Indochinese state, or the PRC opposition to this, and the suffering of the people of Cambodia as a result. In fact, no mention of China is made at all. No real discussion of the type of Communism the Khmer Rouge practiced takes place. There is no mention of the Nixon Administration's desire to enter Cambodia to help the Cambodians, and the US Congress' opposition to this. No mention is made of the fact that there are still places in Cambodia westerners cannot travel without taking their lives into their hands, due to Khmer Rouge holdouts. US and UN activities in Cambodia from 1975 to present are glossed over with POV wording. This article is suffering from serious POV problems and is very incomplete. The tag belongs. Stargoat 04:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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? --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 04:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Apologies, I screwed up and inadvetently restored a lot of material in bulk, instead of just a single paragraph. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 05:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This page is ridiculous and POV. Imagine if the US Democratic Party or Republican party began with how many millions were killed (Indians, black, Iraqis, whoever) during their time in office and with a picture of say some of the hundreds of people one state alone (Texas) kills every year. The US is torturing people in Abu Ghraib, and in this country of Cambodia, where up until 1975 the US bombed hundreds of thousands when it wasn't invading it (or shooting Americans protesting the invasion like at Kent State) and then became best friends with the CPK who supposedly were so awful in 1979, yet the US current murders, tortures and so forth are not to be cataloged, yet let's make this whole article about a handful of people executed during the CPK's time in power decades ago. Sorry, I don't think so. Ruy Lopez 01:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No-one who knows or cares anything about Cambodia takes your stupid rants seriously, so I suggest you save your keystrokes. Any edits you make to this article will be reverted. Adam 10:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Exile 16:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
Keep your right wing emotivism out of the articles - that is what Point Of View is. Anything that constitutes as change counts as reform. Informtion about the actual what they did, how they did it, what was it to achieve, how was it structured. These factors are important information, it has nothing to do with me not liking agricultural farming. Would it be better to remain ignorant of such things, so mistakes can be repeated. Is this to sort of ideology you promote? If so don't write on an encyclopedia based on knowledge and learning. Yes fine thats great they killed a lot of people. Anyone with any knowledge of Cambodia could have told you about Pol Pot blah blah etc etc. Quite frankly I don't care about how unhappy you are with what happened, simply the neutrality of articles. But once again maybe you prefer right wing skewed indoctrination to suit your own purposes? Finally remaining anonymous is the right of anyone on Wikipedia, when since has this become an exclusive club for members. The FREE encyclopedia where ANYONE can submit. So why don't you reconsider what you wrote previously, and have a long think about what this place is about. Leto
Why does this article seem to attract so many idiots? Adam 16:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly Adam, a well structured positive argument you have there. How enjoyable it is to know that I share the world with people like you. Leto
There is no explanation for why some of the leaders are referred to as "Brother Number X"... the name just appears all of a sudden. I have no idea whwhy they are called "Brother..", and an explanation would be a great help. plattopus is this thing on? 16:33, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
GRUNK and FUNK were always fronts for the KR. They should be mentioned, but not described as though they were autonomous bodies, where they were not. Sihanouk was a figurehead sitting in Beijing or Pyongyang. His name was an important asset for the KR but he had no control over them, as he painfully discovered after 1975. I have reversed some of Tou Samouth's edits accordingly. Adam 04:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone fix that? I do not know the date, but I do know that the date has to be wrong as it has not happened yet MrSpam 05:58, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)